If God does not exist can anything be morally wrong?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

DJjaffacake:

So what, the Old Testament should just be brushed under the carpet and forgotten about? If we assume the Bible is true then the Old Testament says (the Christian) god's a dick.

Ugh, this ignorant rubbish again.

The whole point of the coming of Christ, if you believe in these things, was that the paradigms of the Old Testament had gotten obsolete, and needed somebody to adapt them to a world (Roman Empire, roads, lawyers, postal service, running water) that was very very different from the time when it was written (desert, golden calves, not much else).

See, the current French civil law is based on the Code Napoléon, which is itself based on the codex Iustinianus. Now, you can look at the text from 1,500 years ago and say that the current French law sucks because its pre-predecessor allowed slavery. Or, you could actually check the history behind it all. The Old Testament is a foundation, but Christians are supposed to read it through the lens of the New one.

Also, who the fuck assumes that the Bible is "true" except for American rednecks? The whole notion of reading parts of the Bible as allegory was omnipresent among European Christian scholars about 600 years ago; anybody who, in the year 2012, tries to apply paradigms from 3,000 years ago to our world isn't a Christian, but a bloody imbecile.

Heronblade:
When a philosophical question comes up with very different answers from intelligent men, the usual reality of the matter is that at least most of them are over-thinking things.

Awesome. "Aristotle and Rousseau were just overthinking shit, but I am right on this". Wow. Just wow.

Archangel357:

Ugh, this ignorant rubbish again.

The whole point of the coming of Christ, if you believe in these things, was that the paradigms of the Old Testament had gotten obsolete, and needed somebody to adapt them to a world (Roman Empire, roads, lawyers, postal service, running water) that was very very different from the time when it was written (desert, golden calves, not much else).

See, the current French civil law is based on the Code Napoléon, which is itself based on the codex Iustinianus. Now, you can look at the text from 1,500 years ago and say that the current French law sucks because its pre-predecessor allowed slavery. Or, you could actually check the history behind it all. The Old Testament is a foundation, but Christians are supposed to read it through the lens of the New one.

Also, who the fuck assumes that the Bible is "true" except for American rednecks? The whole notion of reading parts of the Bible as allegory was omnipresent among European Christian scholars about 600 years ago; anybody who, in the year 2012, tries to apply paradigms from 3,000 years ago to our world isn't a Christian, but a bloody imbecile.

Yay, insulting someone as the start of your argument, that's really encouraging as to the nature of your opinion.
And my point was that if the point of Jesus was to supersed the Old Testament, then why is it still around. The French example isn't the same because the part that allowed slavery is no longer part of French law.
So, anyone who doesn't interpret it the way you want is an imbecile. This is again, really encouraging.

Archangel357:

Heronblade:
When a philosophical question comes up with very different answers from intelligent men, the usual reality of the matter is that at least most of them are over-thinking things.

Awesome. "Aristotle and Rousseau were just overthinking shit, but I am right on this". Wow. Just wow.

Not quite, my stance is that extrapolating beyond a certain point is unreliable in the extreme, a position supported by Aristotle himself I might add. Going too far beyond what one knows to be true into the realm of what one assumes or guesses to be true has a tendency to lead to wildly varying conclusions, any or all of which may be far from the actual truth of the matter. A good comparison might be in terms of predicting the weather, the further into the future one tries to come up with a detailed prediction, the worse the accuracy of the results.

Any of the people you mention just might be correct, but it won't be because they arrived at the conclusion using solid evidence, simply because solid evidence doesn't exist. Aristotle for example came to his conclusions concerning the origins of morality based upon the assumption that mankind existed then much like it did during his time, an assumption that has since turned out to be drastically incorrect.

Using philosophy to describe the behaviors of modern man is one thing, you can base that at least in part on reasonably objective observation, but even then your accuracy tends to be incredibly poor. Attempting to define the behavior and/or thinking of another species that has not existed for millions of years in the same manner...

I really like how you only chose to attack that one portion of my post and ignore the rest by the way.

P.S. I would actually argue that atheists have an easier time on this matter than the religious, or at least they should. The latter get to skip the questions of where right and wrong came from, but the former get to skip the questions about why Yhwh/Ahura Mazda/Jupiter/whatever apparently keeps changing his/her/its/their mind on what is right or wrong. In general, the religious still do skip the second question, but only by suggesting that while every single previous interpretation of the divine's will was wrong, the current one surely would do the trick.

DJjaffacake:

Yay, insulting someone as the start of your argument, that's really encouraging as to the nature of your opinion.
And my point was that if the point of Jesus was to supersed the Old Testament, then why is it still around. The French example isn't the same because the part that allowed slavery is no longer part of French law.
So, anyone who doesn't interpret it the way you want is an imbecile. This is again, really encouraging.

As bluntly as he chose to express his view, he does have a point. This phenomenon of interpreting all portions of the bible as being literally true on either side of the chasm is a relatively recent matter.

That of course still begs the question of why the text hasn't been updated over time, or at least doesn't come with a library of reinterpretations like the Jews keep. I for one wouldn't continue to read from a text that is acknowledged as outdated by an up to date version, I certainly might hang onto it for the purposes of cross referencing, but still.

DJjaffacake:

Yay, insulting someone as the start of your argument, that's really encouraging as to the nature of your opinion.
And my point was that if the point of Jesus was to supersed the Old Testament, then why is it still around. The French example isn't the same because the part that allowed slavery is no longer part of French law.
So, anyone who doesn't interpret it the way you want is an imbecile. This is again, really encouraging.

Sorry, mate, I was being a bit of a twat there. As for the imbeciles, I didn't mean anybody in this discussion, but all the Rick Santorum types who made religion = reasons for rednecks to hate people in the eyes of a large part of the intelligentsia.

As for your question, well, for the same reason that the old law texts are around, even though no one uses them any more; so that when you want to know where a certain paradigm comes from, you can check. In most Bibles, any passage has a bunch of footnotes referencing passages in other books and chapters therein; the people in His day's Palestine may have known the laws of the OT, but we mostly don't.

Heronblade:
As bluntly as he chose to express his view, he does have a point. This phenomenon of interpreting all portions of the bible as being literally true on either side of the chasm is a relatively recent matter.

That of course still begs the question of why the text hasn't been updated over time, or at least doesn't come with a library of reinterpretations like the Jews keep. I for one wouldn't continue to read from a text that is acknowledged as outdated by an up to date version, I certainly might hang onto it for the purposes of cross referencing, but still.

I'm not denying he has a point, I'm aware most Christians take the Bible metaphorically, it's just that the argument that Jesus was very nice because the bible says so ignores the fact that the bible also says god killed the firstborn child of every Egyptian family because the Pharaoh was a prick, which is a bit of an overreaction. I'm not saying that you or he is doing so, however.

Archangel357:

Sorry, mate, I was being a bit of a twat there. As for the imbeciles, I didn't mean anybody in this discussion, but all the Rick Santorum types who made religion = reasons for rednecks to hate people in the eyes of a large part of the intelligentsia.

As for your question, well, for the same reason that the old law texts are around, even though no one uses them any more; so that when you want to know where a certain paradigm comes from, you can check. In most Bibles, any passage has a bunch of footnotes referencing passages in other books and chapters therein; the people in His day's Palestine may have known the laws of the OT, but we mostly don't.

It's fine.

The problem is that the old law texts are kept separate from actual legislation, whereas the testaments are lumped together, implying that both are equally valid, which is difficult if they contradict each other. References probably help, but if there is no clear superiority on one side, ie god says one thing, jesus says the opposite, problems will emerge. It's even worse in the old testament, where god contradicts himself, for example, ten commandments say don't kill people, at Jericho, unless I'm mistaken, god basically said 'kill them all.'

Did you give these questions half a seconds thought before posting it?

If objective morality was real, why do I think it's right to kill animals for food, and others think it's wrong?

Objective means that it doesn't depend on opinions, it's a fact.
Now, no one here can tell me whether or not it's okay to kill animals for food, because it's Subjective!

I think someone else said something like this: if the only reason you abide by morals is because you're scared God's checking up on you, you must not be a very nice person.

Also, who or what the fuck is (the Judeo-Christian) God? Until someone can give me a coherent and definitive answer as to what this mysterious, abstract and shapeless deity is, then the question "does God exist?" is moot.

Morality is a product of both religion and as others have said, human instinct and nature. I stand with the belief that different morals depend on the culture. Some societies have no problem with, say, Sharia law. Most of us in western civilization do, however.

Also, I do not know why some believe that those of religious beliefs believe that without religion those people would go on a rampage if they suddenly lost their faith. Sure, religion is a reason for their morals, but it doesn't mean they weren't raised with it and thus abide by it whether they are religious or not. That's why most atheists don't go on killing sprees and have moral values still. It's because of the society we're all raised in.

As for the purpose of morals, without it civilizations would not exist due to the crazy people murdering and stealing.

Also, morals are a good reason why the mixture of different cultures in the same place, such as an entire nation, is not a good thing. Many in western culture believe the right thing is for women to have as many rights as men, however if we mixed with the cultures that have Sharia law there would be much conflict over the issue. Believe me I'm not "racist" or discriminative of other cultures, but I just don't see it going well.

EDIT: I just realised I could have shortened my post by saying moral beliefs are relative to the place being considered.

Final First:
I do not know why some believe that those of religious beliefs believe that without religion those people would go on a rampage if they suddenly lost their faith.

We're more just pointing out what is implied in the 'morals come from religion' argument.

Can you prove there's objective morality? The world can't even agree when it is and isn't ok to kill people.

But for the sake of argument, the reason most of us don't kill and rape is, to put it simply, because our ancestors discovered quite quickly that if you don't work together with your own species, other, bigger ones will eat you. A society can't be built if everyone is raping, killing and stealing, it's mutually beneficial for everyone involved if humans work together. So that became the pattern. Our manufactured morality was the glue that held societies together and it was passed on from generation to generation.

Even if you don't believe this it is still proof that there is another possibility so you're statement that objective morality proves god exists is in fact wrong. This doesn't disprove it of course.

yes im going to ignore the entire conversation and throw in my own personal opinion on the matter.

morals do not exist, so technically nothing can be morally wrong. sure you can parade game theory and empathy all day but that just rationalize morals, but does not actually prove morals exists (considering there are people with 0 empathy that function perfectly well). morals have changed over time,country lines, city,lines and even neighborhood and street lines, and vary from house to house. some ancient societies viewed rape as acceptable (some might today as well), some had rights for women, others did not and so on and so forth. how can we say morals exist when they are constantly changed and adjusted?

e033x:

KlLLUMINATI:
If God does not exist can anything be morally wrong?

(1)If God does not exist, then objective morality does not exist.
(2)Objective morality does exist.
(3)Therefore, God exists.

Your problem is (2). There is no "objective" morality, as in "if humans and all relatives did not exist, it would still be on earth" (i use "on earth" because we have no idea if there is life out there, and what "type" of morality they have). Morality is a concept created by humans.

Without actually being an expert on the field, I dare say that morals most likely derive from an evolutionary process, where humans, as social animals, with traits that helped cooperation and bonding had the edge over loners, and therefore produced more offspring. I.e. those who did things that helped the tribe survived, and those who tore it down did not.

KlLLUMINATI:
Questions for atheist:
(1)What is the basis of objective moral values?
(2)What is the basis of human value on atheism?
(3)Why ought we to do the right thing and avoid doing the wrong thing?
(4)What is the basis for moral accountability?

I ask again if God does not exist can anything be morally wrong?

(1)None, it doesn't exist.
(2)Philosophically or practically? Philosophically, we, as sentient beings, have value because... we can ask the question? Don't know. I'm not a philosopher. Practically? "Contribution to society" and "We're wired this way".
(3) A: You're wired with morals (unless you are a sociopath) and cannot, except under extreme situations break them. B: You will be punished by society for doing the wrong things.
(4)Society, yourself.

EDIT: These are just from the top of my head. More thorough contemplation probably results in better answers, but frankly, I can't be bothered.

(1)If God does not exist, then objective morality does not exist.
(2)Objective morality does exist.
(3)Therefore, God exists. [/quote]

**Your problem is (2). There is no "objective" morality, as in "if humans and all relatives did not exist, it would still be on earth" (i use "on earth" because we have no idea if there is life out there, and what "type" of morality they have). Morality is a concept created by humans.**
By objective I mean independent of opinion just like 2 + 2 = 4 is objectively true even if everyone in the world disagreed.

Goes back to(1) If there is no God it is difficult to see how there could be any objective foundation, any universal standard for good and evil.How do you get ethics from only different arrangements of space, time, matter and energy? A materialistic universe would be morally indifferent. We would have only individual or cultural opinion.

(1). Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
(2). If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
(3). The universe exists.
(4). Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence. (from 1, 3)
(5). Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God.

SakSak:

KlLLUMINATI:

(1)If God does not exist, then objective morality does not exist.
(2)Objective morality does exist.
(3)Therefore, God exists.

Premise 1 is unsupported. If objective morality exists, God (or any god) is not the only possible explanation for it. After all, maybe morality is hard-wired into the universe much the same way gravity is? Objective morality could, in that example, be a natural property of the universe.***
***But if God does not exist, the assumption that human beings are objectively valuable is not available. Like everything else in the universe, would be just accidental arrangements of atoms and we could not justifiably declare that humans are objectively valuable.

Assertion 2 is unsupported by evidence. Prove objective morality exists.***
***The premise for an objective morality is that human good is what is good for humans it is what makes them healthier, happier, and more fulfilled.

Considering the problems with (1) and (2), conclusion(3) does not follow.***
***Since, we know that objective moral principles & obligations do exist, and since they cannot exist without God, it follows that God exists.

Additional problem: Let us assume that God's commands are the source of objective morality (as far as we can tell).

Does God command it, because it is moral?
Or does God commanding it make it moral?

If the first case, then what need is there for a God? Objective morality would after all be separate from God.

If the latter, then it is not objective morality, but rather the subjetive morality of God, vulnerable to changes should God simply change his mind. And it begs the further question of: Why is God's subjective morality, morally superior, to our subjective morality?

We know morality because of God through moral intuition. We dont need God to define morality (divine command). Our moral knowledge was built in.

With the logic you used you need God in order to recognize morality.

So if God does not exist, then moral terms are incoherent and our moral intuitions are useless.

Questions for atheist:
(1)What is the basis of objective moral values?

None, since objective morality (as far as I can tell) does not exist.

(2)What is the basis of human value on atheism?

That life is inherently precious in a universe so hostile to it: Every sentient and sapient being is unique and, since there is no afterlife, finite. Once an individual is dead, they can no longer enrich the lives of others with their presence, friendship, contribution to society, advancement of knowledge or creation of art. Since spent alive is also limited, harm done during life means there is less time for happiness and constructive purposes.

(3)Why ought we to do the right thing and avoid doing the wrong thing?

Because avoiding doing the wrong thing ensures the health and wealth of our society. Also, given that other people really would rather we not do the wrong thing, we also avoid the nasty social consequences.

(4)What is the basis for moral accountability?

Our desire to live in a social environment: humans seek contact with other humans. We build communities and desire to live together for protection, pooled resources, social interaction and reproduction. In order to be a part of a group and reap the benefits, we are thus accountable to the other members of that society and the commonly accepted rules of conduct.

I ask again if God does not exist can anything be morally wrong?

Yes it can. For example, after several thousand years, we decided that slavery is wrong. Because morality is subjective to a society as reflected by the laws and acceptable behaviour within that society.

It does not matter then because as you have shown you need God to recognize morality......

KlLLUMINATI:

By objective I mean independent of opinion just like 2 + 2 = 4 is objectively true even if everyone in the world disagreed.

Just what i meant. There is no such morality. If you take away all life on earth, there would not be any morality left, as it is a concept made for and by humans.

KlLLUMINATI:
Goes back to(1) If there is no God it is difficult to see how there could be any objective foundation, any universal standard for good and evil.How do you get ethics from only different arrangements of space, time, matter and energy? A materialistic universe would be morally indifferent. We would have only individual or cultural opinion.

You constantly base your arguments on the premise that there is indeed an "objective" morality, a claim you have not based on any evidence, or arguments at all. And without that premise, your entire argument falls apart. Objective morality can't exist whitout god, but as objective morality doesn't exist, god don't have to either.

KlLLUMINATI:
(1). Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
(2). If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
(3). The universe exists.
(4). Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence. (from 1, 3)
(5). Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God.

Again with the false premises. You just assume the explanation is god, without basing it on evidence, empiricism, logic or any other fancy word you choose. Just faith. I'm just tired of people who think they can "prove" god through logic or empiricism. It is proven impossible again and again. If you have faith in some god; fine. Try to shove science in it; spare me.

KlLLUMINATI:
(2). If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

Plenty of people have already torn your OP to shreds, so I'll focus on this. Assuming you're using a traditional definition of "god" (and your use of it as a proper noun makes me assume you are), this premise is false. The universe may have any number of explanations, the vast majority of which are far removed from your narrow Christian dogma.

Objective morality is bullshit. Morals change over time along with our society and conscious, even most Christians unknowingly agrees to this when they say that stoning disobedient children, slavery, human/animal sacrificing and burning witches is wrong or not "necessary" anymore.

Godavari:

KlLLUMINATI:
(2). If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

Plenty of people have already torn your OP to shreds, so I'll focus on this. Assuming you're using a traditional definition of "god" (and your use of it as a proper noun makes me assume you are), this premise is false. The universe may have any number of explanations, the vast majority of which are far removed from your narrow Christian dogma.

I've noticed that a significant number of you atheists who profess a desire for rational debate often degenerate their own arguments into accusations and insults. Trying to insult me or anyone in a debate just shows your ignorance you lose all respect and credibility.

KlLLUMINATI:

It does not matter then because as you have shown you need God to recognize morality......

You must have missed 99% of my post then, because nowhere did I reference God or intuition as a source for my moral system and the values I uphold.

Of course, based on your previous posts and threads, it's not discussion you're after. It's an attempt at preaching.

If you want to seriously discuss this, answer the points I made in the previous post and provide evidence for your assertions, including for the existance of any objective moral system, and the unspoken one that God gave us an inherent moral code to begin with.

EDIT: Oh, just noticed this piece:
"But if God does not exist, the assumption that human beings are objectively valuable is not available. "

Correct. I do not believe humans are objectively valuable. The universe, even if it were capable of thought, would not give one whit of concern to what happens on this planet. In the grand scheme of things, our galaxy is pretty much meaningless. After all, there are a few billion ones like it out there.

But mankind and civilization and this planet have great subjective value to me.

"***The premise for an objective morality is that human good is what is good for humans it is what makes them healthier, happier, and more fulfilled."

This sentence does not parse. Restate it in coherent form.

"***Since, we know that objective moral principles & obligations do exist, and since they cannot exist without God, it follows that God exists."

Baseless assertions. You have not shown evidence of objective moral principles OR obligations, OR that they CANNOT exist without any god. Much less your God.

KlLLUMINATI:

Godavari:

KlLLUMINATI:
(2). If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

Plenty of people have already torn your OP to shreds, so I'll focus on this. Assuming you're using a traditional definition of "god" (and your use of it as a proper noun makes me assume you are), this premise is false. The universe may have any number of explanations, the vast majority of which are far removed from your narrow Christian dogma.

I've noticed that a significant number of you atheists who profess a desire for rational debate often degenerate their own arguments into accusations and insults. Trying to insult me or anyone in a debate just shows your ignorance you lose all respect and credibility.

He didn't insult you and you ignored his point. You have no proof that the explanation for the universe is god you've just stated it as fact.

SakSak:

KlLLUMINATI:

It does not matter then because as you have shown you need God to recognize morality......

You must have missed 99% of my post then, because nowhere did I reference God or intuition as a source for my moral system and the values I uphold.

Of course, based on your previous posts and threads, it's not discussion you're after. It's an attempt at preaching.

If you want to seriously discuss this, answer the points I made in the previous post and provide evidence for your assertions, including for the existance of any objective moral system, and the unspoken one that God gave us an inherent moral code to begin with.

I have already answered you once you do not agree fine discussion is over.

Spot1990:

KlLLUMINATI:

Godavari:

Plenty of people have already torn your OP to shreds, so I'll focus on this. Assuming you're using a traditional definition of "god" (and your use of it as a proper noun makes me assume you are), this premise is false. The universe may have any number of explanations, the vast majority of which are far removed from your narrow Christian dogma.

I've noticed that a significant number of you atheists who profess a desire for rational debate often degenerate their own arguments into accusations and insults. Trying to insult me or anyone in a debate just shows your ignorance you lose all respect and credibility.

He didn't insult you and you ignored his point. You have no proof that the explanation for the universe is god you've just stated it as fact.

To say narrow Christian dogma is an insult.

KlLLUMINATI:

Godavari:

KlLLUMINATI:
(2). If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

Plenty of people have already torn your OP to shreds, so I'll focus on this. Assuming you're using a traditional definition of "god" (and your use of it as a proper noun makes me assume you are), this premise is false. The universe may have any number of explanations, the vast majority of which are far removed from your narrow Christian dogma.

I've noticed that a significant number of you atheists who profess a desire for rational debate often degenerate their own arguments into accusations and insults. Trying to insult me or anyone in a debate just shows your ignorance you lose all respect and credibility.

I'm ignorant because I described a Christian interpretation of the universe as narrow dogma?

By your assertion that God is the only explanation for the existence of the universe, you profess your personal "prescribed doctrine proclaimed as unquestionably true by a particular group" in a way that can be described as "limited in range or scope." The definitions agree with me. I'm sorry if you were offended, but I'm simply describing your argument as I see it.

Now, if you don't mind, I'd like an actual rebuttal. Even if I was being insulting (I don't think I was, but whatever), I may very well be right. Niceness is not a requirement of valid argumentation. Even if people seem incredibly insulting or obtuse, I'll still respond to them. For example, I've come close to ignoring Seekster several times, but I maintain that he can sometimes be right on issues, so I will continue to read his posts and respond to them no matter how backwards I think his opinions may be.

I can make that kind of argument too.

1. If God exists then I would believe in him.
2. I don't believe God exists.
3. Therefore God does not exist.

Anyone can make up premises on a whim and 'prove' a conclusion.

Godavari:

KlLLUMINATI:

Godavari:

Plenty of people have already torn your OP to shreds, so I'll focus on this. Assuming you're using a traditional definition of "god" (and your use of it as a proper noun makes me assume you are), this premise is false. The universe may have any number of explanations, the vast majority of which are far removed from your narrow Christian dogma.

I've noticed that a significant number of you atheists who profess a desire for rational debate often degenerate their own arguments into accusations and insults. Trying to insult me or anyone in a debate just shows your ignorance you lose all respect and credibility.

I'm ignorant because I described a Christian interpretation of the universe as narrow dogma?

By your assertion that God is the only explanation for the existence of the universe, you profess your personal "prescribed doctrine proclaimed as unquestionably true by a particular group" in a way that can be described as "limited in range or scope." The definitions agree with me. I'm sorry if you were offended, but I'm simply describing your argument as I see it.

Now, if you don't mind, I'd like an actual rebuttal. Even if I was being insulting (I don't think I was, but whatever), I may very well be right. Niceness is not a requirement of valid argumentation. Even if people seem incredibly insulting or obtuse, I'll still respond to them. For example, I've come close to ignoring Seekster several times, but I maintain that he can sometimes be right on issues, so I will continue to read his posts and respond to them no matter how backwards I think his opinions may be.

Obviously you must be ignorant of the Bible's teachings to say it is narrow.

KlLLUMINATI:
Obviously you must be ignorant of the Bible's teachings to say it is narrow.

Evidence please. (If you're not understanding, I mean examples of the bible not being narrow in its teachings)

KlLLUMINATI:
Obviously you must be ignorant of the Bible's teachings to say it is narrow.

I said your argument is narrow:

KlLLUMINATI:
(2). If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

I'm not talking about the Bible. I'm talking about what you said. And in the grand scheme of things, your statement here is very narrow. In fact, it's one of the narrowest things you could say. It's one possible argument out of millions. The fact of the matter is that we don't have any clue what started the universe, so almost anything is possible. To say that your personal dogma must be true is narrow.

Heronblade:

DJjaffacake:

Yay, insulting someone as the start of your argument, that's really encouraging as to the nature of your opinion.
And my point was that if the point of Jesus was to supersed the Old Testament, then why is it still around. The French example isn't the same because the part that allowed slavery is no longer part of French law.
So, anyone who doesn't interpret it the way you want is an imbecile. This is again, really encouraging.

As bluntly as he chose to express his view, he does have a point. This phenomenon of interpreting all portions of the bible as being literally true on either side of the chasm is a relatively recent matter.

That of course still begs the question of why the text hasn't been updated over time, or at least doesn't come with a library of reinterpretations like the Jews keep. I for one wouldn't continue to read from a text that is acknowledged as outdated by an up to date version, I certainly might hang onto it for the purposes of cross referencing, but still.

you can buy a "scholarly" bible which contains both the bible and various interpretations of its verses by theologists and prominent leaders in the Christian communities, but there is no universal one since there are many different Christian churches and faiths, so which one you decide to buy will be different from the other(the interpretations, not the bible itself).

A necro thread by any other name would sound exactly the same. You do realize how annoying you're getting? Repeating oneself and expecting a different result is a sign of insanity. So are you sane or insane?

KlLLUMINATI:

Goes back to(1) If there is no God it is difficult to see how there could be any objective foundation, any universal standard for good and evil.How do you get ethics from only different arrangements of space, time, matter and energy? A materialistic universe would be morally indifferent. We would have only individual or cultural opinion.

(1). Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
(2). If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
(3). The universe exists.
(4). Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence. (from 1, 3)
(5). Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God.

What makes you think there is objective morality? We base our ideals and laws on individual and cultural opinion every moment of every day. Nations across the world have differing opinions on matters of ethics. Even people within your religion have clung to ethical codes that are entirely incompatible with each other. Tell you what, if you can come up with ANY code of morals that is objectively true regardless of personal opinion, I will bow down and declare you the winner of this argument.

As for your second argument here:

-1, 3, and 4 are true, the universe exists and there must be some explanation for it to exist.
-Where the argument fails is #2. I can think of several possible explanations for the creation of the universe, some involve god, some involve deities or non personified supernatural forces that are quite different from god, some involve forces no more mysterious or supernatural than the electricity keeping your computer running right now. Frankly, if each of those possibilities were given an even chance of being true, the Christian god has a VERY low chance of being the correct one.
-Without being able to declare an answer for #2, the conclusion, #5, is invalid.

By the way, coming up with such arguments is fairly simple. If you're going to use them, at least come up with your own rather than simply copying them from someone else. For example:

1.) Christian doctrine states that damnation awaits those that do not follow Christ's teachings.
2.) There are people in the world who grew up, lived, and died having never even heard of Christ
3.) Never having been given the opportunity to abide by a rule excuses an individual from violating that rule by default.
4.) A benevolent god would not punish those who did nothing wrong.
Conclusion: god does not exist, god is not benevolent, and/or Christian doctrine is wrong. Feel free to pick one.

See how easy that was? Here's another:

1.) The species on this planet, humans included, are incredibly flawed on both a genetic and phenotypic level. Frankly, almost none of our biological systems run at anything resembling an efficiently designed manner.
2.) an omnipotent and/or omniscient god would certainly be capable of doing better
3.) a benevolent god with the above characteristics is quite unlikely to deliberately design us to be so badly flawed.
conclusion: god does not exist, god is not omnipotent, and/or god is not benevolent.

P.S. Before anyone starts picking them apart, I came up with the arguments above off the top of my head and did not intend or expect them to be completely foolproof, I'm merely trying to demonstrate a point.

KlLLUMINATI:
(1). Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
(2). If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
(3). The universe exists.
(4). Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence. (from 1, 3)
(5). Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God.

Oooh! I can play this game, too.

(1). Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
(2). If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is kangaroos.
(3). The universe exists.
(4). Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence. (from 1, 3)
(5). Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is kangaroos.

Seriously, kangaroos are that awesome. The universe exists just because kangaroos *needed* to happen.

Yeah, no one is going to buy that. And your logic kind of falls apart without proving statement 2.

Kangaroos were in Australia pre-european influence. Therefore they must be divine. Their jumping and kicking powers alone prove this.

DJjaffacake:

Final First:
I do not know why some believe that those of religious beliefs believe that without religion those people would go on a rampage if they suddenly lost their faith.

We're more just pointing out what is implied in the 'morals come from religion' argument.

I see. I also see that I worded what I said very poorly. I used the word "believe" way too many times...

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked