Do You Believe In God?

[Haloman800]

"Good" and "Evil" are human concepts.

Human concepts that explain objective reality.

 

[Jack_Sparrow]

Human concepts that explain objective reality.

+1

 

[grossaffe]

I'm still waiting for you to tell me when it's OK to molest a child.

That is not how logical proofs work.

Without God, there is no objective morality, since where would it exist? By definition, for it to be objective, it is independent of human opinion and consciousness.

You must establish why objective morality can only come from god and not from any other (possibly super natural) mechanism. Regardless, I reject the notion that morality is objective. In fact, even if we were to establish there was a supernatural god, it would still left to prove that this deity provides objective morality.

 

[CraddaPoosta]

I'm still waiting for you to tell me when it's OK to molest a child.


Without God, there is no objective morality, since where would it exist? By definition, for it to be objective, it is independent of human opinion and consciousness.


Evil requires knowledge of good. Lions have no concept of good, therefore they cannot do evil.

You are the one who brought child molestation into this. You aren't going to hammer a point home through shock value. If you'd like, I can show you how your god was cool with Lot's daughters quite literally date-raping Daddy. But that was fine. Your god was cool with that.

I could also point you to Leviticus and Deuteronomy and show you some pretty horrific things. You'd know this if you'd read the Bible.

You are trying to use CHILD MOLESTATION to prove your god is real? I thought 'Jesus Touched Me' had a whole different meaning.

Isaiah 45:7. Your god wanted evil to exist. Let's stack that on top of your god also being defined as 'that which nothing greater can be conceived'. That means your god is more evil than the most evil and repugnant of human actions.

And man is made in that god's image, right? Right?

Evil does not require knowledge. Neither does good. Both are relative social constructs. Both are mutable, shifting definitions of right and wrong. A human invention that you are trying to anthropomorphize onto lions.

 

[KanterZ]

Jesus isn't even god. In christianity, he's just the "son of god" but not "god" himself.
I was a Catholic but given that I made some thoughts and stuffs, I became an atheist.

 

[Haloman800]

You are the one who brought child molestation into this. You aren't going to hammer a point home through shock value. If you'd like, I can show you how your god was cool with Lot's daughters quite literally date-raping Daddy. But that was fine. Your god was cool with that.

I could also point you to Leviticus and Deuteronomy and show you some pretty horrific things. You'd know this if you'd read the Bible.

You are trying to use CHILD MOLESTATION to prove your god is real? I thought 'Jesus Touched Me' had a whole different meaning.

Isaiah 45:7. Your god wanted evil to exist. Let's stack that on top of your god also being defined as 'that which nothing greater can be conceived'. That means your god is more evil than the most evil and repugnant of human actions.

And man is made in that god's image, right? Right?

Evil does not require knowledge. Neither does good. Both are relative social constructs. Both are mutable, shifting definitions of right and wrong. A human invention that you are trying to anthropomorphize onto lions.

Attacking religion doesn't disprove theism. Stay on topic, please.

I'm still waiting for an answer, is child molestation ever acceptable?

 

[CraddaPoosta]

Attacking religion doesn't disprove theism. Stay on topic, please.

I'm still waiting for an answer, is child molestation ever acceptable?

You will not get an answer from me, because you are STILL trying to cling to your shock factor and use guilt and indignation rather than logic and reason. You still have to respond to the fact that your entire three-point argument was rejected at the outside because no one here at all agrees with you.

You presented a flawed argument, and you are now camped out on 'If you don't agree with me, you support children being sexually abused'.

No. LOL. Just, no. Learn to debate. Return to addressing the first point of your three statements. You will not redirect this and try to hit everyone here with a Slippery Slope on top of everything else. We give no cookies to mice, here.

 

[Father Crilly]

I'm still waiting for an answer, is child molestation ever acceptable?

It feels awkward to watch people discuss child molestation when I am named after a fictional priest.

 

[grossaffe]

Attacking religion doesn't disprove theism. Stay on topic, please.

While some of his earlier posts were aggressive, that one was showing the poor morals shown by this supposedly objectively moral figure, which is quite on topic.

I'm still waiting for an answer, is child molestation ever acceptable?

That, however, is a non-sequitur.

 

[Jacklack3]

OH SHIT BETTER GET IN THE SHELTER BEFORE THE WAR BEGINS!

 

[Haloman800]

You still have to respond to the fact that your entire three-point argument was rejected at the outside because no one here at all agrees with you.

"The majority of people reject your argument, therefore it's false" Argument ad populum.

You presented a flawed argument,

Not an argument.

You will not get an answer from me

Then the discussion between you and me is over.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

While some of his earlier posts were aggressive, that one was showing the poor morals shown by this supposedly objectively moral figure, which is quite on topic.

The Biblical description of God could be false, that doesn't disprove God's existence. Once again you are attacking religion and thinking it disproves God.

That, however, is a non-sequitur.

No, it's quite on topic. Refusing to answer doesn't disprove my argument. Stating my argument is false doesn't make it so.

 

[CraddaPoosta]

I was not saying your argument was false because of the number of wiser minds than yours gently explaining why it fell apart at the first bullet point. It would remain false, no matter if 100% of the world agreed with you.

I was saying that to try solely to get you to pay attention and go back to #1, and address the fact that every single logical individual would reject that statement. You have provided absolutely no basis for it, and it is logically incapable of standing on its own, and several people besides myself have educated you on this.

Yet you are STILL defiantly trotting out the most horrific human act you can think of, to try to distract everyone from your failed argument, and an argument it certainly was.

 

[nintendarium]

can you feel a single atom of your body?
obviously no.
so how can a god feel you as a single in an entire universe?
there are too much "layers" between god and us, from layer to layer an abstraction is made (like from binary code to c++ code and so on) so if ever a god be out there its limit is that he cannot "feel" us, "decompiling" has no "variable" names.
we can only try to short the distance "compiling" on our own using more "high level" languages...
I dont want even take in consideration the gods created by humans like the ones in religions, they are clearly human mind creations that people are free to believe in as a act of faith.
but more than god humans are willing to believe their consciousness can get eternal in some way.
once science give us this possibility religion will be left.
we are "images of God" as monotheistic books told us, eventually we will be out of "beta" and come to version 1.00 , or better version 1.20 with bugs fix...
science fiction?
not quite:
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150122-the-secret-to-immortality
but we will be not so lucky ...
so question is not if you believe in god but if god believes in you ...

 

[Relys]

Not an argument.

Here's one for you;

1. Without God, objective morality couldn't exist
2. Objective morality exists
3. Therefore, God exists

If you disagree, please tell me when rape and child molestation is morally acceptable.

The flaw is in your second statement. "no objective source of morality has ever been confirmed, nor have any a priori proofs been offered to the effect that morality is anything other than subjective" (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Objective_morality). Also, Kant's Categorical Imperative is a better reason to have faith in objective morality than any religion in my opinion: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it become a universal law (Immanuel Kant)."

Those acts you mention are outlawed by every major governmental entity in the world, including those which have no religious foundation or influence. They are considered illegal (because the law states) and unethical (because they cause undue harm to another individual).

Is God really the only thing stopping you from doing those things?

• If yes, what kind of person does that make you?
• If no, then there must be another reason causing you not to not do those things.

 

[Haloman800]

Yet you are STILL defiantly trotting out the most horrific human act you can think of

Who decided it was horrific? What gives them the authority?

 

[CraddaPoosta]

can you feel a single atom of your body?
obviously no.
so how can a god feel you as a single in an entire universe?
there are too much "layers" between god and us, from layer to layer an abstraction is made (like from binary code to c++ code and so on) so if ever a god be out there its limit is that he cannot "feel" us, "decompiling" has no "variable" names.
we can only try to short the distance "compiling" on our own using more "high level" languages...
I dont want even take in consideration the gods created by humans like the ones in religions, they are clearly human mind creations that people are free to believe in as a act of faith.
but more than god humans are willing to believe their consciousness can get eternal in some way.
once science give us this possibility religion will be left.
we are "images of God" as monotheistic books told us, eventually we will be out of "beta" and come to version 1.00 , or better version 1.20 with bugs fix...
science fiction?
not quite:
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150122-the-secret-to-immortality
but we will be not so lucky ...
so question is not if you believe in god but if god believes in you ...

Prove one word of what you just said.

 

[ihaveahax]

let's say it again: I believe this thread was a big mistake.

I really don't think something like religion is something most people can discuss civilly. I know this is a thread asking for an opinion but it's turned into so much arguing.

 

[nintendarium]

Prove one word of what you just said.

i cannot name any of my current atoms.
I cannot even know the exact position of one of my neutrons or electrons

 

[Flame]

Why are we still arguing?

I proved they is not a God.

 

[CraddaPoosta]

Who decided it was horrific? What gives them the authority?

That's the thing. A moral code has never required authority. Morality is also intensely personal. One person's Bushido is different from another's Code of Honor. You are referring to standards of morality. So, let's figure out what the word 'standard' means. You are suggesting that good and evil are objective, stand-alone, universal concepts. History has proven that even from state-to-state, or tribe-to-tribe, cultural variances resulted in different codes of morality.

There is no standard. If there is no standard, there is no universality.

In Ancient Rome, child molestation wasn't just okay, it was celebrated. There is copious proof of this. Your Google works.

Doesn't that suggest that the concepts of good and evil are NOT universal?