Needing justification for morality

[Dave Ellis]

No. I did not say that. Actually it is not right.

Yes you did, just scroll back a page or two.

 

[KCfromNC]

You ARE choosing it right now.

You choose to reject God.

Just like if a woman chooses to reject you, it is OK for you to kill them since they made the choice to die?

 

[madaz]

I do not need to read it. Why should I? Is there anything wrong with what I said about humanism?

Yes, unless I misunderstood you, you said, that if you were a humanist, you could easily defend a moral action which is called murder.

 

[Dave Ellis]

If you do not think God exist, you ARE rejecting God.

God,
No God,

Is that clear?

Nonsense, one would have to believe something exists before you can reject it.

For example, I can not reject Darth Vader, the concept is absolutely meaningless. What is there to reject? He's a character in a book, there is no physical entity or conscious being to reject.

It's my opinion that your god is simply just another character in another book. The same way you view Allah, or Zeus. Pure mythology.

To reject something means you believe it exists, you hear what it's all about, then decide to not follow, or actively oppose that thing.

For example, if the bible was correct, then Satan rejected God. In the real world, the American Founding Fathers rejected British Rule.

However, if for some reason everyone in the US at the time somehow forgot the King, or the United Kingdom existed, they would not have rejected the King's rule, they would simply not be aware of it. It would be impossible for them in that condition to either accept, or reject what he had to say.

 

[Dave Ellis]

When we talk about God, the concept of God is already presented, like it or not. Otherwise, we do not talk about it.

So, God is the assumption, God is assumed to be there. Do you accept that assumption or not?

If you do, then we can talk about some other thing about God.
If you don't, then you reject that assumption. In other word, you reject God.

Can you give a good reason to accept that assumption? If not, then why should we assume it to be true?

God loves you. So, He has already approached you many times. You can read about Him in the Bible. You can hear about Him in the church. You blamed Him about the slavery, God have me to explain the true meaning of slavery to you according to what God says.

You rejected Him, you rejected the Bible. Do not say He did not try.

Which church? they all preach different things. There something like 30,000 christian denominations now, from extremely fundamentalist to extremely liberal. I'd even go as far to say as there's as many different brands of Christianity as there are Christians. How can you objectively tell who (if anyone) is correct?

As for the bible, if you did a little bit of research into how it was written and compiled, you'd reject it too. If your god actually does exist, that can not be his book.

 

[juvenissun]

Can you give a good reason to accept that assumption? If not, then why should we assume it to be true?

Which church? they all preach different things. There something like 30,000 christian denominations now, from extremely fundamentalist to extremely liberal. I'd even go as far to say as there's as many different brands of Christianity as there are Christians. How can you objectively tell who (if anyone) is correct?

As for the bible, if you did a little bit of research into how it was written and compiled, you'd reject it too. If your god actually does exist, that can not be his book.

You accept the assumption that God exists because you want to know what God says and what God means by what He says. Without accepting the assumption first, I have no logic ground to continue. Then all the talks and reasons have no ground and are in vain and meaningless. You are here to talk to me about my God. If you do not accept the assumption that my God exists (only an assumption), then why would you want the conversation?

I skipped the other two questions. If you like, you can bring them up again.

 

[juvenissun]

Nonsense, one would have to believe something exists before you can reject it.

For example, I can not reject Darth Vader, the concept is absolutely meaningless.

As long as you mentioned that term, it already logically exists.
You don't think it exists, it means you reject whatever that is.

Strictly speaking, we have to define what does "exist" mean first. The problem rises because we omitted that step.

 

[juvenissun]

Yes, unless I misunderstood you, you said, that if you were a humanist, you could easily defend a moral action which is called murder.

Yes. What is wrong with that?

 

[juvenissun]

Just like if a woman chooses to reject you, it is OK for you to kill them since they made the choice to die?

If the woman rejected God, God will not kill her at all. She walked away from God. That is it.

So, in your analogy, I simply walk away and never see her again.

 

[juvenissun]

Yes you did, just scroll back a page or two.

I don't do that. You scroll.

 

[juvenissun]

Because if someone believing in my existence was required to prevent them from being tortured for the rest of eternity, I would have a moral obligation to try to make myself known to that person.

If God exists as defined, then he's all powerful. He would easily have the ability to let me know he's there. So, if he really does exist, then for some reason he's chosen not to reveal himself to me.

If one has something to say to everyone, what would he do?
Write a book. Right?

God has done more than that. God showed up for 33 years on the earth. Is that enough?

Besides, God does not show Himself to you now with a very very good reason. God wants your faith, not just your visual. God could make you a robot, or, an angel. Then you would certainly know God is real. But in turn, you would miss the most precious thing God can give to you.

 

[juvenissun]

This is problematic for multiple reasons. I'll share some.
First, it seems to me that every theist seems to have his own personal working concept of "god". A lot of times, these concepts are in conflict with eachother. This sends mixed signals to the non-believers. If you theists can't even agree on a singular concept / definition, how the hell do you expect us to agree with any single personal concept you present us with?

Sorry I do not respond to long post. So I only pick the first one or two.

The variation in the understanding of God among Christians IS the most beautiful nature of Christianity. Every human is unique, and they are all called Christians. You, as an observer, do not take anyone's idea to be yours. The only common factor is that you accept God as every else do, then you can develop your own understanding about Him. After all, you are you, nobody can understand God as you would do.

I argue with my best church fellows all the time. We enjoy it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Sorry I do not respond to long post. So I only pick the first one or two.

The variation in the understanding of God among Christians IS the most beautiful nature of Christianity. Every human is unique, and they are all called Christians. You, as an observer, do not take anyone's idea to be yours. The only common factor is that you accept God as every else do, then you can develop your own understanding about Him. After all, you are you, nobody can understand God as you would do.

I argue with my best church fellows all the time. We enjoy it.

to assert that all people are Christians is silly. Even more silly is thinking that an atheist thinks any god exists. By the definition of atheism that is incorrect.

 

[bhsmte]

to assert that all people are Christians is silly. Even more silly is thinking that an atheist thinks any god exists. By the definition of atheism that is incorrect.

Agree, but that is a common defense mechanism with some Christians; atheists really believe in God and they are all Christians. Makes them feel better I guess.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Strictly speaking, we have to define what does "exist" mean first. The problem rises because we omitted that step.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0

 

[DogmaHunter]

Besides, God does not show Himself to you now with a very very good reason. God wants your faith, not just your visual.

Then god is unreasonable. And immoral.

 

[Dave Ellis]

You accept the assumption that God exists because you want to know what God says and what God means by what He says.

So would you accept the assumption that Santa Claus exists because you want presents at Christmas?

Without accepting the assumption first, I have no logic ground to continue.

You have no logical ground to start. You need a logical reason to accept your assumption before you can start building upon it. You haven't even remotely done that.

Then all the talks and reasons have no ground and are in vain and meaningless. You are here to talk to me about my God. If you do not accept the assumption that my God exists (only an assumption), then why would you want the conversation?

I can argue from the perspective that a god exists, but that wouldn't serve to prove if he exists or not. That would simply be arguing a hypothetical situation in a world where your god existed.

You can't translate that into reality until you prove the initial assumption that god actually exists is a valid one.

I skipped the other two questions. If you like, you can bring them up again.

Absolutely, so how do you determine who has the "right" brand of Christianity?

Furthermore, knowing how the bible was written and compiled, it's impossible that it's the work of an all powerful all knowing being.

 

[Dave Ellis]

As long as you mentioned that term, it already logically exists.
You don't think it exists, it means you reject whatever that is.

The term exists, however Darth Vader himself does not.

You're also committing an either/or fallacy. If you don't accept something exists, it doesn't necessarily mean you reject it either. If you are in a state of being unconvinced either way (i.e. withholding judgment), you neither accept, nor reject the proposition that god exists.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Yes. What is wrong with that?

Except it's wrong, you can't be a humanist and defend murder.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I don't do that. You scroll.

You admitted that people go to hell when they don't believe in god, and they burn there.

Do you not believe that any longer?