Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [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)
 
Old 04-01-2020, 12:27 PM
 
63,556 posts, read 39,836,934 times
Reputation: 7817

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes View Post
As you obviously have a minimal grasp of logic, let me help. If a god decides what is moral, then that morality is subjective, not objective, which must be true if we or a god exists or not. A god can only agree with objective morality, it can not create it. So the objective truth creating Christian god that IWas believes in can not exist.
Let me expose the presumption underlying your assertion - that morality is a result of the WILL of God instead of simply being an intrinsic aspect of the requirements for the very existence of God and having nothing to do with WILL. The vast majority of the requirements of our existence as physical beings have nothing to do with our WILL either. I have no issue with your refutations of the many attributes and beliefs ABOUT God, such as IWMN's. They are separate issues from the mere existence of God and the concept of morality that is endemic to the existence of God.
Quote:
You really should just stay with your area of expertise, tossing word salad, because when you invent excuses for things you have no idea about, it does your credibility no good.
You just need to keep working on your reading comprehension. You apparently have done a superb job given the language issues but more is needed or the word salad nonsense would not continue to plague you.

 
Old 04-01-2020, 01:23 PM
 
Location: Canada
2,962 posts, read 856,727 times
Reputation: 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe View Post
Are you perhaps new to watching debate of this sort? Is this offer to post videos of interest to others a new found joy of Googling for videos? You have a very curious and unique way of exchanging opinion in this forum. It's almost more like an interest in being mediator or judge of how others share their opinions. Or is it just the want to keep stirring the pot? Keeping your thread alive? Not sure what, but I'm sure I've never seen anyone else do like you do in these regards. Just my observation is all, for what little it may be worth.

If to simply keep the thread alive, seems to be working!
I'm not that hard to understand. Here are some "clues" to decipher...

-----
* I know that people don't change their worldview as the result of an online debate.

* I seek genuine conversation. (DMs seem to work best for this; egos take over on public forums)

* Hostile, disrespectful responses are common from the anti-theists on R&S. I don't enjoy combative exchanges and avoid participating in them. I see it as juvenile.

* I expect to be mocked and insulted by anti-theists, whatever I post, so I'd rather spend minimal time posting link or a video (containing quality info). Quick and informative... for people who are actually interested in learning about the topic. *Atheists are free to ignore them, of course.

* I have seen all the arguments, multiple times, and it's a waste of time (and crazy) to keep repeating the same action, expecting different results. There really is no incentive for me to spend my time "putting things in my own words" just to provide someone else with the opportunity to repeat their objections to it, yet one more time.
-----
 
Old 04-01-2020, 01:23 PM
 
Location: S. Wales.
50,082 posts, read 20,571,542 times
Reputation: 5927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew View Post
Debate: Do Objective Moral Values Exist?
Dr SJ Thomason (Christian) vs. Skylar Fiction (Atheist)
LIVE now...



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRwf8m7yAkM
A pointless discussion. Taking the Ontological view, no, there is no factual basis for morality. End of discussion. So the only valid discussion is the epistemological one - what is better for humanity.The 'Golden Rule' has been a standard for a long time. This is the basis of human morality. The discussion is over before it's begun and before we even get to trying to make religion some kind of valid moral basis.
 
Old 04-01-2020, 01:59 PM
 
Location: Canada
2,962 posts, read 856,727 times
Reputation: 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER View Post
A pointless discussion. Taking the Ontological view, no, there is no factual basis for morality. End of discussion. So the only valid discussion is the epistemological one - what is better for humanity.The 'Golden Rule' has been a standard for a long time. This is the basis of human morality. The discussion is over before it's begun and before we even get to trying to make religion some kind of valid moral basis.
"the Golden Rule' has been a standard for a long time"
If this statement is accepted as fact, what then can be reasonably concluded from it?


Speaking of objective morality, would you be willing to answer the worldview questionnaire? (It includes a Q about objective morality)...

Worldview Questionnaire:

* What term best describes your worldview?

* What term best describes your political leanings?

* Do you believe in macro-evolution (common ancestor/descent)?

* Do you believe in abiogesis? (biological evolution from inorganic materials; life from non-life)

* Do you believe the entire universe (time, space and matter) originated from nothing, by chance?

* Does free-will exist?

* Does objective truth exist?

* Does objective morality exist?

* Do you believe in life after death?

* Do you believe in anything paranormal or supernatural?
 
Old 04-01-2020, 02:02 PM
 
10,800 posts, read 3,572,165 times
Reputation: 5950
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes View Post
Yes, because I can, and do, refute the low quality videos you post.



True, but you neither seek nor challenge the best. You post arguments that refute your position, and then avoid ALL posts that explain how and why your low quality videos are wrong, or ad hominem the people making the (usually) high quality responses.

So you can stop pretending you are the one being rational or honest.



Seriously? You mean such as reading the NT in it's original Koine Greek? That is me. Or reading the early church fathers, from Justin Martyr to Eusebius? That is again me. Or reading historians such as Tacitus or Dio Cassius? Hi again. Or writing trigram analysis software that PROVES the synoptic gospels are NOT independent eyewitness accounts? That too is me, Harry Diogenes.

I could write a book using the 20 years of my study of the history of the early Christian church, except others have already done this. And they are confirming what I have independently discovered. So I do not need to watch a video of someone who can not even read Greek, and bases his world view on an idea already proven false, because I and professional historians have already refuted that video.

You are still on the starting line with your weak apologists. I am past the finishing line and drinking the champagne until I find a better opponent.



Correct. When will you start doing this?



You need to work with data that you have, not what you imagine. Otherwise you will be, as usual, wrong.



First, I use my time as I want to, not because you want me to watch some low quality video. If you want me to do that, then you need to pay me. My rates range from 30 Euros pro Stunde to 200.

But no, your question begging straw man is not an intellectually sound approach for such important life questions. But it has nothing to do with my posts. And you know this, that is why you run away from the questions we ask, or reply with ad hoc excuses that ignore the evidence you do not like.

You do not post high quality arguments, you post videos that refute the position you are trying to defend. And you presume the stranger on the internet is presenting a weaker argument. No, you pretend they are presenting a weaker argument.
We are grateful for your insight, Harry. Vielen Dank!

It is not often that one has regular access to an actual subject matter expert. Nochmal, dankeschön. I, and I am sure others, who will listen and are not blinded by dogma, are grateful.
 
Old 04-01-2020, 07:02 PM
 
28,432 posts, read 11,515,847 times
Reputation: 2070
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe View Post
With all due respect to the FAQ and those answers, here are mine...

It isn't my definition of atheism I posted but the commonly found definition in the dictionary. It describes an atheist well enough for me, and describes me simply enough as well. I'm just not inclined to complicate the matter any further with semantics or equivocations.

You are right that my not believing in god doesn't say anything as to the truth of the claim, but of course what we believe is typically what we think to be true. If I had doubts more along the lines you describe, I would call myself agnostic and/or because the common dictionary definition of agnostic is "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."

The definition of agnostic does not well describe me like atheist does. Simple as that far as I'm concerned.

Then again, I had never looked up "agnostic atheist" before, and as I do now I quickly find this definition, "Agnostic atheism is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity, and are agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact."

Though I recognize this definition also well describes me, the definition of agnostic doesn't, so to keep it simple and avoid any confusion, I simply go by atheism.
this is fair. Lets apply it.

what happens when we ask people something like "what is more valid. The system we are in matches life or the system we are matches non life?"

I say look at how they respond and we can get a look into their real intentions.
Do they say things like "yeah I see that, but its heather for society to just keep that under wraps."
 
Old 04-01-2020, 07:38 PM
 
Location: Canada
2,962 posts, read 856,727 times
Reputation: 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe View Post
With all due respect to the FAQ and those answers, here are mine...

It isn't my definition of atheism I posted but the commonly found definition in the dictionary. It describes an atheist well enough for me, and describes me simply enough as well. I'm just not inclined to complicate the matter any further with semantics or equivocations.

You are right that my not believing in god doesn't say anything as to the truth of the claim, but of course what we believe is typically what we think to be true. If I had doubts more along the lines you describe, I would call myself agnostic and/or because the common dictionary definition of agnostic is "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."

The definition of agnostic does not well describe me like atheist does. Simple as that far as I'm concerned.

Then again, I had never looked up "agnostic atheist" before, and as I do now I quickly find this definition, "Agnostic atheism is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity, and are agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact."

Though I recognize this definition also well describes me, the definition of agnostic doesn't, so to keep it simple and avoid any confusion, I simply go by atheism.
From the FAQ:
Quote:
How do atheists know there are no gods?
We don’t know that there are no gods. Atheism is a belief position, not a knowledge position.

Atheism sounds like agnosticism.
That’s because most atheists ARE agnostics. With respect to deities, an agnostic believes you can’t know if there are gods or not; but one who is gnostic believes you can. Theists tend to be gnostic, though not all are. Atheists tend to be agnostic, though a few are gnostic.

I thought agnosticism was a “not sure” middle ground between theism and atheism?
That is a common misconception. This perceived “middle ground” agnostic is most often probably an agnostic theist who limits their questioning to the existence or non-existence of a particular god rather than to the existence or non-existence of any god. This is arguably asking the wrong question and leads to the indecision and confusion that some associate with agnosticism. It is a struggle over a false binary choice (see the discussion under “But what if you’re wrong?” below).
If agnostics tend to be indecisive and confused, what are we to assume of atheists?
Are atheists generally more decisive and possess a greater understanding of the facts than agnostics?

.
 
Old 04-01-2020, 07:49 PM
 
Location: S. Wales.
50,082 posts, read 20,571,542 times
Reputation: 5927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew View Post
"the Golden Rule' has been a standard for a long time"
If this statement is accepted as fact, what then can be reasonably concluded from it?


Speaking of objective morality, would you be willing to answer the worldview questionnaire? (It includes a Q about objective morality)...

Worldview Questionnaire:

* What term best describes your worldview?

* What term best describes your political leanings?

* Do you believe in macro-evolution (common ancestor/descent)?

* Do you believe in abiogesis? (biological evolution from inorganic materials; life from non-life)

* Do you believe the entire universe (time, space and matter) originated from nothing, by chance?

* Does free-will exist?

* Does objective truth exist?

* Does objective morality exist?

* Do you believe in life after death?

* Do you believe in anything paranormal or supernatural?
The problem there is that the terms you use require clarification. What it 'Free Will'. Given the mechanism of apparent choice, how does it work? Then one could perhaps answer it.

Similarly 'universe out of nothing by chance? 'Chance' can men unplanned, but not for no physical reason. Then one could pehaps answer the question.

Similarly, there is no 'macro -evolution' apart from Micro.

True, many questionnaires are like that. You need you give the best answer you can. But what's the purpose for such a questionnaire, anyway? The state of evidence matters, numbers of opinions don't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew View Post
From the FAQ:
If agnostics tend to be indecisive and confused, what are we to assume of atheists?
Are atheists generally more decisive and possess a greater understanding of the facts than agnostics?

.
Not all of them. As an atheist I for a long time bought into the idea that agnosticism was not knowing whether there is a god or not (which is actually correct) and that atheism was being sure there was no god (which is also not far off the mark) but that they were both belief -positions, which is where the confusion is.

When it is realised that atheism is a belief position based on (indeed logically mandated by) agnosticism, then the confusion vanishes.But many cannot or will not accept this logically inevitable position. Indeed one poster recently got red -faced that his opinion wasn't asked bout this definition.

Nobody asked my opinion about the slippery -slope or You ntoo fallacies, but I'm not complaining.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 04-01-2020 at 07:57 PM..
 
Old 04-01-2020, 07:57 PM
 
13,011 posts, read 12,998,993 times
Reputation: 21913
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew View Post
From the FAQ:
If agnostics tend to be indecisive and confused, what are we to assume of atheists?
Are atheists generally more decisive and possess a greater understanding of the facts than agnostics?

.
Who said agnostics were indecisive and confused? You are bringing your incorrect assumptions into this discussion and assuming that those assumptions are widely held. You are also incorrect.
 
Old 04-01-2020, 08:01 PM
 
13,011 posts, read 12,998,993 times
Reputation: 21913
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Let me expose the presumption underlying your assertion - that morality is a result of the WILL of God instead of simply being an intrinsic aspect of the requirements for the very existence of God and having nothing to do with WILL. The vast majority of the requirements of our existence as physical beings have nothing to do with our WILL either. I have no issue with your refutations of the many attributes and beliefs ABOUT God, such as IWMN's. They are separate issues from the mere existence of God and the concept of morality that is endemic to the existence of God. You just need to keep working on your reading comprehension. You apparently have done a superb job given the language issues but more is needed or the word salad nonsense would not continue to plague you.
Interesting. So God can have inherent qualities.

Presumably that means that other things can also have inherent qualities.

You consistently argue that mere chemicals cannot exhibit intelligence, that intelligence must be derived from god. Is there any reason why a sufficiently complex grouping of chemicals cannot exhibit intelligence?

Of course there isn't. Once again, you have granted yourself the ability to claim something in an argument that you refuse to allow to your opponent. Why don't you try being evenhanded some day. Maybe you will come a step closer to the truth that way.
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.



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