Total Posts:118|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

To Theists: Abraham did it. Would you?

muslimnomore
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2013 5:59:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
God asked Abraham to slaughter his own son. Abraham went ahead and actually attempted the slaughter.
If God spoke to you today and asked you to kill your child for Him, would you?
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2013 6:28:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/27/2013 5:59:02 PM, muslimnomore wrote:
God asked Abraham to slaughter his own son. Abraham went ahead and actually attempted the slaughter.
If God spoke to you today and asked you to kill your child for Him, would you?

I don't see the point in asking such questions. It is virtually guaranteed to descend into another emotionally painful argument between atheists and the religious, and it's no better than asking whether you would drop an atomic bomb on an entire city of people like Paul Tibbets did if your government told you to.
Human_Joke65
Posts: 127
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2013 6:33:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Trick question, given your disingenuous intentions. You're just waiting for some idiot to try and defend it, attempting scientific repeat-ability and failing. God doesn't operate by empirical games; it's counterproductive.
God's a comedian and atheism is a punch line waiting to happen.
dadman
Posts: 272
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2013 6:55:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
There is therefore now no more sacrifice for sins .. it is finished

Matthew 11
at that time .. Jesus said .. I praise you .. father .. Lord of heaven and earth ..
that you have hidden these things from the "wise and intelligent" and have revealed them to infants ..
yes .. father .. for this way was well-pleasing in your sight

http://dadmansabode.com...

. . . . atheists and their "situational ethics" .. what a joke
And he (God) gave some apostles .. and some prophets .. and some evangelists .. and some teaching pastors .. for the perfecting of the saints .. for the work of the ministry .. for the edifying of the body of Christ .. till we all come in the unity of the faith .. and of the knowledge of the Son of God .. to a perfect (complete) man .. to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ . . . . Ephesians 4:12 .. http://dadmansabode.com... .. come and learn
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2013 6:59:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/27/2013 6:28:50 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 11/27/2013 5:59:02 PM, muslimnomore wrote:
God asked Abraham to slaughter his own son. Abraham went ahead and actually attempted the slaughter.
If God spoke to you today and asked you to kill your child for Him, would you?

I don't see the point in asking such questions. It is virtually guaranteed to descend into another emotionally painful argument between atheists and the religious, and it's no better than asking whether you would drop an atomic bomb on an entire city of people like Paul Tibbets did if your government told you to.

The difference though would be that Paul Tibbets would have been court martialed if he had decided no to drop Little Boy. However, if you decide not to kill your son you will not be going to jail. Also Paul Tibbets was in a war situation and so they are not similar.

I mean sure it will most likely degenerate, but the point is more to raise awareness of the situation. As the video I shared earlier showed,there are people who would do this.
muslimnomore
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2013 7:06:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/27/2013 6:33:37 PM, Human_Joke65 wrote:
Trick question, given your disingenuous intentions. You're just waiting for some idiot to try and defend it, attempting scientific repeat-ability and failing. God doesn't operate by empirical games; it's counterproductive.

Not that expect yourself or idealist to believe me, but I am just asking this question out of curiosity because I currently do not feel like doing better things with my time. I am not trying to prove anything.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2013 7:15:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/27/2013 6:59:58 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 11/27/2013 6:28:50 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 11/27/2013 5:59:02 PM, muslimnomore wrote:
God asked Abraham to slaughter his own son. Abraham went ahead and actually attempted the slaughter.
If God spoke to you today and asked you to kill your child for Him, would you?

I don't see the point in asking such questions. It is virtually guaranteed to descend into another emotionally painful argument between atheists and the religious, and it's no better than asking whether you would drop an atomic bomb on an entire city of people like Paul Tibbets did if your government told you to.

The difference though would be that Paul Tibbets would have been court martialed if he had decided no to drop Little Boy. However, if you decide not to kill your son you will not be going to jail. Also Paul Tibbets was in a war situation and so they are not similar.

I mean sure it will most likely degenerate, but the point is more to raise awareness of the situation. As the video I shared earlier showed,there are people who would do this.

Actually Tibbets was the squadron commander. He didn't have to fly the plane. In fact, the regular pilot was quite upset that Colonel Tibbets commandeered his plane and had his mother's name painted on it because he knew that they were making history and the name would be remembered forever. Sounds a little selfish to me.

I agree with you that doing such a thing would be reprehensible, and anyone who did such a thing would be pretty much a monster. But the way you are saying it is tantamount to insinuating that all religious people must do evil things in order to practice their faith, and that's not really being honest, is it?
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2013 7:39:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/27/2013 7:15:31 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 11/27/2013 6:59:58 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 11/27/2013 6:28:50 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 11/27/2013 5:59:02 PM, muslimnomore wrote:
God asked Abraham to slaughter his own son. Abraham went ahead and actually attempted the slaughter.
If God spoke to you today and asked you to kill your child for Him, would you?

I don't see the point in asking such questions. It is virtually guaranteed to descend into another emotionally painful argument between atheists and the religious, and it's no better than asking whether you would drop an atomic bomb on an entire city of people like Paul Tibbets did if your government told you to.

The difference though would be that Paul Tibbets would have been court martialed if he had decided no to drop Little Boy. However, if you decide not to kill your son you will not be going to jail. Also Paul Tibbets was in a war situation and so they are not similar.

I mean sure it will most likely degenerate, but the point is more to raise awareness of the situation. As the video I shared earlier showed,there are people who would do this.

Actually Tibbets was the squadron commander. He didn't have to fly the plane. In fact, the regular pilot was quite upset that Colonel Tibbets commandeered his plane and had his mother's name painted on it because he knew that they were making history and the name would be remembered forever. Sounds a little selfish to me.

I agree with you that doing such a thing would be reprehensible, and anyone who did such a thing would be pretty much a monster. But the way you are saying it is tantamount to insinuating that all religious people must do evil things in order to practice their faith, and that's not really being honest, is it?

I am sorry it came across that way, I never intended to say that all religious people have to be evil. My mother and sister are religious and I don"t consider them evil. I think they are delusional in their beliefs but certainly not evil. Oh,and yes they know I feel this way.
SubterFugitive
Posts: 255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2013 12:38:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/27/2013 5:59:02 PM, muslimnomore wrote:
God asked Abraham to slaughter his own son. Abraham went ahead and actually attempted the slaughter.
If God spoke to you today and asked you to kill your child for Him, would you?

How does that question apply to anyone who isn't, well, Abraham himself?
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2013 12:45:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/28/2013 12:38:05 AM, SubterFugitive wrote:
At 11/27/2013 5:59:02 PM, muslimnomore wrote:
God asked Abraham to slaughter his own son. Abraham went ahead and actually attempted the slaughter.
If God spoke to you today and asked you to kill your child for Him, would you?

How does that question apply to anyone who isn't, well, Abraham himself?

I think that"s why he asked the second part of the question. "If God spoke to you today and asked you to kill your child for Him,would you?" I suppose its one of those if I was in that situation what would I do.
SubterFugitive
Posts: 255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2013 12:52:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/28/2013 12:45:29 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 11/28/2013 12:38:05 AM, SubterFugitive wrote:
At 11/27/2013 5:59:02 PM, muslimnomore wrote:
God asked Abraham to slaughter his own son. Abraham went ahead and actually attempted the slaughter.
If God spoke to you today and asked you to kill your child for Him, would you?

How does that question apply to anyone who isn't, well, Abraham himself?

I think that"s why he asked the second part of the question. "If God spoke to you today and asked you to kill your child for Him,would you?" I suppose its one of those if I was in that situation what would I do.

It's existentially suspect is what I'm getting at. It'd be strange for God to ask anyone of us that, is he presently establishing his nation through Israel or some other sovereign? ... This is a loaded question since it doesn't make the implicit assumptions explicit; e.g., is there a new plan of human salvation being meted out in this? What are the underlying circumstances that either go to vindicate God's moral here or to undercut it?

Anyhow leave that aside, if God spoke to me period I'd instantly know he existed, and so had God not tell me to kill my son it'd be murder, but since I'm commanded to do it so, it would be wrong for me to disobey my creator. But that's if God exists..
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2013 1:33:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/28/2013 12:52:48 AM, SubterFugitive wrote:
At 11/28/2013 12:45:29 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 11/28/2013 12:38:05 AM, SubterFugitive wrote:
At 11/27/2013 5:59:02 PM, muslimnomore wrote:
God asked Abraham to slaughter his own son. Abraham went ahead and actually attempted the slaughter.
If God spoke to you today and asked you to kill your child for Him, would you?

How does that question apply to anyone who isn't, well, Abraham himself?

I think that"s why he asked the second part of the question. "If God spoke to you today and asked you to kill your child for Him,would you?" I suppose its one of those if I was in that situation what would I do.

It's existentially suspect is what I'm getting at. It'd be strange for God to ask anyone of us that, is he presently establishing his nation through Israel or some other sovereign? ... This is a loaded question since it doesn't make the implicit assumptions explicit; e.g., is there a new plan of human salvation being meted out in this? What are the underlying circumstances that either go to vindicate God's moral here or to undercut it?

Anyhow leave that aside, if God spoke to me period I'd instantly know he existed, and so had God not tell me to kill my son it'd be murder, but since I'm commanded to do it so, it would be wrong for me to disobey my creator. But that's if God exists..

I think the point is not what the underlying circumstances are, its whether you would kill your child if God asked. I cant think of any circumstances that would change my opinion on this.

Personally I wouldn't even if a God did exist, some things are are just worth having morals for.
SubterFugitive
Posts: 255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2013 1:36:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/28/2013 1:33:32 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 11/28/2013 12:52:48 AM, SubterFugitive wrote:
At 11/28/2013 12:45:29 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 11/28/2013 12:38:05 AM, SubterFugitive wrote:
At 11/27/2013 5:59:02 PM, muslimnomore wrote:
God asked Abraham to slaughter his own son. Abraham went ahead and actually attempted the slaughter.
If God spoke to you today and asked you to kill your child for Him, would you?

How does that question apply to anyone who isn't, well, Abraham himself?

I think that"s why he asked the second part of the question. "If God spoke to you today and asked you to kill your child for Him,would you?" I suppose its one of those if I was in that situation what would I do.

It's existentially suspect is what I'm getting at. It'd be strange for God to ask anyone of us that, is he presently establishing his nation through Israel or some other sovereign? ... This is a loaded question since it doesn't make the implicit assumptions explicit; e.g., is there a new plan of human salvation being meted out in this? What are the underlying circumstances that either go to vindicate God's moral here or to undercut it?

Anyhow leave that aside, if God spoke to me period I'd instantly know he existed, and so had God not tell me to kill my son it'd be murder, but since I'm commanded to do it so, it would be wrong for me to disobey my creator. But that's if God exists..

I think the point is not what the underlying circumstances are, its whether you would kill your child if God asked. I cant think of any circumstances that would change my opinion on this.

Personally I wouldn't even if a God did exist, some things are are just worth having morals for.

That's the thing, it would be your moral obligation to sacrifice your son if, conditionally, God commanded you so. THAT wold be the moral that YOU specifically would HAVE to stand for, if you don't, you wold be morally blame-worthy, again, if God existed and there are morals.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2013 1:41:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/28/2013 1:36:01 AM, SubterFugitive wrote:
At 11/28/2013 1:33:32 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 11/28/2013 12:52:48 AM, SubterFugitive wrote:
At 11/28/2013 12:45:29 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 11/28/2013 12:38:05 AM, SubterFugitive wrote:
At 11/27/2013 5:59:02 PM, muslimnomore wrote:
God asked Abraham to slaughter his own son. Abraham went ahead and actually attempted the slaughter.
If God spoke to you today and asked you to kill your child for Him, would you?

How does that question apply to anyone who isn't, well, Abraham himself?

I think that"s why he asked the second part of the question. "If God spoke to you today and asked you to kill your child for Him,would you?" I suppose its one of those if I was in that situation what would I do.

It's existentially suspect is what I'm getting at. It'd be strange for God to ask anyone of us that, is he presently establishing his nation through Israel or some other sovereign? ... This is a loaded question since it doesn't make the implicit assumptions explicit; e.g., is there a new plan of human salvation being meted out in this? What are the underlying circumstances that either go to vindicate God's moral here or to undercut it?

Anyhow leave that aside, if God spoke to me period I'd instantly know he existed, and so had God not tell me to kill my son it'd be murder, but since I'm commanded to do it so, it would be wrong for me to disobey my creator. But that's if God exists..

I think the point is not what the underlying circumstances are, its whether you would kill your child if God asked. I cant think of any circumstances that would change my opinion on this.

Personally I wouldn't even if a God did exist, some things are are just worth having morals for.

That's the thing, it would be your moral obligation to sacrifice your son if, conditionally, God commanded you so. THAT wold be the moral that YOU specifically would HAVE to stand for, if you don't, you wold be morally blame-worthy, again, if God existed and there are morals.

Absolutely, I am looking at it from my perspective and what I have been taught by society. So my morals would be better than gods in my eyes, and so do we need a god to have morals?
SubterFugitive
Posts: 255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2013 1:43:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/28/2013 1:41:18 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 11/28/2013 1:36:01 AM, SubterFugitive wrote:
At 11/28/2013 1:33:32 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 11/28/2013 12:52:48 AM, SubterFugitive wrote:
At 11/28/2013 12:45:29 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 11/28/2013 12:38:05 AM, SubterFugitive wrote:
At 11/27/2013 5:59:02 PM, muslimnomore wrote:
God asked Abraham to slaughter his own son. Abraham went ahead and actually attempted the slaughter.
If God spoke to you today and asked you to kill your child for Him, would you?

How does that question apply to anyone who isn't, well, Abraham himself?

I think that"s why he asked the second part of the question. "If God spoke to you today and asked you to kill your child for Him,would you?" I suppose its one of those if I was in that situation what would I do.

It's existentially suspect is what I'm getting at. It'd be strange for God to ask anyone of us that, is he presently establishing his nation through Israel or some other sovereign? ... This is a loaded question since it doesn't make the implicit assumptions explicit; e.g., is there a new plan of human salvation being meted out in this? What are the underlying circumstances that either go to vindicate God's moral here or to undercut it?

Anyhow leave that aside, if God spoke to me period I'd instantly know he existed, and so had God not tell me to kill my son it'd be murder, but since I'm commanded to do it so, it would be wrong for me to disobey my creator. But that's if God exists..

I think the point is not what the underlying circumstances are, its whether you would kill your child if God asked. I cant think of any circumstances that would change my opinion on this.

Personally I wouldn't even if a God did exist, some things are are just worth having morals for.

That's the thing, it would be your moral obligation to sacrifice your son if, conditionally, God commanded you so. THAT wold be the moral that YOU specifically would HAVE to stand for, if you don't, you wold be morally blame-worthy, again, if God existed and there are morals.

Absolutely, I am looking at it from my perspective and what I have been taught by society. So my morals would be better than gods in my eyes, and so do we need a god to have morals?

I agree, but how can you say that your morals are "better"? There is no better, a value judgement, since there is no standard because there is no God. (Spelled with a capital G btw, let's not be unsophisticated atheologians.)
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2013 1:56:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/28/2013 1:43:56 AM, SubterFugitive wrote:
At 11/28/2013 1:41:18 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 11/28/2013 1:36:01 AM, SubterFugitive wrote:
At 11/28/2013 1:33:32 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 11/28/2013 12:52:48 AM, SubterFugitive wrote:
At 11/28/2013 12:45:29 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 11/28/2013 12:38:05 AM, SubterFugitive wrote:
At 11/27/2013 5:59:02 PM, muslimnomore wrote:
God asked Abraham to slaughter his own son. Abraham went ahead and actually attempted the slaughter.
If God spoke to you today and asked you to kill your child for Him, would you?

How does that question apply to anyone who isn't, well, Abraham himself?

I think that"s why he asked the second part of the question. "If God spoke to you today and asked you to kill your child for Him,would you?" I suppose its one of those if I was in that situation what would I do.

It's existentially suspect is what I'm getting at. It'd be strange for God to ask anyone of us that, is he presently establishing his nation through Israel or some other sovereign? ... This is a loaded question since it doesn't make the implicit assumptions explicit; e.g., is there a new plan of human salvation being meted out in this? What are the underlying circumstances that either go to vindicate God's moral here or to undercut it?

Anyhow leave that aside, if God spoke to me period I'd instantly know he existed, and so had God not tell me to kill my son it'd be murder, but since I'm commanded to do it so, it would be wrong for me to disobey my creator. But that's if God exists..

I think the point is not what the underlying circumstances are, its whether you would kill your child if God asked. I cant think of any circumstances that would change my opinion on this.

Personally I wouldn't even if a God did exist, some things are are just worth having morals for.

That's the thing, it would be your moral obligation to sacrifice your son if, conditionally, God commanded you so. THAT wold be the moral that YOU specifically would HAVE to stand for, if you don't, you wold be morally blame-worthy, again, if God existed and there are morals.

Absolutely, I am looking at it from my perspective and what I have been taught by society. So my morals would be better than gods in my eyes, and so do we need a god to have morals?

I agree, but how can you say that your morals are "better"? There is no better, a value judgement, since there is no standard because there is no God. (Spelled with a capital G btw, let's not be unsophisticated atheologians.)

Lol,I don"t really care for the capital G after all why is this God, better than any other imaginary god?

That's why I said my morals are better according to today"s standards which are not determined by a god. You are assuming that people can only have morals if there is a god and that is rubbish, as its very easy to get to a set of morals without a god. Morals are always in a constant change even if we don"t like to admit it.
SubterFugitive
Posts: 255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2013 2:11:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/28/2013 1:56:53 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:


I agree, but how can you say that your morals are "better"? There is no better, a value judgement, since there is no standard because there is no God. (Spelled with a capital G btw, let's not be unsophisticated atheologians.)

Lol,I don"t really care for the capital G after all why is this God, better than any other imaginary god?

That's why I said my morals are better according to today"s standards which are not determined by a god. You are assuming that people can only have morals if there is a god and that is rubbish, as its very easy to get to a set of morals without a god. Morals are always in a constant change even if we don"t like to admit it.

Wrong, morals wouldn't have an ultimate standard, they would only be invented by us, they would be built upon a standard no more concrete than the standard of what our money is currently built on: (thin freaking air haha). You can't coherently say that there is a true standard of morality apart from what you feel or like collectively as a species if God doesn't exist, the atheist existentialists all recognized this and it's embarrassing when modern atheists delude themselves to this fact and fail to live bravely in the face of the nihilism that confronts us with the death of God.

God, capital G, isn't contingent, and so is not in the least bit like contingent fairies or Greek-like gods. Such gods would depend on something external for their existence, on the other hand, if God exists, he would exist necessarily, and if that's the case, then that has MAJOR implications, it's not just some spaghetti monster that the internet has made a joke out of. Literally if God doesn't exist then the atheist existentialists are the best hope we have in drumming up value, and even they jumped ship a long time ago. It's no bathroom joke that God is dead; everything is ultimately meaningless, valueless and purposeless yet we live as if there is still meaning value and purpose. This inconsistency ought to make us atheists more concerned to take this matter seriously I think, and it shows the theist what's typical when we show such irreverence, and pushes them away (rightly so) from rational dialog. So do be a gentleman and represent our unbelief better? ... Your call.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2013 2:37:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/28/2013 2:11:20 AM, SubterFugitive wrote:
At 11/28/2013 1:56:53 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:


I agree, but how can you say that your morals are "better"? There is no better, a value judgement, since there is no standard because there is no God. (Spelled with a capital G btw, let's not be unsophisticated atheologians.)

Lol,I don"t really care for the capital G after all why is this God, better than any other imaginary god?

That's why I said my morals are better according to today"s standards which are not determined by a god. You are assuming that people can only have morals if there is a god and that is rubbish, as its very easy to get to a set of morals without a god. Morals are always in a constant change even if we don"t like to admit it.

Wrong, morals wouldn't have an ultimate standard, they would only be invented by us, they would be built upon a standard no more concrete than the standard of what our money is currently built on: (thin freaking air haha). You can't coherently say that there is a true standard of morality apart from what you feel or like collectively as a species if God doesn't exist, the atheist existentialists all recognized this and it's embarrassing when modern atheists delude themselves to this fact and fail to live bravely in the face of the nihilism that confronts us with the death of God.

I think that"s pretty much what I said, according to today"s standards which are not determined by a god. I even said morals are constantly changing, so not sure what you are on about here.

God, capital G, isn't contingent, and so is not in the least bit like contingent fairies or Greek-like gods. Such gods would depend on something external for their existence, on the other hand, if God exists, he would exist necessarily, and if that's the case, then that has MAJOR implications, it's not just some spaghetti monster that the internet has made a joke out of. Literally if God doesn't exist then the atheist existentialists are the best hope we have in drumming up value, and even they jumped ship a long time ago. It's no bathroom joke that God is dead; everything is ultimately meaningless, valueless and purposeless yet we live as if there is still meaning value and purpose. This inconsistency ought to make us atheists more concerned to take this matter seriously I think, and it shows the theist what's typical when we show such irreverence, and pushes them away (rightly so) from rational dialog. So do be a gentleman and represent our unbelief better? ... Your call.

Uhhm again not sure what you are on about. It seems more like big words with no meaning.
SubterFugitive
Posts: 255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2013 2:47:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/28/2013 2:37:40 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 11/28/2013 2:11:20 AM, SubterFugitive wrote:
At 11/28/2013 1:56:53 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:


I agree, but how can you say that your morals are "better"? There is no better, a value judgement, since there is no standard because there is no God. (Spelled with a capital G btw, let's not be unsophisticated atheologians.)

Lol,I don"t really care for the capital G after all why is this God, better than any other imaginary god?

That's why I said my morals are better according to today"s standards which are not determined by a god. You are assuming that people can only have morals if there is a god and that is rubbish, as its very easy to get to a set of morals without a god. Morals are always in a constant change even if we don"t like to admit it.

Wrong, morals wouldn't have an ultimate standard, they would only be invented by us, they would be built upon a standard no more concrete than the standard of what our money is currently built on: (thin freaking air haha). You can't coherently say that there is a true standard of morality apart from what you feel or like collectively as a species if God doesn't exist, the atheist existentialists all recognized this and it's embarrassing when modern atheists delude themselves to this fact and fail to live bravely in the face of the nihilism that confronts us with the death of God.

I think that"s pretty much what I said, according to today"s standards which are not determined by a god. I even said morals are constantly changing, so not sure what you are on about here.

God, capital G, isn't contingent, and so is not in the least bit like contingent fairies or Greek-like gods. Such gods would depend on something external for their existence, on the other hand, if God exists, he would exist necessarily, and if that's the case, then that has MAJOR implications, it's not just some spaghetti monster that the internet has made a joke out of. Literally if God doesn't exist then the atheist existentialists are the best hope we have in drumming up value, and even they jumped ship a long time ago. It's no bathroom joke that God is dead; everything is ultimately meaningless, valueless and purposeless yet we live as if there is still meaning value and purpose. This inconsistency ought to make us atheists more concerned to take this matter seriously I think, and it shows the theist what's typical when we show such irreverence, and pushes them away (rightly so) from rational dialog. So do be a gentleman and represent our unbelief better? ... Your call.

Uhhm again not sure what you are on about. It seems more like big words with no meaning.

big words, right.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2013 3:46:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/28/2013 2:11:20 AM, SubterFugitive wrote:
At 11/28/2013 1:56:53 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:


I agree, but how can you say that your morals are "better"? There is no better, a value judgement, since there is no standard because there is no God. (Spelled with a capital G btw, let's not be unsophisticated atheologians.)

Lol,I don"t really care for the capital G after all why is this God, better than any other imaginary god?

That's why I said my morals are better according to today"s standards which are not determined by a god. You are assuming that people can only have morals if there is a god and that is rubbish, as its very easy to get to a set of morals without a god. Morals are always in a constant change even if we don"t like to admit it.

Wrong, morals wouldn't have an ultimate standard, they would only be invented by us, they would be built upon a standard no more concrete than the standard of what our money is currently built on: (thin freaking air haha).

Morals are definitely in constant change. This is part of the reason why slavery, racism, genocide were widely accepted in history; until relatively recently. (And in fact, in several cases sanctioned by God in the Bible).

From an Scientists point of view; for social animals to evolve; there needs to be an imperitive to maintain group cohesion. So saying it is either God, or Man is really a false dichotomy: If God doesn't invent morality it is not the case that man has to; at least not in the way you present it.

You can't coherently say that there is a true standard of morality apart from what you feel or like collectively as a species if God doesn't exist, the atheist existentialists all recognized this and it's embarrassing when modern atheists delude themselves to this fact and fail to live bravely in the face of the nihilism that confronts us with the death of God.

If you take what I said above: using the he basis of Morality as an evolutionary imperitive to maintain group cohesion, this may very well be what we "feel or like" collectively as a species; but one with physical underpinnings.

I don't think that morality is some ephemeral universal thing; but that does not mean that I am not constrained by it that the moment I read those words I am happy to become an axe murderer.

Moreover; there often seems some strange conflation between the way people want the universe to work, and a logical argument that the world works this way.

It would be fantastic if the universe had universal morals. It would be awesome if our life and existence had true meaning and value. That in itself is no argument for saying it does.

God, capital G, isn't contingent, and so is not in the least bit like contingent fairies or Greek-like gods. Such gods would depend on something external for their existence

Why? What makes Greek gods different from your God in this respect? What logical rational or underpinning can you use to demonstrate that Chronos must depend on something external for his existance but not your God.

on the other hand, if God exists, he would exist necessarily

And why is this?

and if that's the case, then that has MAJOR implications, it's not just some spaghetti monster that the internet has made a joke out of.

Okay.

Literally if God doesn't exist then the atheist existentialists are the best hope we have in drumming up value, and even they jumped ship a long time ago. It's no bathroom joke that God is dead; everything is ultimately meaningless, valueless and purposeless yet we live as if there is still meaning value and purpose.

What logical rationale do you have for assuming that our lives have meaning, value and purpose in a universal sense or even a human sense?

If I died tommorow; in a thousand years no one will care. No one will care or probably even record that I donated money to charity, that I have volunteered for various causes, or have helped various strangers in various situations.

I have goals, I want a legacy; and want to be remembered as someone who had a net positive effect on the world. I think most people do.

Obviously, I live my life as if it has meaning, because it has meaning for the people I interact with and the people I affect. Does it have meaning and purpose in some transcendental, universal sense? Probably not.

Just because I want to make people laugh, and want to be remembered and want to feel like I have made some sort of acheivement in this world; I am by no means certain (nor do I really care at this time) whether my actions, deeds and indeed life has some deeper purpose or meaning outside of the interactions and affects I have on people.

If the Earth exploded tommorow; wiping out all of mankind and all life on earth; is it really going to affect the universe?

It would be chest-puffingly nice if it did; but I'm under no illusions whether that's true or not. In fact, as a species who is likely to wipe ourselves out, or destroy the planet, or some other weird man-induced catastrophe that will likely end the human race sooner or later: it is actually ironically reassuring to think that no matter how much we screw up the destiny of our own species; the universe will keep on ticking along quite nicely; thank you very much.

This inconsistency ought to make us atheists more concerned to take this matter seriously I think, and it shows the theist what's typical when we show such irreverence, and pushes them away (rightly so) from rational dialog. So do be a gentleman and represent our unbelief better? ... Your call.
Sleevedagger
Posts: 129
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2013 4:16:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Seems like a simple question to me, not that many straight forward answers. I would of thought this would be easy for the religious. I will answer, if anything told me to slaughter my own child in its name, I would say go f**k yourself.
SubterFugitive
Posts: 255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2013 2:08:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/28/2013 4:16:34 AM, Sleevedagger wrote:
Seems like a simple question to me, not that many straight forward answers. I would of thought this would be easy for the religious. I will answer, if anything told me to slaughter my own child in its name, I would say go f**k yourself.

And that's why you weren't Abraham, through which Jesus supposedly eventually came to save humanity from itself, that is, if Christianity is true.
SubterFugitive
Posts: 255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2013 2:41:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/28/2013 3:46:18 AM, Ramshutu wrote:


Wrong, morals wouldn't have an ultimate standard, they would only be invented by us, they would be built upon a standard no more concrete than the standard of what our money is currently built on: (thin freaking air haha).

Morals are definitely in constant change. This is part of the reason why slavery, racism, genocide were widely accepted in history; until relatively recently. (And in fact, in several cases sanctioned by God in the Bible).

Not really groundbreaking, our knowledge of the physical world changes, do we therefore invent the physical world like we do social norms?


From a scientists point of view; for social animals to evolve; there needs to be an imperative to maintain group cohesion. So saying it is either God, or Man is really a false dichotomy: If God doesn't invent morality it is not the case that man has to; at least not in the way you present it.

Still not that earth shattering, science offers descriptions of behavior of animals, it says nothing whatever about the prescriptions of humans. The dichotomy remains if we're to have an ultimate morality that's transcendent that anyone can appeal to in making a value judgement, which is exactly what we're doing when we say equality is greater than inequality, and that justice is greater than injustice.


You can't coherently say that there is a true standard of morality apart from what you feel or like collectively as a species if God doesn't exist, the atheist existentialists all recognized this and it's embarrassing when modern atheists delude themselves to this fact and fail to live bravely in the face of the nihilism that confronts us with the death of God.

If you take what I said above: using the he basis of Morality as an evolutionary imperative to maintain group cohesion, this may very well be what we "feel or like" collectively as a species; but one with physical underpinnings.

Again, scientific descriptions are irrelevant to the foundation of moral prescriptions. It doesn't matter a whit whether or not a news report describes a man beating his wife if the question was raised "should one beat one's wife?"


I don't think that morality is some ephemeral universal thing; but that does not mean that I am not constrained by it that the moment I read those words I am happy to become an axe murderer.

No one's calling morality ephemeral, but if God doesn't exist it sure as hell not universal, and that's what we have to deal with as non-believers, it's not a great scenario, and we shouldn't delude ourselves into thinking we can sweep it under the rug with all this wish-wash about living a "better" moral life than another person. It's all relative preference, and that's all, it's all who you want to invite to the party and whoever wants to be invited adjusts their behavior accordingly, axe murderers go to the ax murdering party and hippie love freaks go to the hippie love freak party, no one can say one party is really "better" than another on our view. Deal with it and live bravely.


Moreover; there often seems some strange conflation between the way people want the universe to work, and a logical argument that the world works this way.

I never conflated desire with description. I don't know what you're talking about.


It would be fantastic if the universe had universal morals. It would be awesome if our life and existence had true meaning and value. That in itself is no argument for saying it does.

Whoever said I believe life DOES have meaning, purpose and value? Did you even read what I wrote?


God, capital G, isn't contingent, and so is not in the least bit like contingent fairies or Greek-like gods. Such gods would depend on something external for their existence

Why? What makes Greek gods different from your God in this respect? What logical rational or underpinning can you use to demonstrate that Chronos must depend on something external for his existence but not your God.

He's not my God, I'm an atheist idiot. But at least I understand what I believe doesn't exist. The difference between Chronos and God is that Chronos depends on time for his existence, a temporal duration. God created time and everything with it, Chronos depends therefore on God, God could have failed to create humans and therefore the mythology of Chronos, that is, if God exists. Understand what you're denying before you deny it.


on the other hand, if God exists, he would exist necessarily

And why is this?

Because it's greater to exist necessarily than contingently and God is a supremely great being. God is also thought of to be the creator and actualizer or originator of all contingent things. This has always been the concept of God. It's simply what we're denying exits.


and if that's the case, then that has MAJOR implications, it's not just some spaghetti monster that the internet has made a joke out of.

Okay.

...?? is this some sort of objection?


Literally if God doesn't exist then the atheist existentialists are the best hope we have in drumming up value, and even they jumped ship a long time ago. It's no bathroom joke that God is dead; everything is ultimately meaningless, valueless and purposeless yet we live as if there is still meaning value and purpose.

What logical rationale do you have for assuming that our lives have meaning, value and purpose in a universal sense or even a human sense?

You're an idiot, you need to read my position, I'm a consistent atheist, live has no meaning, purpose or value.


If I died tomorrow; in a thousand years no one will care. No one will care or probably even record that I donated money to charity, that I have volunteered for various causes, or have helped various strangers in various situations.

Exactly.


I have goals, I want a legacy; and want to be remembered as someone who had a net positive effect on the world. I think most people do.

Sure but even that's meaningless, your personal desires get washed out just the same as the desires of a rat, if a rat has desires.


Obviously, I live my life as if it has meaning, because it has meaning for the people I interact with and the people I affect. Does it have meaning and purpose in some transcendental, universal sense? Probably not.

Definitely not. You define your life and meaning therefore by others, that's the best we got, then nothing nihil nothing, live bravely.


Just because I want to make people laugh, and want to be remembered and want to feel like I have made some sort of acheivement in this world; I am by no means certain (nor do I really care at this time) whether my actions, deeds and indeed life has some deeper purpose or meaning outside of the interactions and affects I have on people.

You'll be forgotten. All ends as the stars burn out and no life remains you'll be forgotten and there wouldn't even be the chance for memory beyond the entropic heat death of the universe. All things are permitted therefore, it doesn't matter whether you live as Hitler or Mother Teresa or whether you even get up in the morning.

If the Earth exploded tommorow; wiping out all of mankind and all life on earth; is it really going to affect the universe?

In terms of meaning? Not one bit.


It would be chest-puffingly nice if it did; but I'm under no illusions whether that's true or not. In fact, as a species who is likely to wipe ourselves out, or destroy the planet, or some other weird man-induced catastrophe that will likely end the human race sooner or later: it is actually ironically reassuring to think that no matter how much we screw up the destiny of our own species; the universe will keep on ticking along quite nicely; thank you very much.

How deluded still, nothing is "nice" on our view, there can be no value judgements. It's meaningle
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2013 5:23:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/28/2013 2:41:34 PM, SubterFugitive wrote:

You're an idiot, you need to read my position, I'm a consistent atheist, live has no meaning, purpose or value.

Award goes to SubterFugitive for not understanding atheism.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2013 5:30:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/28/2013 5:25:45 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Abraham was a metaphorical sacrifice.

Atheists cannot into metaphor.

Great while you are at it,could you point out all the other metaphors in the bible.The flood? The resurrection? or is that historical?
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2013 5:34:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/28/2013 5:30:23 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 11/28/2013 5:25:45 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Abraham was a metaphorical sacrifice.

Atheists cannot into metaphor.

Great while you are at it,could you point out all the other metaphors in the bible.The flood? The resurrection? or is that historical?

Abraham's son being sacrificed was something that was ordered by God after letting him now it wouldn't happen. It's a metaphor for sacrificing for God.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2013 6:27:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/28/2013 5:34:51 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 11/28/2013 5:30:23 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 11/28/2013 5:25:45 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Abraham was a metaphorical sacrifice.

Atheists cannot into metaphor.

Great while you are at it,could you point out all the other metaphors in the bible.The flood? The resurrection? or is that historical?

Abraham's son being sacrificed was something that was ordered by God after letting him now it wouldn't happen. It's a metaphor for sacrificing for God.

I don't seem to remember this verse in the bible where Abraham knew that he was not going to have to sacrifice his son. Could you remind me as this is what I found.

Genesis 22 1-12
Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, "Abraham!"
"Here I am," he replied.
2 Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, whom you love"Isaac"and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you."
3 Early the next morning Abraham got up and loaded his donkey. He took with him two of his servants and his son Isaac. When he had cut enough wood for the burnt offering, he set out for the place God had told him about. 4 On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place in the distance. 5 He said to his servants, "Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and then we will come back to you."
6 Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and placed it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife. As the two of them went on together, 7 Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, "Father?"
"Yes, my son?" Abraham replied.
"The fire and wood are here," Isaac said, "but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?"
8 Abraham answered, "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." And the two of them went on together.
9 When they reached the place God had told him about, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. He bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. 10 Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. 11 But the angel of the Lord called out to him from heaven, "Abraham! Abraham!"
"Here I am," he replied.
12 "Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son."

So which verse was that?
SubterFugitive
Posts: 255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2013 11:12:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/28/2013 5:23:55 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 11/28/2013 2:41:34 PM, SubterFugitive wrote:

You're an idiot, you need to read my position, I'm a consistent atheist, live has no meaning, purpose or value.

Award goes to SubterFugitive for not understanding atheism.

You create awards like you create value, thin air.. this is nihilism and atheism, you affirmed this earlier now you deny it and say I don't understand atheism? I simply don't think you even know WHAT you believe lol