Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-12-2020, 09:55 PM
 
17,311 posts, read 12,263,996 times
Reputation: 17263

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdaelectro View Post
Yet another knowledge claim that violates the law of non-contradiction. How do you KNOW what you proclaim? You're entering into the realm of relativism where nothing makes sense If thats the case, then why even argue with me?
Because proofs require evidence. Evidence of absence of something that set everything in motion and is set on not revealing itself as a test of faith is untenable. Burden of proof is on those asserting there is a God.

The software I run must be programmed to do so?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-12-2020, 10:07 PM
 
2,770 posts, read 2,606,257 times
Reputation: 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by notnamed View Post
Burden of proof is on those asserting there is a God.
Likewise, asserting there is no God, is a knowledge claim, therefore placing the burden of proof on the atheist. You're an agnostic though, that seems unwilling to follow the logical path to a creator.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2020, 10:09 PM
 
17,311 posts, read 12,263,996 times
Reputation: 17263
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdaelectro View Post
Likewise, asserting there is no God, is a knowledge claim, therefore placing the burden of proof on the atheist.
Right, agnostic is the logical position. But many people just aren’t comfortable with a “don’t know” and need an assertion one way or the other.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2020, 10:17 PM
 
2,770 posts, read 2,606,257 times
Reputation: 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by notnamed View Post
Right, agnostic is the logical position. But many people just aren’t comfortable with a “don’t know” and need an assertion one way or the other.
Yet, these 'comfortable agnostics' still make moral judgments.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2020, 10:45 PM
 
17,311 posts, read 12,263,996 times
Reputation: 17263
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdaelectro View Post
Yet, these 'comfortable agnostics' still make moral judgments.
Yep, don’t need God to not want to murder someone. The people that say they need religion in order to not want to rape, pillage, and kill are very troubled individuals. Morals developed with society.

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use - Galileo

God of the Bible read literally though? That’s a non-starter. Too many contradictions within itself and with the fossil record and observable universe. Claiming that as a permanent truth for moral judgement is folly.

Then there’s the problem of the origin of stories. Is the flood of Noah an original story? Or just pilfered from the Epic of Gilgamesh which is the oldest known story?

Is there evidence for a worldwide flood? No. Localized flooding where these stories sprung up? Yes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2020, 10:57 PM
 
2,770 posts, read 2,606,257 times
Reputation: 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by notnamed View Post
Yep, don’t need God to not want to murder someone. The people that say they need religion in order to not want to rape, pillage, and kill are very troubled individuals. Morals developed with society.

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use - Galileo

God of the Bible read literally though? That’s a non-starter. Too many contradictions within itself and with the fossil record and observable universe. Claiming that as a permanent truth for moral judgement is folly.

Then there’s the problem of the origin of stories. Is the flood of Noah an original story? Or just pilfered from the Epic of Gilgamesh which is the oldest known story?

Is there evidence for a worldwide flood? No. Localized flooding where these stories sprung up? Yes.
You don't know, you're agnostic, so what does it matter either way?

Morals are ever changing to you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2020, 04:18 AM
 
Location: Just over the horizon
18,462 posts, read 7,098,820 times
Reputation: 11708
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdaelectro View Post
Yet, these 'comfortable agnostics' still make moral judgments.


There are standards of right and wrong that transcend religion.

Do you have to be religious to believe that murder is wrong?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2020, 08:44 AM
 
2,770 posts, read 2,606,257 times
Reputation: 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatBob96 View Post
Do you have to be religious to believe that murder is wrong?
Of course not. I've never said you have to believe in God to make good moral choices. But, without an objective moral standard/objective moral lawgiver, there is no justification or foundation to base such choices on. You can argue that society decides what is morally right, but society is always changing, therefore making morals always subjective. There could evolve a society in which murder is 'good' and 'right'. Actually, I think we've seen that happen on multiple occasions in the previous century.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2020, 09:29 AM
 
17,311 posts, read 12,263,996 times
Reputation: 17263
The idea of an objective moral lawgiver is a hypothesis. Also people read the same thing and come away with many differences and official positions of faith have developed with society as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2020, 10:54 AM
 
2,770 posts, read 2,606,257 times
Reputation: 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by notnamed View Post
The idea of an objective moral lawgiver is a hypothesis. Also people read the same thing and come away with many differences and official positions of faith have developed with society as well.
Indeed. But, just because there are multiple choices/positions doesn't mean there isn't one that is the one objective truth. Likewise if you are taking a multiple choice quiz and there are hundreds of choices, doesn't negate the fact that there is one right answer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top