If human opinion creates 'good' and 'bad', how can we actually determine God is 'good' and Sat

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


Many tribes develop and prosper without religion or dogma. Altruism doesn't come from religion, and religion certainly does not have monopoly over morality.

We see soladarity in nature, Piranha's do not attack each other, and even our cousins the ape have tightly-nit communities and social adherences. There are understandings that we all have between each other, considering we have such a developed brain,( or a differently "wired" brain), we should and we do understand empathy. If you don't understand it, you feel it.

Ricky Gervais wasn't intending to be funny in that video. Someone stated he was mocking religion because he expressed his non belief. Well, like he said, he doesn't get offended when someone thanks or praises God.

It is arrogance to suggest that without a "dear leader" you would not understand right or wrong when it comes to treating fellow human beings. Besides you cannot derive absolute morals from a being that you can't even prove exists.

Like morality itself, religion is man made, thought of by man, not God. It's stupid to suggest you get your morality from "on high" - Really idiotic. If you think not, then show me how you can prove God's "laws"

Cool rant bro, cool rant.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


Moot point. Based on the Christian worldview we would expect to have laws of logic and uniformity of nature. What is your rational basis for these without the God of the Bible? We'd also expect every man to have morality hardwired into their behavior by the Christian worldview. how can you account for it being present without God?

What's funny is you skeptics must stand upon Christian presuppositions to argue against the God of the Bible, which is fallacy.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


You are the one with the moot point. I really don't know if you try to aggravate users here intentionally or you are unware of the rebutals against your arguments.

You talk about fallacies and logic as if you understand it. Simply pointing to the bible, and then pointing to the universe's uniformity is not an argument in favour of God.

Atheists do not have any particular prejudice towards any particular religion, we treat them all equal, unlike the average follower of any one religion. Commandment 1 and 2? LOLs

I have concerns towards a fundamentalist religion like Islam because it's core values discriminate and teach prejudice towards non-believers. This can't be good for any society.

The ammount of philosophical and moral absurdity in the bible show that it was written by men, not God. This is an easy fact to understand, it didn't come floating from down high, it was written by men. With this in mind, it is very easy to see why all religions are different and contrasting. Different thoughts and ideas of "GOD". Whether it be a "volcano", a sky God or a "God of all" They are thoughts, not facts.

You also talk about what you find funny. I, personally find it funny that the majority of the world's greatest scientists expressed non-believe in man's dogma. Most were atheists, and at the very most a few were "Deists".

I'm not saying that i think Atheist is correct because of this, i just find it hilarious that those arrogant, smug, pesky atheists have contributed so much to your life indirectly. Even sitting here typing on your ATS.

I can see more promise in science than i can in religion.

Who's more honest, please tell me.

The agnostic Atheist- "I don't know" - "God could exist, God might not exist, i don't know, and i'd be dishonest to try to explain what "GOD" is or even if he exists, i'll wait for evidence before making a judgement, because of this- i believe all man-made doctrine to be false or speculative."

The Theist - "humans can't be moral without the God that i can't prove exists, btw, i also know God's thoughts and desires, you are wrong because you won't submit to my "theory"."

Who's more honest? Who is more open-minded? Please? I really would appreciate an answer to this.

I see you around alot criticising atheism and trying to stereotype the Atheist. You know nothing of the personal values or ethics of the person behind Atheism, Atheism is no goal, no dogma, no rules. That doesn't mean we don't all have personal goals and moral tendancies that we uphold.

My goal is honesty. I can't see how religion is honest, the same way i can't see why fortune telling is honest. The deist position i have no problem with, it's still an unfalifiable hypothesis, but it carries no dogma.

Also, list of fallcies for reference.

List of common fallacies

Argument from ignorance

Bertrand Russel's teapot

"Falsifiable"

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

You are the one with the moot point. I really don't know if you try to aggravate users here intentionally or you are unware of the rebutals against your arguments.

I'm aware people attempt to make them, but very few have a rational, logical basis therefore are irrelevant.

You talk about fallacies and logic as if you understand it. Simply pointing to the bible, and then pointing to the universe's uniformity is not an argument in favour of God.

I said my worldview would account for such things (uniformity of nature), your worldview would have no rational basis for this to exist therefore you must rely on Biblical presuppositions to argue against God and the bible. Care to explain the rational basis you have for believing in the laws of nature and uniformity, or logic without God?

Or are you going to continue to be arbitrary? Children are quite arbitrary, they believe many things withour a rational reason for doing so. Example: monsters living in the closet. But when we get to adulthood we are expected to have a rational reason for our beliefs. Where is yours apart from God?

The ammount of philosophical and moral absurdity in the bible show that it was written by men, not God.

And where is your list of these you assert? You're being arbitrary again. I can be just as arbitrary:

There is none of that, take my word for it.

This is an easy fact to understand, it didn't come floating from down high, it was written by men.

Moot point. The Bible also says it was penned by men..

as they were "moved by the Spirit of God."

With this in mind, it is very easy to see why all religions are different and contrasting. Different thoughts and ideas of "GOD". Whether it be a "volcano", a sky God or a "God of all" They are thoughts, not facts.

Now we can agree on something. That's why I hate religion, it's all man-made ways to justify oneself to God. They are all inherently false and self-refuting.

You also talk about what you find funny. I, personally find it funny that the majority of the world's greatest scientists expressed non-believe in man's dogma. Most were atheists, and at the very most a few were "Deists".

What I find "funny" is your continued reliance on arbitrary statements to show "truth", I'm sorry do you have a rational reason for stating the above? Or again, are we just to take your word for it? lol

I'm not saying that i think Atheist is correct because of this, i just find it hilarious that those arrogant, smug, pesky atheists have contributed so much to your life indirectly. Even sitting here typing on your ATS.

I don't find it odd, they were created by the same God. Just because they refuse to acknowledge Him with their lips doesn't mean they don't operate without His software.

I can see more promise in science than i can in religion.

We agree.

Who's more honest, please tell me.

The agnostic Atheist- "I don't know" - "God could exist, God might not exist, i don't know, and i'd be dishonest to try to explain what "GOD" is or even if he exists, i'll wait for evidence before making a judgement, because of this- i believe all man-made doctrine to be false or speculative."

The Theist - "humans can't be moral without the God that i can't prove exists, btw, i also know God's thoughts and desires, you are wrong because you won't submit to my "theory"."

Who's more honest? Who is more open-minded? Please? I really would appreciate an answer to this.

Have you heard of the "biased sample" fallacy?

I see you around alot criticising atheism and trying to stereotype the Atheist. You know nothing of the personal values or ethics of the person behind Atheism, Atheism is no goal, no dogma, no rules. That doesn't mean we don't all have personal goals and moral tendancies that we uphold.

I don't DENY that. Why do you assume I do? My worldview accounts for a moral authority for ALL humans, your's does not. You have no rational basis for a moral authority, I do. Your moral authority is either other humans, their laws, or your own morality. Sorry, that's not a moral authority. And moral relativism is a self-refuting logical fallacy.

My goal is honesty.

Same here.

I can't see how religion is honest, the same way i can't see why fortune telling is honest.

Religion isn't honest, we agree again. Too bad Christianity has nothing to do with "Religion". Christianity is based upon "REDEMPTION".

Technically speaking whenever an Atheist shows up to a debate they have just conceded. They must rely on laws of logic to even debate. They have no rational basis for laws of logic or uniformity of nature without stealing them from the Biblical worldview.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Care to explain the rational basis you have for believing in the laws of nature and uniformity, or logic without God?

Are you seriously trolling? No scientist claims to know, it's unknown. I don't proclaim that God does or does't exist, but it's quite obvious that if God does exist, God is tyrannous, malevolent, capricious and evil. Even if he did exist, you still couldn't prove he was the God of any man-made dogma.

Rational - suspending any particular belief until critical empirical evidence is provided.

Irrational - Thinking you know the thoughts and desires of a being you can't prove does or does not exist.

(even if you could prove it to exist, you couldn't prove any religion "true", unless this God demonstrated it true.)

Every scientific explanation (so far) exists without pre-assuming a creator. Mathematics of nature or even the beauty does not imply omnipotent intelligent being.

Religion is irrational in essence. With your "faith" or "belief" you can never admit this. And based on what? What other men told you to believe, and what religion expects you to believe, no evidence, other than you observing nature, your evidence of God is not my evidence of God, I think i'll be honest with myself before i delude others and myself.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Nonsense, we have arguments, you have circular reasoning, irrationality and a certain lack of critical logic;

"blah, blah, the bible said this so it's true, blah, blah, look at that sunset, it's an intelligent being."

I'd sooner trust science at deciphering reality or forming a theory than your half baked ancient scriptures "theories"

See i can be uncivil too. I'm here to share my opinion, whether i am civil, make people laugh, offend people. I am here. I have a voice.

Try to stereotype Atheists but Atheism has no goals, it's simply a lack of belief. Send every argument my way. Use the old "Hitler was evil because he was an atheist" routine. I love that one.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by NOTurTypical

Are you seriously trolling? No scientist claims to know, it's unknown.

Thank you for being intellectually honest. Yes, it's unknown, I'd say "unprovable". Therefore there is NO rational basis for holding the belief that it exists apart from the God of the Bible.

I don't proclaim that God does or does't exist, but it's quite obvious that if God does exist, God is tyrannous, malevolent, capricious and evil.

Sorry, again biased prejudice and arbitrary opinion. If you want to continue to argue in such a manner I'll either resort to the same tactic to show you how ridiculous it is or refuse to reply altogether.

Even if he did exist, you still couldn't prove he was the God of any man-made dogma.

I certainly do not agree. Only one book in existence claims to be from God Himself and also tells us the future written in the past. Therefore displays it's origin from outside the space time dimension.

(even if you could prove it to exist, you couldn't prove any religion "true", unless this God demonstrated it true.)

I don't think any "Religions" are true. I hold that all are false. Of course I cannot prove any "Religion" true. I'd need to believe that myself to try and prove it to you or anyone else.

Every scientific explanation (so far) exists without pre-assuming a creator. Mathematics of nature or even the beauty does not imply omnipotent intelligent being.

I said uniformity of nature and laws of logic. Without the Biblical worldview there would be no rational basis for these to exist. Can you provide a rational basis for their existence without the Biblical God who has promised such in His Word?

Religion is irrational in essence. With your "faith" or "belief" you can never admit this. And based on what? What other men told you to believe, and what religion expects you to believe, no evidence, other than you observing nature, your evidence of God is not my evidence of God, I think i'll be honest with myself before i delude others and myself.

You're preaching to the choir. Have you realized YET that I reject any and all religions? And especially the worst of all the Christian form of Religion???

If not, watch the video in my signature "Do You HATE Religion as Much as I Do?"

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Nonsense, we have arguments, you have circular reasoning, irrationality and a certain lack of critical logic;

Again, how do you account for these without the God of the Bible? What is your rational basis for these existing in a universe of random chance?

Truth be told, you rely on Biblical presuppositions to try and argue against the God of the Bible, therefore admit them being true the second you show up for a logical debate.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

I don't proclaim that God does or does't exist, but it's quite obvious that if God does exist, God is tyrannous, malevolent, capricious and evil.



Sorry, again biased prejudice and arbitrary opinion. If you want to continue to argue in such a manner I'll either resort to the same tactic to show you how ridiculous it is or refuse to reply altogether.

What are you talking about. It is EVIDENT. 99.8% of species on earth have died out, The earth is sometimes too hot or too cold for life to exist. Next - there's gallaxies, the Andromeda gallaxy is on a collision course with our own, ultimately it will cause death and destruction. Children are sometimes born deformed or riddeled with disease. Sometimes the mother dies in the process.

The sun will eventually burn out not before boiling our oceans and destroying life on this planet. Black holes cause havoc and supernovas alike. Although beautiful, the universe is certainly destructive, apocolyptic and without care.

Based on this evidence, it is EVIDENT that God is malevolent, capricious and especially evil and tyrannous if you are to believe in the God of any abrahamic mono-Theism.

You're offended? So what. This is a civil discourse not a social gathering. People offend me about their politics or even their opinion on Sport, i might offend them with mine. That's what it means to debate. You don't like it, deal with it ......or even better argue back.

reply to post by awake_and_aware

What are you talking about. It is EVIDENT.

AND God has declared in His Word that it would be. The "evident" nature of reality doesn't prove God doesn't exist. That's observations of life, the world and universe as it exists today. Post fall of man. God has declared that the universe will break down and the end to it. However, not only has he redeemed mankind, His promise is to redeem the universe.

But that's all smokescreens and mirrors. How do you account for the laws of logic and uniformity of nature apart from the Biblical God who has promised such things? How do you account for them in a universe of random chances? What is your rational authority for them? Unless you can provide one, (you cannot), then you must stand upon Biblical presuppositions to even argue against God. You don't see the enormous fallacy in that?

reply to post by NOTurTypical

How do you account for the laws of logic and uniformity of nature apart from the Biblical God who has promised such things?

I can't account for that, nor do i believe any man has the ability to reveal such wisdom(YET or maybe ever). My question back would be how do YOU account for reality using a "biblical God" who has promised such things, who did he promise this to? how do you prove it? Why should i believe it?

In some areas of metaphysical physics scientist's findings suggest that reality COULD be a holographic projection. They do not know. Asking the WHY of the holographic is another unanswerable. These theories are formed by studying the universe and even using mathematical formula to base their theory - It has an irrational founding.

Why should a creator intelligent omnipotent being be the answer to it all? Why not infinity? Who knows. Religion can't answer for the same reasons science can't answer. We don't have the knowledge.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

The "evident" nature of reality doesn't prove God doesn't exist.

I didn't imply that. I entertained the possibility that your God does infact exist. It is evident by looking at nature that God is capricious, malevolent, he doesn't care if the Andromeda gallaxy is heading towards ours, he doesn't care if 99.8% of species die out over time.

I've already admitted i can't prove whether God does or not not exist. I will therefore suspend belief and judgement. Don't expect me to prove your theory of God wrong. I say fairies exist, i expect you to say "prove it".

What is your rational basis for these existing in a universe of random chance?

It's not random chance, it's not spontaneous, much like evolution is not "random" change from a monkey to a man. There is order, we are trying to decode the mathematics and forumlas of reality with science. So far, no rational thinking scientist has ever concluded "well, beats me....must be God, praise the lord".

I have no rational basis for reality, for our existence, the whys, the who's, the what's, whether infinity is a possibility, whether a creator created the creator of the creator. Ask a scientist why and what? What the universe really is? He or she will tell you "they don't know"

No one knows.... anyone who claims truth in such revealed wisdom is doing so on a irrational basis - faith, blind belief, speculation.

I've heard every "personal experience" claim you can think of, and it can't be counted as rational conclusive evidence of this entity.

I'm honest and humble enough to accept i don't know. I won't indoctrinate children with absolutes, i'll let them decide for themselves, teach them what evidence is out there and the importance of reason to form a belief.

No human currently can answer the "why" question, not even our best scientists.... and they maybe never will. But they certainly will suspend belief until they have a reason to believe. That's rationality. If you'd like to argue that, i'd be more than happy to rebut.

Originally posted by dusty1
reply to post by Noncompatible


An employee may be really good at his job. What if he engages in sexual harassment? What if he steals from the company? What if he shows up drunk, but still can perform his duties?

An employee normally agrees to a code of conduct. If he breaks the code, it is grounds for termination.

I find it odd that you are abdicating your role in firing people.

The truth is we judge employees.

We judge their performance, as well as their conduct in the workplace. If they do not meet our standards, we fire them, for the good of the company.

Thank you for proving my point. I abdicate nothing, my role is to supply my employees with the tools to perform their jobs. Everything you just cited are instances of people firing themselves. No one told them to do these things, they made a choice to "fire" themselves.
There is one qualified exception in the list : Performance. Ascertain that the employee has been provided with the necessary training and tools. If this is true then that person is choosing not to perform.
I do the paperwork to facilitate their choice.

Manage enough people over a long enough period and it becomes self-evident. So many in management positions see their task in the negative way.
Any managers/owners true role is to remove the possibility of excuses for failure and supply the means to succeed.

Your viewpoint is dangerous.

I fail to see how. His viewpoint was dangerous, others have been, mine is simply an observation. Did he consider himself evil ? Do you ?

Do you consider yourself good ? Do you consider bringing democracy to the world good ? Do the people in Afghanistan consider the coalition forces to be good ?

Good and evil ARE merely viewpoints.
Do no harm is the closest one can get.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical


AND God has declared in His Word that it would be. The "evident" nature of reality doesn't prove God doesn't exist. That's observations of life, the world and universe as it exists today. Post fall of man. God has declared that the universe will break down and the end to it. However, not only has he redeemed mankind, His promise is to redeem the universe.

But that's all smokescreens and mirrors. How do you account for the laws of logic and uniformity of nature apart from the Biblical God who has promised such things? How do you account for them in a universe of random chances? What is your rational authority for them? Unless you can provide one, (you cannot), then you must stand upon Biblical presuppositions to even argue against God. You don't see the enormous fallacy in that?

All you've done is preach a variation on "god of the gaps". You presuppose a purpose simply because you perceive order. You simply argue:

"I see logic and order. Ah! god did it."

I see logic and order and do not acknowledge there must be a why (or who in your belief). I hope one day we will figure out the how but do not require a why (or who). I can accept the wonder of the universe for itself without the need for it to have all have been created for me/us.

reply to post by Noncompatible


That's fine, you can have an arbitrary faith if you wish. You were created with free will. My question was is there a rational basis for this belief? You're the second who admits there isn't one in your worldview.

reply to post by awake_and_aware

Don't expect me to prove your theory of God wrong.

Why would I do that? That's absurd, it's called shifting the burden of proof. Wanting you to provide a rational reason for your beliefs or to get you t see that unless you can provide one it makes no sense to have them isn't asking you to prove mine wrong.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware

What is your rational basis for these existing in a universe of random chance?

It's not random chance, it's not spontaneous, much like evolution is not "random" change from a monkey to a man. There is order, we are trying to decode the mathematics and forumlas of reality with science.

That's what Evolutionists claim. Random chance + billions of years.

I have no rational basis for reality, for our existence, the whys, the who's, the what's, whether infinity is a possibility, whether a creator created the creator of the creator. Ask a scientist why and what? What the universe really is? He or she will tell you "they don't know"

I know. That's why I'm trying to show you that your belief is based upon arbitrary rationale. Do you understand that if any belief you have is not based upon a rational reason it's arbitrary?

I'm honest and humble enough to accept i don't know.

I commend you for that. You're a rare breed. Most would never admit that.

I won't indoctrinate children with absolutes, i'll let them decide for themselves, teach them what evidence is out there and the importance of reason to form a belief.

What about moral absolutes? Unless you're appealing to an authority higher than man it's a fallacy.

No human currently can answer the "why" question, not even our best scientists.... and they maybe never will. But they certainly will suspend belief until they have a reason to believe. That's rationality. If you'd like to argue that, i'd be more than happy to rebut.

Quite a few Christians can. We can account for the preconditions of intelligibility with our worldview. And the uniformity of nature. For anyone else to rely on these observable facts of nature they must rely on Biblical presuppositions. And all evidence we as humans see and interpret is filtered through our different presuppositions.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


I don't have any faith. The only faith i have is loyalty or a person or cause, that certainly is not arbitrary. It's not the blind belief type of faith.

My disbelief cannot be equated to a belief in God. The same way you can't say someone who believes fairies exist to be equal to those who disbelief the fallacy.

I admit, i will suspend belief or judgment because i have no evidence to assert a belief structure. Claiming i know or i have no reason but faith to believe is a disregard for the pursuit of truth. I therefore deteste all organised religion and associated dogma and i believe they are all equal glimpses of the untrue and frankly - unknown.