Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It isn't as if theists have convincing proof of objective morality either. Not sure why you'd single out atheists here.
It would demonstrate to me that you have at least some reason for thinking there is no evidence for the existence of God for starters.What good would it do?
But you don't have such grounds. You've confused a ditch for a mountain.Because atheists are the ones making claims that Judeo-Christian values are evil and objectively bad and are doing so without any grounds for doing so that are not borrowed from a theistic view of the world wherein moral values and duties are grounded in a transcendent good.
Demonstrate to me how every argument for the existence of God fails.
This is what you have claimed so just back it up.
Send these refutations to me in an email.
Because atheists are the ones making claims that Judeo-Christian values are evil and objectively bad
I find it puzzling that you would think me giving you a definition of a word is an instance of me trying to define something into existence.
This is a favorite reply of atheists.
Strange though, they never accuse each other of attempting to cause something to exist when they define terms they commonly use.
What you have done is akin to me saying you are attempting to define quarks into existence when all you have done is told me that quarks are elementary particles and fundamental constituents of matter.
Me telling you that a certain word refers to a certain concept is not me attempting to create or bring said concept into existence.
Do you understand?
As it does not do that, I repeat it is irrelevant.If it makes the being logically inconceivable it certainly says something about the possibility of it actually existing here in reality.
There's no evidence of gods.
Applying Occam's Razor, gods are unnecessary entities.
[I don't see how you could argue against a totally hands-off deist god. It might be there, but being nilpotent, it's superfluous.]
I understand that you don't understand, yes.
The definition you gave IS the basis of Anselm's argument for a god's existence. The argument is wordplay, as is the definition. It sounds like it's something, but it really isn't. "Maximally great" isn't objectively definable so the whole thing falls apart. You can replace the word "great" with any other subjective word (like "cool" for example) and it means the same thing.
Sounds like you are describing heaven.God could stop everyone from sinning before they sinned. Then you would have people complaining about Him being a puppet master who won't allow them to do what they want. You would have no lying, no homosexuality, no transgendering, no sex before marriage, no adultery, no drug use, etc.etc.
Sounds like you are describing heaven.
No need for me to go there... I just don't think there would be very much need for lying, homosexuality, sex before marriage, adultery, or drug use in heaven. Some of which I would disagree would even be deal breakers.Have you been there? If not,where did you get that information?
No need for me to go there... I just don't think there would be very much need for lying, homosexuality, sex before marriage, adultery, or drug use in heaven. Some of which I would disagree would even be deal breakers.
The argument was that for God to deliberately stop these things would hamper our freewill but somehow that is not the case when we will be doing none of these things in heaven (according to common beliefs).
Is God not sovereign? Does He not have control over His own kingdom? Will people be able to do what they want in heaven or will there be limits to what you can do?You would need to show that God would deliberately stop those things from happening in Heaven to make your comparison fit.
I don't know what you mean when you use the term "good". It would seem that your use of the word allows for unobstructed rape of children, but you have yet to fully clarify your stance on that.Why what?
I know what I mean when I use the term "good".
A flexible, varying mix of reason, compassion, empathy, and relative human wellness, the Silver Rule, and the social contract.I don't know what you mean when you use the term. What grounds are your moral value judgments based on?
Most probably a bad thing. I would doubt that he wanted to die, or that those that knew him would want such a thing.What makes something good or bad in your worldview? Why would a man dying in an earthquake be a bad thing or an evil thing in your worldview?
A flexible, varying mix of reason, compassion, empathy, and relative human wellness, the Silver Rule, and the social contract.On your view, what imbues such circumstances with any moral connotation at all?
I am not aware of any concepts that I might borrow from your worldview that did not exist prior to the invention of Christianity or were developed completely independent of it.Suppose I don't call you to task on your borrowing from my worldview those things which are not available in yours and let you slide with your argument.
This is why I do not argue the "problem of evil" or suffering. Your imagination must conform to your beliefs, if one's brain is to minimize cognitive dissonance.I see no reason at all to think that just because I would save someone from say, an earthquake, that therefore God does not love people because some die in earthquakes. I cannot by any stroke or contortion of my imagination come up with the additional premise(s) that would be necessary to lead to your conclusion.
God is god-like. How circular.God is Holy.
Without gods, there would be no sin.As such, any world He creates wherein sin occurs, is going to be one wherein effects of said sin will be present.
Question begging. If she doesn't think that God/Christ exists, what does their worthiness have to do with anything?...
Why are you no longer a committed follower of Christ? Is not Christ worthy of following?
There was recent shooting in the news, and the article quoted one of the victim's texts: "pray for us". Pray for what? God's intervention? What were we to pray for, and to whom?...
God could stop everyone from sinning before they sinned.
I guess that might depend on one's theology. I understand that for some, anything goes as long as you believe. In particular, I have no idea why homosexuality or transgendering might be a "sin".Then you would have people complaining about Him being a puppet master who won't allow them to do what they want. You would have no lying, no homosexuality, no transgendering, no sex before marriage, no adultery, no drug use, etc.etc..
Indeed. A complete hands-off approach. By every objective measure to date, it is like he isn't there at all.You would take issue with this though I'm sure.
Thankfully, God does not treat us that way.
Atheism is only a theological position on the subject of deities ("I am not convinced"). My disbelief in gods, goblins, and/or extraterrestrial aliens, etc does not inform my morality.Well I've never argued that one must be a theist to make moral judgements. What I have argued is that you being an atheist,
Why does it need to be objective?have no grounds for denouncing things like genocide as being objectively wrong.
It's an ontological thing, not an epistemological one.
I would consider your first statement objectively false. Though there is no conclusive proof of the existence of a god, there is evidence. For instance, there is the testimony of the many people that say they have had personal contact with a god. That is evidence.
Humans are unnecessary entities as well but they still exist so being unnecessary does not preclude one from existing.
Given the thousands of religions, denominations, sects, and millions of personal theologies, it would seem that the theist views of the world demonstrably lack objectivity.In a world without God, you've got a bunch of opinions and preferences about genocide, which are themselves based on certain opinions. There is no law giver or law to whom we are accountable or that we are obligated to order our opinions or views around.
Man exists.Man is the measure of man in such a reality.
To whom is this addressed?But you don't live that way I'm sure. You are not even consistent on this forum where nothing you really hold dear is at stake.
Borrowing what, exactly?So no, I do not consider you to be doing anything other than borrowing from my worldview
How so? Such as holding one responsible for things beyond one's control? No, wait - that was your worldview.to compensate for the utter bankrupt nature of yours
What objective moral values and duties?when it comes to grounds for objective moral values and duties.
If God does it, it's okay. I think that was sorted out some time ago.And by the way, you can stop with the whole "the bible promotes genocide" argument. It doesnt.
I have heard that something might happen soon.What it does do is show that God will only tolerate unrepentant evil for so long.
Would it not be easier to simply look back at the history of the arguments that have been posted in this forum?Demonstrate to me how every argument for the existence of God fails. This is what you have claimed so just back it up. Send these refutations to me in an email.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?