Any Religion With A Creator God Is Absolutely False

ethang5

@ZeusAres42

The difference between the argument we are making and the caricature of an argument they want us to be making.

>And what is the argument they want you to make?

That morality is not possible without God

 >And What is the argument you are making?

That only an objective morality can be authoritative.

Every atheist I have ever seen answers, "Morality is possible without God/Religion." When we say "Atheist morality is subjective and therefore invalid."

>So you say that Christians say Athiest Morality is subjective and invalid and in response, Atheists say Morality is possible without God/Religion correct? 

Yes.

The Christian is actually making an observation about ethical authority, not directly about God.

>Could you describe this ethical authority at all please that you have observed? 

Look at the example in my definition of authority. A mob my have the "authority" (power/ability) to punish a criminal, but only a valid court has the "authority" (ethical right, along with power/ability) to punish a criminal.

This is why if I shot a prisoner who had been sentenced to death by the state, I would still be charged with murder because I do not have the "authority" to execute him even if I have the power to do so.

The principle behind the Christian's argument doesn't even require God. But when we tell the atheist this, he is so paranoid and trapped in his silly dichotomy, he simply ignores it and persists in thinking the Christian is attempting to advocate God.

The Christian's position is logical. The atheist is free to present an alternative position, but it needs be logical. The standard is, "Is it logical?" Not, "Is God in it?"

>Ok. So what is it that you're trying to advocate yourself?

Nothing. I am opposing the topic of the thread by showing atheists that their subjective, no authority  morality cannot be used to judge anyone.

Pretend, if that is the only way they will think, that they are agnostic. Drop the crippling bias that short circuits their thinking.

Debate step by step, some arguments cannot be laid out in one post.

Simply think, instead of always being an anti-theistic militant.

>What do you hope the atheist will achieve by pretending to be agnostic?

Freedom from the bias that cripples their ability to think clearly.

See? I answered all your questions squarely. Because I have a coherent world-view. If I tried to ask you questions like you just did me, you would dodge, obfuscate, play obtuse, and claim my questions were not pertinent.

You would be slippery because answering honestly would show your worldview to be irrational.

This is why you want to stay asking questions (anal ones at that) so that you don't have to answer any yourself.

ZeusAres42

>And what is the argument they want you to make?

That morality is not possible without God >And What is the argument you are making?That only an objective morality can be authoritative.

This is a valid answer and I can see how one might form this conclusion. Nonetheless, I disagree with this statement. 

There is however, a clear path to a universal and powerful moral objectivity, the view that morality (or most of it, anyway) is just as objectively true as science and mathematics. The key ingredient is the notion of harm. - https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/excellent-beauty/201712/morality-is-objective ;

This all relates to a biological mechanism encoded in all of us.

Every atheist I have ever seen answers, "Morality is possible without God/Religion." When we say "Atheist morality is subjective and therefore invalid."

>So you say that Christians say Athiest Morality is subjective and invalid and in response, Atheists say Morality is possible without God/Religion correct? 

Yes.

And what do you say about agnostic and/or religious morality? Is that too subjective and invalid from your point of view?

The Christian is actually making an observation about ethical authority, not directly about God.

>Could you describe this ethical authority at all please that you have observed? 

Look at the example in my definition of authority. A mob may have the "authority" (power/ability) to punish a criminal, but only a valid court has the "authority" (ethical right, along with power/ability) to punish a criminal.

This is why if I shot a prisoner who had been sentenced to death by the state, I would still be charged with murder because I do not have the "authority" to execute him even if I have the power to do so.

So the judicial system of one nation is also an example of an ethical/moral authority?

The principle behind the Christian's argument doesn't even require God. But when we tell the atheist this, he is so paranoid and trapped in his silly dichotomy, he simply ignores it and persists in thinking the Christian is attempting to advocate God.

The Christian's position is logical. The atheist is free to present an alternative position, but it needs be logical. The standard is, "Is it logical?" Not, "Is God in it?"

>Ok. So what is it that you're trying to advocate yourself?

Nothing. I am opposing the topic of the thread by showing atheists that their subjective, no authority  morality cannot be used to judge anyone.

I agree that while there is a single aspect to refer to in regards to objective morality that there is also a lot of subjectivity surrounding the issues of morality too. A lot of people that preach about morality too are not the authority on what they preach either; they just have the mere illusion of being authoritative the subject. Furthermore, I also think some people get confused about subjectivity and objectivity and don't realize that people can be objective about subjective things and vice versa.

Pretend, if that is the only way they will think, that they are agnostic. Drop the crippling bias that short circuits their thinking.

Debate step by step, some arguments cannot be laid out in one post.

Simply think, instead of always being an anti-theistic militant.

>What do you hope the atheist will achieve by pretending to be agnostic?

Freedom from the bias that cripples their ability to think clearly.

And what bias would that be?

See? I answered all your questions squarely. Because I have a coherent world-view. If I tried to ask you questions like you just did me, you would dodge, obfuscate, play obtuse, and claim my questions were not pertinent.

You would be slippery because answering honestly would show your worldview to be irrational.

This is why you want to stay asking questions (anal ones at that) so that you don't have to answer any yourself.

Don't you think someone with a coherent world-view wouldn't make the assumption that the person they're talking to is some kind of irrational atheist based purely on the premise that they're just merely asking questions which by the way are questions for clarity? 

ethang5

@ZeusAres42

>And what is the argument they want you to make?

That morality is not possible without God

>And What is the argument you are making?

That only an objective morality can be authoritative.

>This is a valid answer and I can see how one might form this conclusion. Nonetheless, I disagree with this statement.

That is good to know. But I don't know if you disagree that atheists want me to make another argument, or that only an objective morality can be authoritative.

That is the kind of evasive equivocation I find common in atheists.

>There is however, a clear path to a universal and powerful moral objectivity, the view that morality (or most of it, anyway) is just as objectively true as science and mathematics. The key ingredient is the notion of harm. - https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/excellent-beauty/201712/morality-is-objective ;

>This all relates to a biological mechanism encoded in all of us.

It is illogical rubbish trying to pose as morality. People who like it are free to use it as their moral standard, but not free to try to pass it off as an objective morality. Truth and logic are not negotiable.

Every atheist I have ever seen answers, "Morality is possible without God/Religion." When we say "Atheist morality is subjective and therefore invalid."

>So you say that Christians say Athiest Morality is subjective and invalid and in response, Atheists say Morality is possible without God/Religion correct? 

Yes.

>And what do you say about agnostic and/or religious morality? Is that too subjective and invalid from your point of view?

There is no such thing as religious morality. Only sentient beings can have a morality. I say the same thing about agnostic morality.

The Christian is actually making an observation about ethical authority, not directly about God.

>Could you describe this ethical authority at all please that you have observed? 

Look at the example in my definition of authority. A mob may have the "authority" (power/ability) to punish a criminal, but only a valid court has the "authority" (ethical right, along with power/ability) to punish a criminal.

This is why if I shot a prisoner who had been sentenced to death by the state, I would still be charged with murder because I do not have the "authority" to execute him even if I have the power to do so.

>So the judicial system of one nation is also an example of an ethical/moral authority? 

It can be. But I think you slightly missed the point.

The principle behind the Christian's argument doesn't even require God. But when we tell the atheist this, he is so paranoid and trapped in his silly dichotomy, he simply ignores it and persists in thinking the Christian is attempting to advocate God.

The Christian's position is logical. The atheist is free to present an alternative position, but it needs be logical. The standard is, "Is it logical?" Not, "Is God in it?"

>Ok. So what is it that you're trying to advocate yourself?

Nothing. I am opposing the topic of the thread by showing atheists that their subjective, no authority  morality cannot be used to judge anyone.

>I agree that while there is a single aspect to refer to in regards to objective morality that there is also a lot of subjectivity surrounding the issues of morality too.

I agree and have not contradicted that.

>A lot of people that preach about morality too are not the authority on what they preach either; they just have the mere illusion of being authoritative the subject.

That is not the meaning of authority used in the ethics of Authority.

Another example. A man enters a house at night and climbs into the bed of a woman sleeping therein.

Her husband has the authority to do so, no one else does. Authority implies the "rightness" to exercise privilege or power. Not the possession of privilege or power.


>Furthermore, I also think some people get confused about subjectivity and objectivity and don't realize that people can be objective about subjective things and vice versa. 

Good to know. But both words have very definite meanings.

Pretend, if that is the only way they will think, that they are agnostic. Drop the crippling bias that short circuits their thinking.

Debate step by step, some arguments cannot be laid out in one post.

Simply think, instead of always being an anti-theistic militant.

>What do you hope the atheist will achieve by pretending to be agnostic?

Freedom from the bias that cripples their ability to think clearly.

>And what bias would that be?

The typical one, a desire to protect a belief they hold that has no evidence in its favor.

Are you an atheist?

See? I answered all your questions squarely. Because I have a coherent world-view. If I tried to ask you questions like you just did me, you would dodge, obfuscate, play obtuse, and claim my questions were not pertinent.

You would be slippery because answering honestly would show your worldview to be irrational.

This is why you want to stay asking questions (anal ones at that) so that you don't have to answer any yourself.

>Don't you think someone with a coherent world-view wouldn't make the assumption that the person they're talking to is some kind of irrational atheist based purely on the premise that they're just merely asking questions which by the way are questions for clarity?

I made no assumption. Atheism is irrational. And I gave healthy respect to my 57 years of experience. If I am wrong about you, you will be highly uncommon, and I will be both refreshed and apologetic.

Iamachristian

What Aranea said:
Any religion with a creator god is absolutely false because of this: If god creates the universe, then there is a sequence of prior creation --> creation --> post creation. So, if god is now bound to a sequence, that means there's a higher rule than god and thus god is no longer god.
How do you know this? did you show any proof? God created the Universe.

Source: https://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html 

More Websites: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/existence-nature-of-god/does-god-exist/
https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2016/05/three_problems_with_the_big_bang.html 
https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/aquinas3.asp
You can read those websites in your spare time.
Pslam 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

The Topic is 

Any Religion With A Creator God Is Absolutely False

P.S:Why are you calling other people ?

  

RickeyD

@Aranea ; Jesus Christ-Yeshua is God, Creator, Lord, Messiah, Judge, and irrespective of what any satanically-inspired atheist might say or think, Jesus Christ will be their Judge in Eternity and without Jesus Christ as Mediator and Messiah for the forgiveness of sin, the atheist will die in their sin and die a second death in Hell in their rebellious insanity to what they intuitively know to be Truth (Revelation 20:11-15).