Being an athiest doesn't mean they lack morality - Page 3 - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


Communities

The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Being an athiest doesn't mean they lack morality
in Religion

13


Arguments

  • @piloteer

    >You are absolutely correct.

    As I always am.

    >Morality cannot be objective unless it's authorative,....

    Thank you. The link I sent you brought you up to speed huh? You're welcome.

    >...and you cannot even come close to point out who or what or where that authority is.

    Why can't I come close? Is it rigged with explosives?

    >Let me save time for you, you won't ever be able to so don't waste your time looking!!!

    Thanks for trying to save time for me, but I I already know who that authority is.

    But all I needed was the principle established.

    * Morality, to be authoritative, must be objective.

    If we agree on the above, this particular argument is over.
  • Morality is subjective. What an average orthodox Christian might see as moral, an average atheist might see as extremely immoral - and vice-versa. The claim that anyone does not have morality would be incorrect: even the most principle-less criminal still believes in something that guides his/her actions.

    Instead, what I have often seen religious people claim is that atheist morality is baseless, as it is not guided by any holy books or gods. Which to me has always seemed strange: I fail to see why holy books or gods must be the sole source of morality. My personal morality is based on the principle of individual freedom and long-term happiness. It does not come from any gods or ideologies, but rather is a manifestation of my personality, of what I personally feel good about.

    The way I see it, if you need some extra source (such as religion or another ideology) for your moral compass, and it does not come from your personal preferences - then it is not really your moral system. It is a system you borrowed from someone else. And in this sense, you lack morality more, than any atheist whose beliefs come from the depth of his/her soul, does.
    Zombieguy1987
  • @dbox

    A religious worldview also does not provide the necessary framework for building a consistent ethical code.
    Zombieguy1987
  • @ethang5

    Ummm, you know you shouldn't continue forcing q-tips in your ear when you encounter resistance! If you can't prove that morality is authorative, then you've proven nothing. If you've only proved it to yourself, it's not objective! Whatever authority you may abide by, I don't recognize as anything but a joke. Therefore, it's not authorative. 
    Zombieguy1987
  • @Evidence

    Ooooo, a Right said Fred reference. Thanks for dusting off that old chestnut, I guess :/ . Whatever happened to that guy, anyway? 

    It seems to me like you're disturbed by social change. You still didn't seem to address the change in social attitudes regarding slavery, or eugenics. Do you believe that Christians aren't guilty of supporting those institutions? Do you think it's a bad thing that slavery is no longer an acceptable practice? How are those things not sins? How is cross dressing worse than slavery or eugenics? How is any sin worse than others, in God's eyes? Eugenics and slavery obviously goes hand and hand with murder and deprivation, but cross dressing and being gay does not. What actually makes cross dressing worse? Your attempt to link the LGBTQ community with pedophilia is laughable at best! Pedophiles are strait, gay, cross dressers, atheists, and Christians alike. Unfortunately, their sexual orientation sees no political or religious boundaries. 

    Your attempt to iron out the fact that you are just as much as a collectivist as any hardened communist was confusing. I'm not sure how the story of Sodom and Gomorrah has anything to do with communism. You still have not answered whether you believe we are all more sinful because of other peoples sins. If you cannot show me evidence that being gay is worse than slavery or eugenics, then all we have is some guy who is  resentful of gays just because. Your entitled to resent whomever you'd like, but I haven't seen any evidence that cross dressing, or being gay is more sinful than masturbating. So that makes you resentful , just for the sake of being resentful. 


    ***"Satan offers something that on the surface sounds good, but it is sure to destroy us."***

    According to the bible, God promised never to destroy the world again, like with the great flood. We are all responsible for our own sins individually. Letting cross dressers won't "destroy us". It doesn't cause death. The apocalypse will be brought on by war, not dudes wearing leotards. You say "God never changes", exactly at what time period did he consider society to be the template for what constitutes a "morally righteous" society?

    I put some thought into it, and I probably won't be able to accept a golden globe award for you. Those awards go to the actors and all the people involved the movies themselves. They don't give out awards to people who are portrayed in movies. Don't frett just yet, you could potentially write the script and receive an award for that. So we still can get that award. 
  • @piloteer

    >Ummm, you know you shouldn't continue forcing q-tips in your ear when you encounter resistance!

    And if your argument was any good, you wouldn't need childish stunts. I can (and have) beat you without stunts or .gifs.

    >If you can't prove that morality is authorative, then you've proven nothing.

    You have to be able to keep a train of thought. The thread says, "Being atheist does not mean a person lacks morality."

    I agreed. I said, atheists have morality, just not authoritative morality. They have subjective morality, which is actually just personal preference masquerading as morality.

    I contended that for morality to be authoritative , it must be objective. You agreed.

    >If you've only proved it to yourself, it's not objective!

    My argument was not that morality was objective, but that the morality of atheist's was NOT objective. I am making my argument, not yours. So we agree, the atheist's morality is not objective, and as such, not authoritative.

    >Whatever authority you may abide by, I don't recognize as anything but a joke. Therefore, it's not authorative.

    Wrong. As my morality does not need your recognition to be authoritative, >>shrug<<.

    I operate on logic, you've agreed with the logical principle that only objective morality is authoritative, and that only authoritative morality rises above personal taste.

    For the purpose of this thread, my argument is done. Atheists do not have real morality, they have subjective preferences they call morality.

    And that is what a Christian means when he says atheists lack morality.

    What grounds Christian's morality in objectivity is a separate argument. If you wish to discuss that, start a thread.
    Zombieguy1987
  • ethang5 said:
    @piloteer

    >Ummm, you know you shouldn't continue forcing q-tips in your ear when you encounter resistance!

    And if your argument was any good, you wouldn't need childish stunts. I can (and have) beat you without stunts or .gifs.

    >If you can't prove that morality is authorative, then you've proven nothing.

    You have to be able to keep a train of thought. The thread says, "Being atheist does not mean a person lacks morality."

    I agreed. I said, atheists have morality, just not authoritative morality. They have subjective morality, which is actually just personal preference masquerading as morality.

    I contended that for morality to be authoritative , it must be objective. You agreed.

    >If you've only proved it to yourself, it's not objective!

    My argument was not that morality was objective, but that the morality of atheist's was NOT objective. I am making my argument, not yours. So we agree, the atheist's morality is not objective, and as such, not authoritative.

    >Whatever authority you may abide by, I don't recognize as anything but a joke. Therefore, it's not authorative.

    Wrong. As my morality does not need your recognition to be authoritative, >>shrug<<.

    I operate on logic, you've agreed with the logical principle that only objective morality is authoritative, and that only authoritative morality rises above personal taste.

    For the purpose of this thread, my argument is done. Atheists do not have real morality, they have subjective preferences they call morality. 

    What would you consider "real" morality then?

    And that is what a Christian means when he says atheists lack morality.

    What grounds Christian's morality in objectivity is a separate argument. If you wish to discuss that, start a thread.

    piloteer
    https://www.google.com/search?q=victims+of+religion&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=x&ved=0ahukewihu9jugorfahwkmeakhbtib00q_auidigb&biw=1920&bih=963&safe=active

    Socialism/Communism are great on paper, but all you need to do is look at Venezuela or North Korea see why these economic systems fail

    Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom 

    http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  • @Zombieguy1987

    >What would you consider "real" morality then?

    Morality that is not based on how you feel. Objective morality.

    Today, people have a moral code based on pleasure. Suffering is immoral, and pleasure is moral.

    Test it.

    This moral code says God is immoral. Why? Because suffering.

    This moral code says killing babies is good. Why? Pleasure.

    This moral code says breaking the law is OK. Why? Pleasure.

    This moral code says ban police and ICE. Why? Suffering.

    This stupid moral code is why the same democrats who argued for immigration reform  2 years ago, now call it immoral. They are basing it on how they feel. When how they feel changes, their morality changes.

    Real morality is not situational. It is unaffected by how anyone feels. Real morality does not consider pleasure the greatest good, or suffering the greatest evil.

    When you hear an atheist talking about how his moral code is based on causing no suffering, but pleasure for everyone, it is the morality of pleasure he's hyping.

    It isn't morality. It's hedonism.
    Zombieguy1987
  • @Zombieguy1987

    >What would you consider "real" morality then?

    Morality that is not based on how you feel. Objective morality.

    Today, people have a moral code based on pleasure. Suffering is immoral, and pleasure is moral.

    Test it.

    This moral code says God is immoral. Why? Because suffering.

    This moral code says killing babies is good. Why? Pleasure.

    This moral code says breaking the law is OK. Why? Pleasure.

    This moral code says ban police and ICE. Why? Suffering.

    This stupid moral code is why the same democrats who argued for immigration reform  2 years ago, now call it immoral. They are basing it on how they feel. When how they feel changes, their morality changes.

    Real morality is not situational. It is unaffected by how anyone feels. Real morality does not consider pleasure the greatest good, or suffering the greatest evil.

    When you hear an atheist talking about how his moral code is based on causing no suffering, but pleasure for everyone, it is the morality of pleasure he's hyping.

    It isn't morality. It's hedonism.
    Zombieguy1987
  • @Zombieguy1987

    >What would you consider "real" morality then?

    Morality that is not based on how you feel. Objective morality.

    Today, people have a moral code based on pleasure. Suffering is immoral, and pleasure is moral.

    Test it.

    This moral code says God is immoral. Why? Because suffering.

    This moral code says killing babies is good. Why? Pleasure.

    This moral code says breaking the law is OK. Why? Pleasure.

    This moral code says ban police and ICE. Why? Suffering.

    This stupid moral code is why the same democrats who argued for immigration reform  2 years ago, now call it immoral. They are basing it on how they feel. When how they feel changes, their morality changes.

    Real morality is not situational. It is unaffected by how anyone feels. Real morality does not consider pleasure the greatest good, or suffering the greatest evil.

    When you hear an atheist talking about how his moral code is based on causing no suffering, but pleasure for everyone, it is the morality of pleasure he's hyping.

    It isn't morality. It's hedonism.
    Zombieguy1987
  • @ethang5

    Anything objective has to be based on the real world's properties and must not be a subject to personal evaluation. What is "objective morality"? Which cosmological property defines factually what is moral and what is not? When I do something, and you say, "This is wrong" - you are already introducing personal assessment, hence removing any objectivity out of the equation.

    Hedonism can also be a basis behind a moral system. The Bible is not the only moral source in the world, you know; there are virtually thousands sources, and billions individual interpretations.

    To me, the Bible morals seem barbaric. I must treat other people well because of the fear of getting in Hell in the afterlife, rather than because I genuinely care for other people? I think not. The Bible was written well over 2,000 years ago, and reflected the uncivilized thinking of those times. Perhaps it is time to move on in the 21st century.

    Finally, a moral system that vilifies pleasure is very bizarre in the first place. What is the point of life? To serve some ethereal deity you yourself made up? Or to have fun? If you do not have fun in life, then I see no point living. The way nature made us evolve is so we are in constant pursuit of pleasure - why defy our nature over some dusty tome?

    Zombieguy1987piloteer
  • dboxdbox 25 Pts
    @piloteer

    Not every religious worldview can provide a consistent ethic, but religion is the necessary prerequisite for morality. To word that more accurately, morality flows from religion. Without God, anything is permissible and what is moral is purely subjective. If morality is purely subjective, there is no consistent ethic by definition.  
    Zombieguy1987
  • @MayCaesar

    >Anything objective has to be based on the real world's properties and must not be a subject to personal evaluation.

    Is this your law of objectivity? What makes it true?

    >What is "objective morality"?

    Morality not made by or influenced by the mind of any man.

    >Which cosmological property defines factually what is moral and what is not?

    Why do you assume there has to be a cosmological property? Sorry, I'm not one of the Gen X dweebs who have made science and technology my God.

    >When I do something, and you say, "This is wrong" - you are already introducing personal assessment, hence removing any objectivity out of the equation.

    What if I'm saying, "According to this morality (not mine) you are wrong?" How can that be subjective if the morality I use precedes me?

    >Hedonism can also be a basis behind a moral system. The Bible is not the only moral source in the world, you know; there are virtually thousands sources, and billions individual interpretations.

    I know. And only one of them is authoritative, thus, only one of them is objective.

    >To me, the Bible morals seem barbaric.

    Of course. Your thinking process has been corrupted by liberal PC dogma. Your moral compass is broken.

    >I must treat other people well because of the fear of getting in Hell in the afterlife, rather than because I genuinely care for other people? I think not.

    False dichotomy. Keep that up and I will have to conclude you are either dishonest or stupid.

    >The Bible was written well over 2,000 years ago, and reflected the uncivilized thinking of those times.

    Yet it is still relevant today. Here we are, 2,000+ years later, talking about it. If the thinking in the bible is so uncivilized, why has it had such an effect on humanity? How come no other work of literature has even come close?

    >Perhaps it is time to move on in the 21st century.

    It is never sensible to "move on" from truth and good sense. But you are free to go, I'll stay with logic and reason if you don't mind.

    >Finally, a moral system that vilifies pleasure is very bizarre in the first place.

    No one suggested a morality that vilified pleasure. I said a morality the equated pleasure with morality was hedonism. Think a little.

    >What is the point of life? To serve some ethereal deity you yourself made up? Or to have fun?

    My point is neither of the two. Are you aware that there are other options?

    >If you do not have fun in life, then I see no point living.

    Thank you. The point of your life is "fun". The morality of pleasure. The highest good is fun, and the greatest evil is suffering. Thank God people like Abraham Lincoln or Martin Luther King did not have such a moral code.

    >The way nature made us evolve is so we are in constant pursuit of pleasure - why defy our nature over some dusty tome?

    Circular. You must first conclude your position is correct in order to show it correct. Plus, I can pursue pleasure without pleasure being the basis of my morality.

    You can drop the silly false dichotomies. They don't help your argument, and they won't fool me.

    If you believe morality is never objective, you believe morality doesn't exist. That means you believe nothing is morally wrong.

    It that true? Is that what you believe?
    Zombieguy1987
  • @dbox

    That's quite a claim you've got there. Quite a claim indeed. Now all you need is evidence to back your claim that "morality flows from religion". First, let us take a look at your first assertion that "Not every religious worldview can provide a consistent ethic". Now lets parallel that with your last assertion that "if morality is purely subjective, there is no consistent ethic by definition." So what you have done here is claim that a religious worldview cannot provide a consistent ethical code. In other words, your saying that religious ethical codes are subjective. I agree with that statement 100%. Now that we are somewhat on the same page of the subjective nature of religious ethics, we can come to the obvious conclusion that "there is no consistent ethic by definition. I also agree with that 100%. 
    Zombieguy1987
  • piloteerpiloteer 185 Pts
    edited January 17
    @ethang5

    No, we don't agree. I'm not claiming that "atheist morality is subjective", I'm claiming that ALL morality is subjective, and you continuously fail to prove that Christian morality is objective. You agreed that it is not only God who chooses how we live our lives, we as individuals choose. If God has given all of us free will, then he has negated any authority over us! You can claim that he has the authority to send us to hell for our immorality, but what if that's exactly what someone wants? There are people who've made it their sole purpose to go against God's word, societies word, and the sanctity of authorative morality, and if hell exists, they're totally prepared to go there. They're called nihilistic. The only thing stopping people like that from doing what they want, to whomever they want, and whenever they want, is the their own physical limitations, nothing else! What's God gonna do to stop people like that? For your argument to work, you would have to assume that it's every persons desire to go to heaven, but that's not always the case. Morality does need to be objective to be authorative, but it's NOT.
  • dboxdbox 25 Pts

    I stated that not every religion can offer a consistent ethic, that is not to say that there is none that offers one. The idea that naturalism or atheism (the two go hand in hand for me, correct me if I'm wrong) can not account for morality or offer a consistent ethic comes from the fact that they ethics rest on collective agreement which changes or individual opinion which changes. They are subjective by definition. There are many man made religions that are no different, I agree, but objective revelation from God is not subjective (obviously), and is the foundation for ethical thought.
  • @piloteer

    >No, we don't agree.

    You said you agreed that morality does need to be objective to be authoritative. You say so again at the end of your post.

    That is my point. Unless you're lying, we do agree. Morality needs to be objective to be authoritative.

    >I'm not claiming that "atheist morality is subjective", I'm claiming that ALL morality is subjective,..

    I know. The problem is that you refuse the consequence of your claim. You deny that morality exists. If you believe all morality is subjective, then you believe that all we call morality is nothing more than personal choice.

    >....and you continuously fail to prove that Christian morality is objective.

    Amazing then that I've "failed" at something I have not yet tried. You want to morph to a second argument without conceding the first. You have repeated my original claim twice now, that "morality must be objective to be authoritative".

    Yet you are still equivocating on whether we agree or not. Why would I move to a second argument when you're still waffling on the first?

    >You agreed that it is not only God who chooses how we live our lives, we as individuals choose. If God has given all of us free will, then he has negated any authority over us!

    Sorry, your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. Free will in no way invalidates God's authority.

    >You can claim that he has the authority to send us to hell for our immorality, but what if that's exactly what someone wants?

    Everyone who goes to hell, goes there deliberately. So what?

    >There are people who've made it their sole purpose to go against God's word, societies word, and the sanctity of authorative morality, and if hell exists, they're totally prepared to go there.

    The bible told us this 2,000 years ago. So what?

    >They're called nihilistic. The only thing stopping people like that from doing what they want, to whomever they want, and whenever they want, is the their own physical limitations, nothing else!

    You think it was only Osama Bin Laden's physical limitations that stopped him?

    >What's God gonna do to stop people like that?

    Why should God stop them? He can stop them, but you seem to be assuming that God is somehow morally obligated to stop them. Why?

    >For your argument to work, you would have to assume that it's every persons desire to go to heaven, but that's not always the case.

    That makes no sense. Everyone with free will goes to where they choose. I see no reason why I must assume every person's desire is to go to Heaven. It isn't.

    >Morality does need to be objective to be authorative, but it's NOT.

    OK. My point is established. No atheist morality can morally judge or condemn anyone. What atheists have is personal opinion, and their personal opinion has no moral obligation on anyone.
    Zombieguy1987
  • piloteer said:
    Evidence

    Ooooo, a Right said Fred reference. Thanks for dusting off that old chestnut, I guess :/ . Whatever happened to that guy, anyway? 

    @piloteer -  It seems to me like you're disturbed by social change. You still didn't seem to address the change in social attitudes regarding slavery, or eugenics. Do you believe that Christians aren't guilty of supporting those institutions? Do you think it's a bad thing that slavery is no longer an acceptable practice? How are those things not sins? How is cross dressing worse than slavery or eugenics? How is any sin worse than others, in God's eyes? Eugenics and slavery obviously goes hand and hand with murder and deprivation, but cross dressing and being gay does not. What actually makes cross dressing worse? Your attempt to link the LGBTQ community with pedophilia is laughable at best! Pedophiles are strait, gay, cross dressers, atheists, and Christians alike. Unfortunately, their sexual orientation sees no political or religious boundaries. 


    Oh come on buddy, you still don't recognize the social change regarding slavery? We are ALL SLAVES, .. that's right, by the very act of "abolishing slavery', "They Live" have made us all slaves.



    This LGBT agenda is just to turn us into "perverted slaves', so even in our misery we would be an abomination to our Creator. Similar how the Germans did to the Jews in the concentration camps, they starved them, so they would fight like animals over left over crumbs of those who died that day. They also chose Jews to help with getting their fellow men into the gas chambers. In other words, it's not just Communism, or Nazism, but the deeper agenda behind it. Communism taught us that man is an evolving animal, cousin of apes and rats. Same thing the Germans called the Jews as they were eradicated with rat-poison.
    Nothing changed, we are still slaves, and instead of "rat poison" it's called "Chemo-therapy", .. or "Flu-shots", .. whatever, but it's the same old thing.

    piloteer - Your attempt to iron out the fact that you are just as much as a collectivist as any hardened communist was confusing. I'm not sure how the story of Sodom and Gomorrah has anything to do with communism. You still have not answered whether you believe we are all more sinful because of other peoples sins. If you cannot show me evidence that being gay is worse than slavery or eugenics, then all we have is some guy who is  resentful of gays just because. Your entitled to resent whomever you'd like, but I haven't seen any evidence that cross dressing, or being gay is more sinful than masturbating. So that makes you resentful , just for the sake of being resentful. 

    We Are Collective, That was 'The' whole purpose of Jesus coming and remind is us of, that whatever perversion we allow our fellow man to live by, we ALL suffer because of it. Remember the story of Jonah and the city of Nineveh? The city has fallen from Godliness to the point God could not take it anymore. Well look what's going on today, that, .. that thing of abomination teaching our children, .. how long do you think God will put up with this? And here you are my good man defending it.

    piloteer - Evidence said: ***"Satan offers something that on the surface sounds good, but it is sure to destroy us."***
    According to the bible, God promised never to destroy the world again, like with the great flood. We are all responsible for our own sins individually. Letting cross dressers won't "destroy us". It doesn't cause death. The apocalypse will be brought on by war, not dudes wearing leotards. You say "God never changes", exactly at what time period did he consider society to be the template for what constitutes a "morally righteous" society?


    Yes, never to destroy the world again by water, like He did twice (Genesis 1:2, and Noah's flood) but this time, 

    2 peter 3:7
     But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store,
    reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

    You don't see the evidence of this LGBTQueer agenda? Think, when the men (today women too) put on their army uniforms and arm themselves, you know they are getting ready for war. Well the queer-dude is definitely ready, and is at war as you see in that video perverting our children, who are the most valuable part of our "future"! No, They Are Our Future!
    I mean hey, if you want to cross dress in the privacy of your own home, go for it, and look in the mirror and laugh all you want. But this is not a joke, he/she/it was "teaching this to our children as something they should consider doing".  This is an Act of WAR!

    piloteer - I put some thought into it, and I probably won't be able to accept a golden globe award for you. Those awards go to the actors and all the people involved the movies themselves. They don't give out awards to people who are portrayed in movies. Don't frett just yet, you could potentially write the script and receive an award for that. So we still can get that award.

    I know, kind of ironic isn't it? Like the awesome movie "Hawkshaw Ridge", I mean old Desmond Doss (or a close family member) should of been there accepting any awards given out, right? Including any monies, .. or at least some money from the ticket sales!?

    Nevertheless, I am not fretting my friend, if there is a reward in ANYTHING I done or said that is worthy of a reward, I sure wouldn't want to waste it in this ragged old body that's moaning in pain and dying a bit every day, but save it for eternal life, where I can enjoy it forever, .. right?
    And yes, there is nothing on earth I would love more than sharing in that eternal joy with another friend like you!

    http://www.christianmessenger.org/godsrest.htm

  • dboxdbox 25 Pts
    @Zombieguy1987 care to explain the fallacy?
  • dbox said:
    @Zombieguy1987 care to explain the fallacy?

    dbox said:
    @piloteer

    Not every religious worldview can provide a consistent ethic, but religion is the necessary prerequisite for morality.

    No it's not. Religion teaches immorality like murder, rape genocide etic.

    To word that more accurately, morality flows from religion. Without God, anything is permissible and what is moral is purely subjective. 

    Really?

    Then explain why secular nations are generally better off with human rights than religious nations.

    If morality is purely subjective, there is no consistent ethic by definition.  

    Even with a god, morality IS subjective.

    For example: To you, littering can be morally right, but to someone else it's morally wrong. Everyone has an opinion of what is morally right and wrong.


    piloteer
    https://www.google.com/search?q=victims+of+religion&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=x&ved=0ahukewihu9jugorfahwkmeakhbtib00q_auidigb&biw=1920&bih=963&safe=active

    Socialism/Communism are great on paper, but all you need to do is look at Venezuela or North Korea see why these economic systems fail

    Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom 

    http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  • @dbox

    Lol. Did you really think he was going to show you any fallacy?
    Zombieguy1987piloteer
  • @Zombieguy1987

    Most religious people don't actually believe that atheists lack morality. However, your acknowledgement of the existence of morality eradicates the possibility of atheism as truth. 

    P1: objective good and evil exist
    P2: if objective good and evil exist, then moral law exists
    P3: If moral law exists we must posit the existence of an objective moral lawgiver.
    C: moral objectivity shows that God must be real.

    Neither the individual, society, or nature has the capacity to bestow upon anything objectivity. If you believe that moral objectivity is true, then you must also believe that God is real. Since an amoral universe is existentially self-defeating and leads to absurdism then we must conclude that moral objectivity exists.
    ethang5
  • @piloteer

    Disagreeing with the nature of morality does not take away from its objectivity. some people getting morality wrong or choosing to go against morality doesn't mean that an objective truth doesn't exist.
    ethang5Zombieguy1987piloteer
  • @Vincent_Costanzo

    Well then, my G. It should be fairly simple for you to demonstrate the objective nature of morality! 
  • piloteerpiloteer 185 Pts
    edited January 18
    @ethang5

    ***"The problem is that you refuse the consequence of your claim."***

    I care not of the consequences of my claim, I only care about the truth!

    ***"If you believe all morality is subjective, then you believe that all we call morality is nothing more than personal choice."***

    This is getting redundant. If you have convincing evidence that morality is nothing more than personal taste, then disclose it, post haste. If not, then take a seat!!!!

    Zombieguy1987
  • @dbox

    ***"The idea that naturalism or atheism (the two go hand in hand for me, correct me if I'm wrong) can not account for morality or offer a consistent ethic comes from the fact that they ethics rest on collective agreement which changes or individual opinion which changes."***

    I agree with this, but can you show us that religious ethical codes aren't influenced by social norms or individual opinions?


    Zombieguy1987
  • @Vincent_Costanzo

    An objective truth does exist. An objective moral does not.

    Truth deals with the statements like "A is B". Moral deals with statements like "A is good". The former is objective; the latter is subjective.

    A moral necessarily involves an assessment. A truth does not tolerate assessment, it only tolerates facts.

    "Murder is bad", for example, is not a fact. It is an assessment.
    "Murder leads to the end of someone's life" is a fact, however.
    Zombieguy1987piloteer
  • piloteerpiloteer 185 Pts
    edited January 19
    "@ethang5 ;

    Whoa, you seem pretty angry. It probably has to do with the fact that when I make arguments, people agree with me. You shouldn't let that bother you because it's going to continue. Yes, I do believe that NO morality is authorative. 
  •  @Evidence

    Aww, thank you for considering me a friend. Perhaps someday we will meet in the kingdom heaven, I get that feeling I would be a party crasher if I got in. If I did get in, I get the feeling that Saint Peter might lose his job. Thanks for accepting my friend request though.

    Being a slave to someone means that we work for them and receive nothing in return. Obviously, it would be in the best interest of the slave owner to at least compensate their slaves with food and water and a shelter so they can continue to be slaves. I wasn't talking about a metaphorical slavery, I was talking about actual slavery. I fail to see how somebody else's personal decision of being gay causes me to work without compensation. You can't say for sure that anybody who identifies as a member of the LGBTQ community will not be welcome in the kingdom heaven. 

    So your only gripe with communism is their tendency to be atheist, but you have no qualms with every other aspect of communism? I politely disagree with your claim that we are collective, and I'm not convinced that the bible says God regards us in that manner. Lets suppose our government outlawed all sin and enforced those laws with death sentences. Would that make all of society saints? If we abide by God's word out of fear of reprisal, we're not living by his word because of our acceptance of his word. God wants us to live by his word of our own free will, if we're forced to do it by law, God would not consider that righteous, he would consider it sinful. God knows that you can't force people to be charitable, only the ones who do it of their own free will are the truly righteous ones.


    Evidence
  • dboxdbox 25 Pts
    @Zombieguy1987

    Your disagreeing with me is a difference of opinion, not proof of fallacy. What is my fallacy?

    1) Me: Not every religious worldview can provide a consistent ethic, but religion is the necessary prerequisite for morality.

    You: No it's not. Religion teaches immorality like murder, rape genocide etc.

    Me: While there may be some that do, not every Religion does. Naturalism or atheism has no foundation by which you can say how people should act morally. Religion, or Supernaturalism provides objective standards or laws by which one can judge the morality of an action. Again, this is not every Religion, but the acceptance of a Lawgiver or God authoritatively above us is the necessary starting place.

    2) Me: To word that more accurately, morality flows from religion. Without God, anything is permissible and what is moral is purely subjective. 

    You: Really? Then explain why secular nations are generally better off with human rights than religious nations.

    Me: You would have to give an example for me to comment on that. America was founded on Biblical Principles and has a better track record than any other nation of which I can think. Also, how do you define "better off" and where do humans get their rights in your view?

    3) Me: If morality is purely subjective, there is no consistent ethic by definition.  

    You: Even with a god, morality IS subjective. For example: To you, littering can be morally right, but to someone else, it's morally wrong. Everyone has an opinion of what is morally right and wrong.

    Me: With God, morality is what He says it is. As the Creator of all things and the One who designates their purpose, it is a natural consequence that to live outside this purpose constitutes immorality. If people ignore this God, or worship a false god, that does not validate their opinion.
    Zombieguy1987piloteer
  • dboxdbox 25 Pts

    Surprisingly, yes lol.
    Zombieguy1987
  • ethang5 said:
    @dbox

    Lol. Did you really think he was going to show you any fallacy?

    its called patience. I have other things to do sometimes 

    https://www.google.com/search?q=victims+of+religion&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=x&ved=0ahukewihu9jugorfahwkmeakhbtib00q_auidigb&biw=1920&bih=963&safe=active

    Socialism/Communism are great on paper, but all you need to do is look at Venezuela or North Korea see why these economic systems fail

    Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom 

    http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  • dbox said:
    @Zombieguy1987

    Your disagreeing with me is a difference of opinion, not proof of fallacy. What is my fallacy?

    You're still saying that morality is objective, when it's not. However, an objective truth is objective. For example, littering the ground is bad for the environment is an objective truth, but isn't objectively immoral. 

    1) Me: Not every religious worldview can provide a consistent ethic, but religion is the necessary prerequisite for morality.

    You: No it's not. Religion teaches immorality like murder, rape genocide etc.

    Me: While there may be some that do, not every Religion does. Naturalism or atheism has no foundation by which you can say how people should act morally. Religion, or Supernaturalism provides objective standards or laws by which one can judge the morality of an action. Again, this is not every Religion, but the acceptance of a Lawgiver or God authoritatively above us is the necessary starting place.

    Name me one religion that doesn't teach immoral things

    2) Me: To word that more accurately, morality flows from religion. Without God, anything is permissible and what is moral is purely subjective. 

    You: Really? Then explain why secular nations are generally better off with human rights than religious nations.

    Me: You would have to give an example for me to comment on that.

    First, let's see what the definition on secularism is

    Secularism In political terms, secularism is the principle of the separation of government institutions and persons mandated to represent the state from religious institution and religious dignitaries (the attainment of such is termed secularity)

    In the 1st amendment of the U.S constitution, religion and state are to be separated. This means America is secular, and  has a better humans right record compared to say Saudi Arabia, where Islam isn't separate from the government  

    America was founded on Biblical Principles and has a better track record than any other nation of which I can think. Also, how do you define "better off" and where do humans get their rights in your view?

    3) Me: If morality is purely subjective, there is no consistent ethic by definition.  

    You: Even with a god, morality IS subjective. For example: To you, littering can be morally right, but to someone else, it's morally wrong. Everyone has an opinion of what is morally right and wrong.

    Me: With God, morality is what He says it is.

    So, according to god, it is alright to kill people who don't support his religion?

    That doesn't right at all.

    As the Creator of all things and the One who designates their purpose, it is a natural consequence that to live outside this purpose constitutes immorality.

    Do you any evidence to prove that?

    If people ignore this God, or worship a false god, that does not validate their opinion.

    I ignore god, and my opinion has more valid than any crazy claim I've seen from the religious 

    piloteer
    https://www.google.com/search?q=victims+of+religion&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=x&ved=0ahukewihu9jugorfahwkmeakhbtib00q_auidigb&biw=1920&bih=963&safe=active

    Socialism/Communism are great on paper, but all you need to do is look at Venezuela or North Korea see why these economic systems fail

    Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom 

    http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  • There seems to be a confusion among many believers between "lack of morality" and "subjective morality". Subjective morality does not mean morality does not exist, it means it is only well defined for the given person, not for some kind of objective space.

    Just because your "holy book", be it the Bible, Torah, Quran, Mein Kampf, Capital or whatever else, tells you that it defines the truth - does not make it true. A book is just a book. Get out of your intellectual shell and explore other world views and ideologies around you - and you will see that your book is nothing special.

    The Bible and the Quran are probably the two most influential books nowadays, that is true. But a few decades ago it was Capital and Mein Kampf. Hardly makes those books authoritative or sensible - desperate people have always clung to various totalitarian ideologies, and some ideologies simply managed to raise the largest cults over the history of mankind. It could have been anything else easily. Could have been Commentāriī dē Bellō Gallicō by Caesar instead, if the assassination attempt had failed, for example: the guy built probably the strongest personality cult in Rome to date, and if only he was given a few more years to rule unconditionally - who knows... History is, by large, a product of chance.

    I would say that the Bible has some good points, but it hardly said anything new. "Take care of your brother?" That notion has existed for as long as humanity has; at the very least, in the oldest book we have uncovered, The Epic of Gilgamesh, it is one of the central points. "Sins cannot be repaired, but can be repented?" Persian and Greek philosophers said that long before the word "Bible" existed. "Do not be greedy"? The most primal tribes had the principle of reciprocity as a foundation of their economical systems.
    The Quran is much more militant, however, and it was designed specifically for conquest. Still, it does have some good ideas as far as one's spiritual state goes.

    These books are interesting, but by no means novel. They simply synthesized popular ideas into coherent systems. I would say The Sutras stood out much more in this regard, as they were one of the earliest attempts to create a link between the physical and the spiritual. In a way, they laid a foundation for a systematic approach to what is nowadays known as "wellness".

    If I were asked to name the most impactful and influential book of all times, I would name Newton's Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica. This is literally a book that took us from cavemen to who we are today. That was not just a synthesis of popular ideas; it was a push that, without Newton's genius, could easily take us a few more centuries to complete.

    The Bible? Created a cult and popularized the fantasy genre, but in terms of moving humanity forward, I would say it played a very small role; mostly a negative one. I do not think, as some historians suggest, that the Bible is what led us from the age of science and prosperity to Dark Ages (I think it would happen in any case, maybe with a different ideology, or with no ideology at all and just with an economical collapse) - but it certainly did not help us get out of there.
    Ironically, Saladin (who was a strongly devoted Muslim) probably made much more good for the Christian world, than Christians themselves. He was the one who exposed all the corruption and technological lag of Europe behind the Arab world, and caused Europeans to rethink their system and to modernize.
    Zombieguy1987
  • piloteerpiloteer 185 Pts
    edited January 19
    @dbox

    For you to demonstrate that religious ethical codes are objective, you would need to show that they've been consistent throughout time and across all borders. Even today, it can be demonstrated that ethical codes vary from region to region, so it's going to be next to impossible for you to show us that religious ethical codes are objective. Give it a try though. Because a little evidence to back your claim that "morality flows from religion" would truly make your claim objective. Until that happens, your claims are empirical, and empiricism is the antithesis of objectivity.
    Zombieguy1987
  • piloteer said:
     Evidence


    @piloteer ; Aww, thank you for considering me a friend. Perhaps someday we will meet in the kingdom heaven, I get that feeling I would be a party crasher if I got in. If I did get in, I get the feeling that Saint Peter might lose his job. Thanks for accepting my friend request though.

    Everyone here is my friend, my only enemies are the ones who hate me, not that I hate them. I would love to meet anyone here at any time, and would hug them all, even the ones who would shrug away from me.

    piloteer- Being a slave to someone means that we work for them and receive nothing in return. Obviously, it would be in the best interest of the slave owner to at least compensate their slaves with food and water and a shelter so they can continue to be slaves. I wasn't talking about a metaphorical slavery, I was talking about actual slavery.

    So was I. Look: The slaves had a place to sleep, on the land the Master owned. If the slave didn't work, he was severily punished and was forced to sleep outside. They received food which they had to cook.
    We have a place to sleep in a house and on the land the Master owns, the Banks. If we don't work, we are forced to sleep outside under newspapers. We receive the check to buy the food from the Masters, and we have to cook.
    Except for the rich slave owners, the average human didn't live better than the slaves. Not much changed, the only thing is that they don't call us slaves, but loose your job and you wake up to reality, right?

    piloteer - I fail to see how somebody else's personal decision of being gay causes me to work without compensation. You can't say for sure that anybody who identifies as a member of the LGBTQ community will not be welcome in the kingdom heaven.

    Yes my friend, you're not the only one who acts as if you're more merciful than God. Remember Billy Graham?


    Maybe a repented ex-member of the LGBT, in the Kingdom of Heaven, .. but not a full blown gay FTM! Besides, just how confused is that person? Female To Male who turns gay, .. or like this MTF young man Cara Delavigne
    Related image
    who is a lesbian lol ????? "Dude looks like a lady, but is lesbian", .. go figure.

    God created male and female, Satan creates the opposite; turns men female, and women male, and have them cheat .. well of course. But I doubt they can fool God. Nobody enters through "another gate", there is only One Way, One Gate, .. sorry Mr. Billy Graham, and Herr Sculler  you can knock, but you can't come in.

    piloteer - So your only gripe with communism is their tendency to be atheist, but you have no qualms with every other aspect of communism? I politely disagree with your claim that we are collective, and I'm not convinced that the bible says God regards us in that manner.

    Well once you have an organization that denies God, even what seems right in their rules will be performed wrong, or backwards. Kind of "perverted form of justice". Like todays 'gender confusion'.

    piloteer - Lets suppose our government outlawed all sin and enforced those laws with death sentences. Would that make all of society saints? If we abide by God's word out of fear of reprisal, we're not living by his word because of our acceptance of his word. God wants us to live by his word of our own free will, if we're forced to do it by law, God would not consider that righteous, he would consider it sinful. God knows that you can't force people to be charitable, only the ones who do it of their own free will are the truly righteous ones.

    No, you cannot force love, and God would never do that. But it sure is easy to create hate. This is why Satan is pushing this LGBT agenda, to confuse people into hating what is right, what is just. Look up FTM, or MTF surgeries on YouTube and you will not believe at what age they push this on people? Even infants are now chosen the opposite sex by parents, now how messed up is that?

    The reason God makes laws is for the lawbreakers, it is not for those who are righteous and law abiding. It's Satan who twists the truth making Gods laws as something burdensome to make people hate God. When was the last time God forced His laws on anyone? God Does Not force, but warns, and this He does sending Prophets, or just those who love Gods laws. But yes, God does judge and punish, which is what we have; law and order or else punishment.
    Tell me, do our government FORCE the laws, or enforce them?
    But yes, when Gods laws of nature is changed, then it is forced on everyone that disagrees with these new laws, like that hideous-Tranny teaching those innocent kindergarteners to be trannies. This is where chaos comes in, and then good people who like to stir things up a bit for fun, to see a little chaos end up supporting it, until it's too late. Just like communism, even the ones who supported it in the beginning ended up regretting it later on.

    Why, you don't like Gods justice system He set in place for humanity?
    Why do you want to change it? You want to see how chaos would feel like? You will, unfortunately we'll all suffer because of it!
  • dboxdbox 25 Pts
    piloteer said:
    @dbox

    For you to demonstrate that religious ethical codes are objective, you would need to show that they've been consistent throughout time and across all borders. Even today, it can be demonstrated that ethical codes vary from region to region, so it's going to be next to impossible for you to show us that religious ethical codes are objective. Give it a try though. Because a little evidence to back your claim that "morality flows from religion" would truly make your claim objective. Until that happens, your claims are empirical, and empiricism is the antithesis of objectivity.
    My claim was that a religious worldview is necessary for a consistent and authoritative ethical code, not that every religion is equally valid or that every religion is consistent. What you are asking me to do is defend a claim I do not agree with. My position is that God is foundation from which morality flows, because what is moral is based on the character of God and His Law. I think that atheists/naturalists have morals, but they do not have consistent morals or an authoritative moral voice. In other words, they have no authority to say that someone else has done something morally wrong. 
    Zombieguy1987
  • dboxdbox 25 Pts
    You're still saying that morality is objective, when it's not. However, an objective truth is objective. For example, littering the ground is bad for the environment is an objective truth, but isn't objectively immoral. 

    ----I actually never claimed that morality is objective. My claim is that the only possible way one can have a consistent and authoritative moral/ethical code is if they start with religion/supernaturalism, where God is the moral authority. 

    1) Me: Not every religious worldview can provide a consistent ethic, but religion is the necessary prerequisite for morality.

    You: No it's not. Religion teaches immorality like murder, rape genocide etc.

    Me: While there may be some that do, not every Religion does. Naturalism or atheism has no foundation by which you can say how people should act morally. Religion, or Supernaturalism provides objective standards or laws by which one can judge the morality of an action. Again, this is not every Religion, but the acceptance of a Lawgiver or God authoritatively above us is the necessary starting place.

    Name me one religion that doesn't teach immoral things

    ----Christianity does not teach that we should practice immorality. 

    2) Me: To word that more accurately, morality flows from religion. Without God, anything is permissible and what is moral is purely subjective. 

    You: Really? Then explain why secular nations are generally better off with human rights than religious nations.

    Me: You would have to give an example for me to comment on that.

    First, let's see what the definition on secularism is

    Secularism In political terms, secularism is the principle of the separation of government institutions and persons mandated to represent the state from religious institution and religious dignitaries (the attainment of such is termed secularity)

    In the 1st amendment of the U.S constitution, religion and state are to be separated. This means America is secular, and  has a better humans right record compared to say Saudi Arabia, where Islam isn't separate from the government  

    ----The 1st Amendment reads, "The congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof". This was written to prevent the establishment of a federal or national Church, like the Church of England. The early States had State Religions (varying Christian denominations), and relied on the Bible to form their personal state Constitutions like South Carolina and Massachusetts, two I can name off the top. Massachusetts' constitution (1780) stated, "as the happiness of the people and the good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend upon piety religion and morality and as these can not be generally diffused though a community but by the institution of the public worship of God, and of public instruction in piety, religion and morality, therefore to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require the legislature, and the legislature shall from time to time authorize and require the several towns, parishes and precincts and other bodies politic or religious societies to make suitable provisions at their own expense for the institution of the public worship of God and for the maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily". The first amendment did not prohibit this. Our nation was not founded as a secular nation. It was founded on Biblical principles. Even the declaration of Independence states that our inalienable rights are God given. That was a political document. Ironically, the 1st Amendment is a government document that made a law concerning religion. 

    America was founded on Biblical Principles and has a better track record than any other nation of which I can think. Also, how do you define "better off" and where do humans get their rights in your view?

    3) Me: If morality is purely subjective, there is no consistent ethic by definition.  

    You: Even with a god, morality IS subjective. For example: To you, littering can be morally right, but to someone else, it's morally wrong. Everyone has an opinion of what is morally right and wrong.

    Me: With God, morality is what He says it is.

    So, according to god, it is alright to kill people who don't support his religion?

    That doesn't right at all.

    ----I'm not sure where you are getting that idea, but no, we are not supposed to kill people who do not worship God. 

    As the Creator of all things and the One who designates their purpose, it is a natural consequence that to live outside this purpose constitutes immorality.

    Do you any evidence to prove that?

    ----Yes, the Bible teaches that to disobey God is sin. Sin is immorality. 
  • dboxdbox 25 Pts
    @Zombieguy1987 @piloteer

    I responded above but didn't tag either of you. And what was my fallacy in my response to piloteer? Is there one or do you just disagree?
  • dbox said:
    @Zombieguy1987 @piloteer

    I responded above but didn't tag either of you. And what was my fallacy in my response to piloteer? Is there one or do you just disagree?

    You still keep claiming that a religious worldview is necessary despite the evidence against it 

    https://www.google.com/search?q=victims+of+religion&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=x&ved=0ahukewihu9jugorfahwkmeakhbtib00q_auidigb&biw=1920&bih=963&safe=active

    Socialism/Communism are great on paper, but all you need to do is look at Venezuela or North Korea see why these economic systems fail

    Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom 

    http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  • dboxdbox 25 Pts
    dbox said:
    @Zombieguy1987 @piloteer

    I responded above but didn't tag either of you. And what was my fallacy in my response to piloteer? Is there one or do you just disagree?

    You still keep claiming that a religious worldview is necessary despite the evidence against it 


    You are misrepresenting my position. I said a religious worldview is necessary in so far as it is needed to provide a consistent and authoritative ethical/moral code. I explained that, and provided arguments against the same being true for naturalists/atheists. Name the fallacy. I have provided points for my position and counterpoints to arguments made against my position. There is plenty of material for you to show me where my logic is flawed, invalid or unsound. There is no "I disagree" fallacy. 
  • @dbox

    This is demonstrably incorrect: the ethical/moral code can come from any source, any ideology, any world view, and the requirement for the existence of a supernatural being is not relevant in any way. You seem to believe that some higher being must have developed the code for it to be authoritative - but, as you well know from your own life, authority can also be held by humans, and you face that fact every time you collect your paycheck your boss (the authority) provides you with.

    Take any possible ideology. Say, nihilism. That ideology will provide a certain ethical/moral code that favors the actions and mindsets that are in line with that ideology. Has that ideology been made by "god", or, at least, do people claim it to have been made by "god"? No. Does not mean it is not a valid ideology, and does not mean the ethical/moral code it prescribes is not authoritative from the point of view of those following it.

    Concepts should be authoritative based on their objective prescriptions, not on who came up with them. "God" or no "god", anyone makes mistakes - facts and logic, however, do not, hence they must be the highest authority. Higher even than the being you believe has created the world.
    Zombieguy1987whiteflame
  • piloteerpiloteer 185 Pts
    edited January 22
    @dbox

    I'm not sure how this whole fallacy question came up on this thread. I don't even know where it came from. I'm not sure what fallacy you're supposed to respond to. I don't think you or anybody on here has stated a fallacy. All I'm asking you to do is try and take your claim that "morality flows from religion" out of the realm of conjecture and into an objectively based argument.

    None of what your saying shows that religious ethical codes are objective. All we have from you thus far is an empirical claim that morality flows from religion. You can give us objective evidence to demonstrate that, then and only then will you have a convincing claim that morality is objective. You don't need to choose all religion as a whole if you don't want to. I'm challenging you to pick any moral or ethical code you'd like and demonstrate how it is objective (applies to everybody) and how it is authoritative. 
    Zombieguy1987whiteflame
  • @Evidence

    Whoa whoa whoa, slow down Brohan, you're kinda all over the place now. Let's just take a deep breath first and slowly let it out. Maybe throw on some Dan Folgerberg or Loggins and Messina and slowly breath in,.................and then release. There, do we feel better now? :) 

    First off, we are not slaves to our bosses or places of employment (at least not in the US yet). We are free to choose other places of employment. Our bosses are not slaves to their clientele, they are free to choose other clients, or choose other venues of employment. Your argument here relies on the want of material possessions. Yes, if you want to bring home the papers (slang for: make lots of money), you're gonna wanna go ham (more slang for: Hard As a Motherfunker(replace the "n" in funker with "ck" and you'll get the real meaning)). We are free to live minimally, we don't need to make lots of money to be happy. There's an obvious difference between being a slave who has only the choice to work for their master or die, and those who can choose their place of employment. Although, I do live in an apartment so I do not own my property, there are people who do own their property so far as, they do not owe any money to any banks and they only owe property taxes on said property. The entity who they pay the taxes to recognize the homeowners as the respected property owners of that property. They are not slaves to any banks. Other people's choice to be gay doesn't adversely affect anybody's homeownership status, or their right to choose other venues of employment. The supposed sins of others do not adversely affect the possibility of "righteous people" from getting into heaven. If the sins of those people  do incite the apocalypse, all those who embrace Jesus Christ as their Lord and savior will be spared. Like I've said before, God promised he won't wipe out all of humanity with a great flood. If YOU consider yourself a believer in the miracle of Jesus, then you won't need to worry about how the sins of others will bring on the apocalypse, because you'll be removed from the suffering during the rapture. You won't even get to see all the fun stuff like the rest of us. 

    This leads me to my next point, which you didn't really address (Well, you sorta did, bit it didn't really make sense). Are we actually a collective in God's eyes? This harkens back to my argument that I made about God's promise that he won't kill all of humanity because he gave us the miracle of Jesus, so we can properly atone for, and hopefully be forgiven of our sins. It was the Protestants who tried to drive home the fact that we all have a personal relationship with God, and we can speak to him whenever we want. The Protestants denied the authoritative doctrines of the Catholic church and went against Catholic law and began translating the bible into many different languages and began teaching believers how to read so they could translate it in their own manner. Within the scriptures of the bible we can see how the bible encourages this freedom of interpretation. God is against a governmental form of religion because he wants us as individuals to be free to interpret his word in our own manner because we have a personal relationship with God. Obviously, with this system of freedom to interpret God's word in place, we can only conclude that any individual concept of morality is merely subjective. That's the way God intends it!
    Evidence
  • piloteer said:
    @Evidence

    Whoa whoa whoa, slow down Brohan, you're kinda all over the place now. Let's just take a deep breath first and slowly let it out. Maybe throw on some Dan Folgerberg or Loggins and Messina and slowly breath in,.................and then release. There, do we feel better now? :) 

    First off, we are not slaves to our bosses or places of employment (at least not in the US yet). We are free to choose other places of employment. Our bosses are not slaves to their clientele, they are free to choose other clients, or choose other venues of employment. Your argument here relies on the want of material possessions. Yes, if you want to bring home the papers (slang for: make lots of money), you're gonna wanna go ham (more slang for: Hard As a Motherfunker(replace the "n" in funker with "ck" and you'll get the real meaning)). We are free to live minimally, we don't need to make lots of money to be happy. There's an obvious difference between being a slave who has only the choice to work for their master or die, and those who can choose their place of employment. Although, I do live in an apartment so I do not own my property, there are people who do own their property so far as, they do not owe any money to any banks and they only owe property taxes on said property. The entity who they pay the taxes to recognize the homeowners as the respected property owners of that property. They are not slaves to any banks. Other people's choice to be gay doesn't adversely affect anybody's homeownership status, or their right to choose other venues of employment. The supposed sins of others do not adversely affect the possibility of "righteous people" from getting into heaven. If the sins of those people  do incite the apocalypse, all those who embrace Jesus Christ as their Lord and savior will be spared. Like I've said before, God promised he won't wipe out all of humanity with a great flood. If YOU consider yourself a believer in the miracle of Jesus, then you won't need to worry about how the sins of others will bring on the apocalypse, because you'll be removed from the suffering during the rapture. You won't even get to see all the fun stuff like the rest of us. 

    This leads me to my next point, which you didn't really address (Well, you sorta did, bit it didn't really make sense). Are we actually a collective in God's eyes? This harkens back to my argument that I made about God's promise that he won't kill all of humanity because he gave us the miracle of Jesus, so we can properly atone for, and hopefully be forgiven of our sins. It was the Protestants who tried to drive home the fact that we all have a personal relationship with God, and we can speak to him whenever we want. The Protestants denied the authoritative doctrines of the Catholic church and went against Catholic law and began translating the bible into many different languages and began teaching believers how to read so they could translate it in their own manner. Within the scriptures of the bible we can see how the bible encourages this freedom of interpretation. God is against a governmental form of religion because he wants us as individuals to be free to interpret his word in our own manner because we have a personal relationship with God. Obviously, with this system of freedom to interpret God's word in place, we can only conclude that any individual concept of morality is merely subjective. That's the way God intends it!
    Thank you for your response, .. I took my shirt off, put on my leotards and put on some Queen singing "We are the champions, ..

    Didn't help any, or made me change my mind where you're coming from?
    It's true, slavery has greatly improved, it's almost like we're not slaves. But the reality is that we are all slaves no matter which country you live in. Only some countries have these chains around our necks that are invisible, or as if they weren't there, until you do something they don't like, then you feel their yank, .. break your neck if you don't submit.

    Go around and ask your fellow man if most of them are not stuck with one slave owner? That's all I hear people hating their jobs.
    But true, according to what we know, the US is far better than being a slave in other Master Countries. But that's exactly how it was in the South too, some slave owners were hell, and others so nice that the slaves didn't want to leave them.

    See I'm talking from the pre-fall of man perspective, not after the fall. I call freedom in the Garden, .. and after the fall we all fell into slavery unto death do us part.

    The sins of others can and will bring all of us down, remember Lot, he escaped by the skin of his teeth. And if he wasn't practically dragged out of there, he too would have been burnt up.
    The Tranny in that video is just like Sodom and Gomorrah if we don't try to put a stop to it, .. or at least speak up against this LGBT militant horde, we shall all perish.

    Yes, taxes. Taxes on our land is the first invisible chains they put on us! And now, we look like Mr. 'T' with all the Taxation chains around our necks:
    Image result for mr t
    "I Pity the fool who thinks he ain't no slave!"
    Did you know Mr. T is a Christian?

    I agree that God finally used a Catholic to pry the Scriptures from Popes hands (and his clergy) and let us all read it. Too bad he didn't go far enough from the organized Church, but remained the derogatory word "Christian", and a Triune-gods worshipper.

    Hey, aren't you an atheist? What made you leave Catholics?
  • People who believe that their boss is a slave owner are the laziest people in the world. Those people who want to do nothing, yet have everything. People who spend their free time watching Netflix or hanging out with friends, instead of gaining new skills, perfecting their craft, planning their finances, etc - and then wonder why their boss is much richer than them.

    Just a few centuries ago, when Christianity was at its peak, it was very common for people to work 14 hours a day with no days-off or vacations. They had to pay the tithes to the church, taxes to the government, tribute to the land's owner, and still have enough time and goods left to make all the repairs at the house, provide their family with food and money, and give all the bribes without which nothing could be done.
    And a similar matter of affairs has been the norm for almost the entirety of human history. And it is even worse for wild animals, most of which have two states: work and sleep. If you do not work, if you lay down in the bushes instead of hunting - then you die.

    We live at the times of the laziest, most entitled and spoiled Western society in the history of mankind. People can have absolutely no skills, work 20 hours weeks in a comfy office filling Excel tables with numbers from books, and make enough money to afford things that just 50 years ago were in the realm of the most daring science fiction. In fact, you can get a lot without paying a dime today: just take a large loan from the bank and use the money you do not have to purchase services and goods for many years, before your debt catches up with you.

    And this is the time when people see their employers as slavers and are scared of LGBT marches? Pathetic. Most people today would not last a few hours back in the days of the glorious Christian totalitarianism.

    That said, some people today are slaves. Slaves to their self-defeating ideologies that make them justify their constant failure at producing positive outcomes in their lives. Socialism, Communism, Nationalism, Fascism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Nihilism, Egoism... So many systems people have developed over the millennia to escape the concept of individual responsibility and put the responsibility for their failures on someone else. Some even go as far as to deny basic facts, finding mental refuge in wild conspiracy theories or esoteric philosophies, to avoid having to face one simple fact: their life is a mess because of how they approach it, and not because of some external evil.

    Does the government rob us? Yes. Why? Because of the people who think like this. People who constantly blame someone else for their failures and expect that someone else to pay back, to pay for something they never purchased. "My employer earns more than me, while working less than me? Unfair! He must pay his fair share!" And when the critical mass of people has said it, the robbery begins.

    I find it curious how orthodox Christians tend to frown upon socialists whose ideology of materialism rejects religion, while in actuality that ideology is a twin of their own ideology. There is a good reason theocratic and socialist governments have always had such similar results in the state-building: they are simply different manifestations of the same core ideology, same core principle. And that principle is escaping the world of facts for the world of fantasies, the world of individual responsibility for the world of collective responsibility. Whether you punish "infidels", or you punish "greedy corporations", you still do the same thing, you just label it differently.

    ---

    Atheism is a necessary, but far from a sufficient condition for being a free person. Rejecting religion is the first step for some towards diving deep in the world of facts, but there are hundreds more significant steps that need to be taken before the state is achieved. Not believing in god, but believing, say, in "social justice" is just another fantasy made in order for one to avoid having to face crude facts. It is much like drinking vodka or smoking marijuana to escape reality, except the substance is mental and not physical.

    The worst form of slavery is the mental one. Slavery to the "feels-good" ideas over the "is-right" ideas. And that slavery has always, and probably will always be, prevalent.
    Zombieguy1987Evidence
  • @piloteer ;

    :Whoa, you seem pretty angry. 

    And since you're a liberal, we know you will conflate reality for how things seem to you.

    :It probably has to do with the fact that when I make arguments, people agree with me.

    Liberals are so predictable. You think how many "agree" with you means you're right, and that conservatives care.

    :You shouldn't let that bother you because it's going to continue. 

    What I hope would continue would be some thinking on your position. But if for you popularity is a goal, you can claim that prize. A lack of confidence is not a part of me.

    :Yes, I do believe that NO morality is authorative. 

    Thank you. 

    But if you remember, our actual agreement was on the principle that "If a morality were authoritative, it would be objective.

    Now, can you tell me, why do you think an authoritative morality (if it existed)would be objective? Can you say?

    My guess is when you think it through, you will dodge the natural consequence of what you just agreed to. Because that is what liberals do. They ignore inconvenient truths by playing obtuse.

    I find it quaint.
  • @ethang5

    Whether or not morality can be an authority because it's objective doesn't matter, because morality isn't objective, and I've seen a complete lack of ability from anyone on this thread to be able to provide any evidence that demonstrates how morality is objective. That's kinda the problem with claims of something being objective, you gotta prove it by providing convincing evidence. There are no such things as assumed truths, or untouchable foundational principles that are left alone for the sake of making people comfortable. Everything deserves objective scrutiny, even "Gods laws". Leave us not forget that it was you who claimed that morality is objective, yet you've done nothing to even begin to prove it. You've made a claim that something is objective, but until you can provide convincing evidence of that, it's not objective, it's just a baseless claim. I can say that I agreed with the idea that morality cannot be an authority if it's not objective, but that point is moot until somebody demonstrates that morality is indeed objective. That ship won't ever leave the dock until you or anybody else can prove that morality is objective. And yes, you're right, I am pretty popular. Probably because of my endless charm and intoxicating beauty. 
  • @Evidence …………. "but religiously seek the best source for your morality, which, hands down is the Bible."
    My problem IS the Bible. Many call it "The Word of God". I think not. The Bibles parts were written in either Ancient Hebrew or Aramaic, on stone, Papyrus, etc. Sometimes fragments of which survived. THIS was "interpreted" and written several times by hand, then "translated" into ancient koine Greek, and copied several times by hand, then "translated" into Latin and copied by hand several times, and then "translated" into Elizabethan English and printed, with opportunities for error and confusion at EVERY stage. "Translating" is, at best, a guess when it is from an ancient language. The name "Bible" translates into "little library" in one of those languages, I forget which. It IS a "translated library of short stories" put together largely by a religious Emperor, Constantine, who "decided" what to include from these earlier "writings", put together from stone fragments and readable(?) papyrus several hundred years after the "fact", and how they would be interpreted.
    I am not about to take my morality from the editing of an Emperor. If it is the "Word of God" and the original author shows Itself and signs a copy, I'll believe and follow. 'til then, I'll have to consider morals that are accepted by majority society as my hands down source. They actually follow the Bible's common sense, for the most part, but make exceptions for what science and other "lessons learned" over the centuries tell us. I respect your beliefs. They're just not mine.
    Zombieguy1987
  • MayCaesar said:
    People who believe that their boss is a slave owner are the laziest people in the world. Those people who want to do nothing, yet have everything. People who spend their free time watching Netflix or hanging out with friends, instead of gaining new skills, perfecting their craft, planning their finances, etc - and then wonder why their boss is much richer than them.

    Just a few centuries ago, when Christianity was at its peak, it was very common for people to work 14 hours a day with no days-off or vacations. They had to pay the tithes to the church, taxes to the government, tribute to the land's owner, and still have enough time and goods left to make all the repairs at the house, provide their family with food and money, and give all the bribes without which nothing could be done.
    And a similar matter of affairs has been the norm for almost the entirety of human history. And it is even worse for wild animals, most of which have two states: work and sleep. If you do not work, if you lay down in the bushes instead of hunting - then you die.

    We live at the times of the laziest, most entitled and spoiled Western society in the history of mankind. People can have absolutely no skills, work 20 hours weeks in a comfy office filling Excel tables with numbers from books, and make enough money to afford things that just 50 years ago were in the realm of the most daring science fiction. In fact, you can get a lot without paying a dime today: just take a large loan from the bank and use the money you do not have to purchase services and goods for many years, before your debt catches up with you.

    And this is the time when people see their employers as slavers and are scared of LGBT marches? Pathetic. Most people today would not last a few hours back in the days of the glorious Christian totalitarianism.

    That said, some people today are slaves. Slaves to their self-defeating ideologies that make them justify their constant failure at producing positive outcomes in their lives. Socialism, Communism, Nationalism, Fascism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Nihilism, Egoism... So many systems people have developed over the millennia to escape the concept of individual responsibility and put the responsibility for their failures on someone else. Some even go as far as to deny basic facts, finding mental refuge in wild conspiracy theories or esoteric philosophies, to avoid having to face one simple fact: their life is a mess because of how they approach it, and not because of some external evil.

    Does the government rob us? Yes. Why? Because of the people who think like this. People who constantly blame someone else for their failures and expect that someone else to pay back, to pay for something they never purchased. "My employer earns more than me, while working less than me? Unfair! He must pay his fair share!" And when the critical mass of people has said it, the robbery begins.

    I find it curious how orthodox Christians tend to frown upon socialists whose ideology of materialism rejects religion, while in actuality that ideology is a twin of their own ideology. There is a good reason theocratic and socialist governments have always had such similar results in the state-building: they are simply different manifestations of the same core ideology, same core principle. And that principle is escaping the world of facts for the world of fantasies, the world of individual responsibility for the world of collective responsibility. Whether you punish "infidels", or you punish "greedy corporations", you still do the same thing, you just label it differently.

    ---

    Atheism is a necessary, but far from a sufficient condition for being a free person. Rejecting religion is the first step for some towards diving deep in the world of facts, but there are hundreds more significant steps that need to be taken before the state is achieved. Not believing in god, but believing, say, in "social justice" is just another fantasy made in order for one to avoid having to face crude facts. It is much like drinking vodka or smoking marijuana to escape reality, except the substance is mental and not physical.

    The worst form of slavery is the mental one. Slavery to the "feels-good" ideas over the "is-right" ideas. And that slavery has always, and probably will always be, prevalent.

    @MayCaesar
    I know why my boss was much richer than me, I only worked 12 hour days for him, but he worked 16 hour days to keep his company going. On Saturdays I only worked 6 hours, and I had Sunday off, to sleep the whole day, while my boss worried about getting jobs for us so he could pay us for the next payroll. I never said we are slaves to our bosses, we are all slaves, .. to ideologies, Religions, ignorance, and the "I don't care just complain" attitude and those other things you said.

    I agree with the rest of what you wrote, only your "unthinking conformist" part of your ideology I don't agree with, the biggest part is your confusion of the Bible with Religious interpretation.
    We are all slaves:

    Romans 6:9 I am speaking in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. Just as you used to offer the parts of your body in slavery to impurity and to escalating wickedness, so now offer them in slavery to righteousness leading to holiness. 20For when you were slaves to sin, you were free of obligation to righteousness. 21 What fruit did you reap at that time from the things of which you are now ashamed? The outcome of those things is death.…

     .. but not like the Christian Religion interpreted it for 1,700 years: "We are all servants of God, .. and I  (the Pope, Priest, Minister) am God!"
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch