|
|
Post by notavailable on Mar 11, 2010 15:32:44 GMT -5
The guy is stupid. Morals are bulls**t. You can't expect everyone to have the same standards as everyone else, otherwise we'd all be a bunch of robots. Things like lying, cheating, and stealing are not tolerated in modern society, without the help of a Christian moral view. And no, a global economic meltdown where people are robbing other people at gunpoint to survive would not lead to anarchy. That's f**king idiotic. As usual, in a situation where there is no overseeing authority, another overseeing authority simply replaces it. Whoever is strongest is now in charge. Plain and simple.
Who the f**k says we need a moral compass to keep people from lying and stealing? We already don't. It's called the police. The government. The justice system. Which is mostly if not entirely atheistic and/or non-christian in nature.
|
|
|
|
Post by Patrick on Mar 11, 2010 15:52:03 GMT -5
So you would rather have society tell you what is right and wrong than an objective moral code? Some societies argue that killing those who disagree with the Government is in the best interest of everyone. Many societies oppress others for the benefit of the ruling class, and teach by their actions that the only way to success is through oppression. If the Government is not kept in check by the moral compass of the people, then what will keep them in check since they are just as much human as everyone else? A strong moral point of view is essential because if you do not have a belief about morality all you have is another person dictating to you what is right and wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 11, 2010 16:03:58 GMT -5
zachisaiahchia.wordpress.com/2010/01/22/c-s-lewis-moral-argument-for-god/also: "If a good God made the world why has it gone wrong? And for many years I simply refused to listen to the Christian answers to this question, because I kept on feeling “whatever you say and however clever your arguments are, isn’t it much simpler and easier to say that the world was not made by any intelligent power? Aren’t all your arguments simply a complicated attempt to avoid the obvious?” But then that threw me back into another difficulty. My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I gotten this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too — for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist — in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless — I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality — namely my idea of justice — was full of sense. Consequently, atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning." - C.S. Lewis ....I feel like I'm beating a dead horse
|
|
|
|
Post by Patrick on Mar 11, 2010 16:05:10 GMT -5
That is obviously not the case sense a true atheist sees nothing when they see God, but a believer sees something. See, this is the trouble about debating faith on this forum. You have to debate with those who do not believe and with those who do. For a believer to debate a believer, one must make some assumptions that do not hold true for a debate with an unbeliever. For example, if Jeremy and I were to talk about God one on one, it should look much different than if Brent and I were to talk about God. |
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 11, 2010 16:10:40 GMT -5
You've seen God before?
|
|
|
|
Post by Muffy on Mar 11, 2010 16:19:19 GMT -5
That is obviously not the case sense a true atheist sees nothing when they see God, but a believer sees something. See, this is the trouble about debating faith on this forum. You have to debate with those who do not believe and with those who do. For a believer to debate a believer, one must make some assumptions that do not hold true for a debate with an unbeliever. For example, if Jeremy and I were to talk about God one on one, it should look much different than if Brent and I were to talk about God. Quit now while you're behind. |
|
|
|
Post by scribe on Mar 11, 2010 16:23:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 11, 2010 16:29:57 GMT -5
LOL you win
|
|
|
|
Post by Patrick on Mar 11, 2010 19:43:01 GMT -5
I haven't seen Him with my physical eyes (this particular argument isn't for unbelievers), but I have seen Him with the eyes of my heart. 2 Corinthians 3:18 - "But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit." According to the book we both agree on, we do see Him, and we are being transformed more and more into His image every day. We do have an idea of what He is like- Exodus 34:6-7: “The LORD, the LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding in goodness and truth, 7 keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children’s children to the third and the fourth generation.” We (Christians) believe that God is good and He is just, as well as many other things. I'm sure we both agree on most things, but just word it differently. |
|
|
|
Post by Brent on Mar 11, 2010 20:24:52 GMT -5
How does coming to a conclusion about the existence of God based on personal experience make someone dumb? There is a certain amount of uncertainty in life that no amount of studying can change, and in many instances we have to make decisions based on something that is not entirely certain, where all we have is our personal experience/worldview. These are certainly untrustworthy things, but in many cases, such as the existence of God or the notion in romance (he/she will be a good partner for me), they are all we have. Because seeing is believing The notion of God and Romance are both man-made concepts. We cannot prove God or romance actually exist, but we can say the ideas of both exist because people creating them. I can create the idea of a machine which converts my feces into skittles, but that doesn't mean it exists. You can say God exists all you want but it doesn't make it true. |
|
|
|
Post by Patrick on Mar 11, 2010 22:28:06 GMT -5
You can say God exists all you want but it doesn't make it true. I agree, but I believe that it is true, and I know you believe that it's not true. It is my faith, my belief, but not my certainty. It's an area of life full of uncertainty just like romance, but my personal experience has led me to my faith just as your personal experience has led you to your beliefs. Romance and "God" have been around for all of recorded history so I doubt your statement that they are a human construct, but even if they are, they are things that many people throughout history have seen as beautiful and worthwhile to put one's faith in. Sure you can create an idea of a machine that would turn your feces into skittles, but where that idea pales in comparison to Christianity or romance is that there is no way you can put it into practice. In romance, for example, you can put your love into practice by taking care of the one you love and making the life of that person better. Even if love is a manmade construct, it works. That's the question that matters most for a believer/lover is "does it work?" |
|
|
|
Post by Brent on Mar 11, 2010 23:32:50 GMT -5
I can't believe you're even trying to argue.
I don't use personal experience to come to my conclusion. I use simple logic, supernatural beings cannot be proven or disprove.
Love does not work, you can never truly know another person because you can never read their mind. You could know someone your whole life and still not know them because thoughts are internal.
God does not work because you cannot prove he exists, no matter what you say "my heart has seen him" and all this stuff is completely refutable with the same simple logic I use.
If you would like to waste your one life away and worship a God that most likely doesn't exist, I pity you.
I wasted about 5 years as a Christian, I could have learned so much more relevant things in that time and who knows how my life could have benefited.
|
|
|
|
Post by Radiant Magnificence Alastair on Mar 12, 2010 0:03:59 GMT -5
To love someone doesn't require you to know everything about them. But most likely you have a different definition/concept of love (if you have one at all).
|
|
|
|
Post by notavailable on Mar 12, 2010 3:15:19 GMT -5
I wasted about 5 years as a Christian, I could have learned so much more relevant things in that time and who knows how my life could have benefited. Okay, now take that 5, and add a 12 to it, and you get me. |
|
|
|
Post by Patrick on Mar 12, 2010 3:17:33 GMT -5
Love does not work, you can never truly know another person because you can never read their mind. You could know someone your whole life and still not know them because thoughts are internal. No, you cannot read someone's mind, but you can get to know another person if you take the time to build trust, listen to the other person, and spend time with him or her. True, you cannot know everything about someone, but you can get to know who they are and what they are like, and they can get to know that about you. Sure, I know full well that it's difficult for some people, but it's worth it. If you believe love does not work, I pity you. I wasted about 5 years as a Christian, I could have learned so much more relevant things in that time and who knows how my life could have benefited. What was Christianity keeping you from learning? |
|
