It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

QUESTION to ALL Atheists!

page: 20
4
<< 17  18  19    21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
Thats not what I said read what you quoted. I said Atheist have no OBJECTIVE BASIS for calling God evil. Atheist only have a subjective basis for calling God evil. Subjective is synonymous to Opinionated. Therefore calling something evil means absolutely nothing because its just your opinion there is no objective basis for which to prove your point. Now this is from an atheistic world view. This is not what I believe it is what an atheist is reduced to logically. I believe people can make objective moral claims the atheist has no reason for believing that.


I got it now. It's the objective part I missed. However, until you can prove there is an objective morality then it's still just your opinion too.

Again objective morals mean it doesn't matter if your believe something is moral or immoral. OBjective means it it what it is and your beliefs don't matter. For example, Raping babies is wrong regardless of the worlds belief about raping babies.

How can you be sure?? Where is it written that it's morally wrong to rape babies?? How has it been established objectively that it's wrong??




posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: windword

I appreciate your honest I really do, but you realize accepting that world view you can never call God evil and it hold any weight. Your belief says there is no good and there is no evil things just are what they are. Therefore, you never have an objective basis for bringing any moral charge against someone, including God.


No. I realize no such thing. My opinion of the character that the Bible describes is just as valid as yours.

You keep pushing, trying to prove the idea of GOD and that "HE" is real. Then, you just try to sneak in the fact that this "GOD" also just happens to be the biblical character known to be responsible for all kinds mischief. You NEED to understand that there is a difference in trying to prove the existence of a supreme being, and then claiming that supreme being is no other than one of the bible deities, Jehovah, El Elyon, Yahweh, Elohim, Jesus......etc.

a reply to: BlackManINC

Thanks for the imagery. But, that is a subjective wrong that you propose to commit, in my opinion, especially so, since you aimed it at me personally. If an asteroid crashed into my neighborhood, killing me and my neighbors, that would not be an objectively evil thing. Just a thing that is. Intent is unimportant in the long run.

I can subjectively opine that the exploits and motives of the biblical god reveal an entity that is what I consider to be an evil influence on and harmful to humanity and all life on earth.



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 07:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: windword

I appreciate your honest I really do, but you realize accepting that world view you can never call God evil and it hold any weight. Your belief says there is no good and there is no evil things just are what they are. Therefore, you never have an objective basis for bringing any moral charge against someone, including God.


No. I realize no such thing. My opinion of the character that the Bible describes is just as valid as yours.

You keep pushing, trying to prove the idea of GOD and that "HE" is real. Then, you just try to sneak in the fact that this "GOD" also just happens to be the biblical character known to be responsible for all kinds mischief. You NEED to understand that there is a difference in trying to prove the existence of a supreme being, and then claiming that supreme being is no other than one of the bible deities, Jehovah, El Elyon, Yahweh, Elohim, Jesus......etc.

a reply to: BlackManINC

Thanks for the imagery. But, that is a subjective wrong that you propose to commit, in my opinion, especially so, since you aimed it at me personally. If an asteroid crashed into my neighborhood, killing me and my neighbors, that would not be an objectively evil thing. Just a thing that is. Intent is unimportant in the long run.

I can subjectively opine that the exploits and motives of the biblical god reveal an entity that is what I consider to be an evil influence on and harmful to humanity and all life on earth.


Well as far as I know, it has never been confirmed that anyone was ever killed by a Meteorite. Now how could that be? The planet Mars and the Moon has been carpet bombed for aeons by meteors, yet planet earth has barely even gotten so much as a scratch. What are the mathematical possibilities of this occurring by chance? No need to worry about the increasing fear mongering coming from the ungodly media about rocks from space smashing into earth, God is earths bodyguard from all potentially harmful outside influences. Nothing will ever hit planet earth unless God allows it, and in the case of prophecy, in the form of wormwood.



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackManINC

Earth has indeed been struck by meteorites. But if that's not a good enough example then replace my meteorite scenario with an earthquake, a volcano, a giant tidal wave, a shark attack or any other natural but undesirable event the universe can throw at us.



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackManINC




yet planet earth has barely even gotten so much as a scratch.


I guess you have never heard of the Gulf of Mexico.



But wait there's more.

Confirmed impact craters listed by size

Facts can be pesky that way.



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 08:18 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

How can I be sure it is morally wrong to rape babies? Well lets use logic.(I could be a pain an make both of us justify our use of logic but we will proceed with it as a presupposition in this argument)

The laws of logic can be defined as equations and philosophical truth statements:

Law of Identity
M:A=A
T: “each thing is the same with itself and different from another”
-Wiki
Law of noncontradiction
M: A cannot equal both A and not A in the same time and the same respect
T: "It is impossible that the same thing belong and not belong to the same thing at the same time and in the same respect."
-Aristotle
Law of the Excluded middle
M:A ∨ ¬A
T: "For any proposition, either that proposition is true, or its negation is true."
-Wiki

So with the three laws defined lets begin:

Law of identity
M:A=A ; A=Raping babies is wrong
T: The statement "raping babies is wrong" is the same with itself and different from "raping babies is not wrong"

Law of non contradiction
M:A cannot equal both A and not A at the same time and in the same respect; A=Raping babies is wrong
T: The statement "raping babies is wrong" cannot mean "raping babies is not wrong " in the same time and same respect

Law of the excluded middle
M:A ∨ ¬A ; A-Raping babies is wrong
T: The statement "raping babies is wrong" is either true, or the statement "raping babies is not wrong" is true.

There is your logical deduction of objective morality. The answer of which statement is true is irrelevant. The fact is only one statement is true.



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 08:41 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb


The problem with how you are going about this is evident right here with using "raping babies" as an example. You are using an "appeal to emotion" to base an argument off of. Poor form.



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 08:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden




You are using an "appeal to emotion" to base an argument off of. Poor form.


We are talking about morality. He was arguing that it was subjective. There is no appeal to emotion. If "raping babies is wrong" is a subjective statement it would only appeal to the emotion of those who believe it to be wrong. Second the fact that it appeals to the emotion of humans is irrelevant to the point I made. Replace it with anything that is considered morally right or morally wrong and the concepts of the argument I have just produced remain true.



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 09:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: BlackManINC

Earth has indeed been struck by meteorites. But if that's not a good enough example then replace my meteorite scenario with an earthquake, a volcano, a giant tidal wave, a shark attack or any other natural but undesirable event the universe can throw at us.



Well, now you realize that your meteorite example is a bogus excuse for subjective morality, now you are wiser to keep your argument grounded on earth. My argument for all of it still stands, nothing in nature happens without Gods approval, yes even a shark attack. My reasoning is scriptural, if he can shut the mouth of a lion, protect his prophets from being roasted alive in a furnace, if he can command a group of wild to bears to attack a mob, keep someone alive in a whale for three days, then he is literally capable of protecting us from anything.



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 09:11 PM
link   
a reply to: windword




No. I realize no such thing. My opinion of the character that the Bible describes is just as valid as yours.


In your illogical belief ,your opinion carries no more weight than mine. The logical fact is that only one of our opinions is true because they are contradictory.(Refer to response to moJom)





You keep pushing, trying to prove the idea of GOD and that "HE" is real. Then, you just try to sneak in the fact that this "GOD" also just happens to be the biblical character known to be responsible for all kinds mischief


THat is not what I am doing at all. People try and say something like "God needs a creator." That maybe true for some Gods.(For example the Mormon God) When I respond with give me a reason the Biblical God would need a creator is because if they do that then I would become an atheist, but they can't do that because he exist and none of his attributes require him to have a creation point.



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 09:30 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackManINC

Could you prove to me that your deity is superior to others?



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 09:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: BlackManINC

Could you prove to me that your deity is superior to others?



I think I'll let prophecy do that for me as time goes along, if you don't mind.



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 09:46 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackManINC

See my non abrahamic faith has some of them too. You certainly are doing a poor job in these threads neighbour.



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 09:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

I could say the same to you.



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 09:52 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I am not making the claim. As a hard polytheist I fully admit to many deities, none of them are pre-eminent over any other. Unless we are going to call my polytheism akin to agnosticism here
Then you and I shall have some differences of opinion



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 09:58 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackManINC





Well, now you realize that your meteorite example is a bogus excuse for subjective morality,


No. Any cosmic or earthly undesirable effect is always a subjective viewpoint. There is no such think as an empirical morality. If that were true we would see morality in the physical universe, but we don't. We see a violent universe that is as destructive as it is creative, a universe that has no care, worries, wants or concerns.


now you are wiser to keep your argument grounded on earth. My argument for all of it still stands, nothing in nature happens without Gods approval, yes even a shark attack. My reasoning is scriptural, if he can shut the mouth of a lion, protect his prophets from being roasted alive in a furnace, if he can command a group of wild to bears to attack a mob, keep someone alive in a whale for three days, then he is literally capable of protecting us from anything.


I don't believe that. I don't believe in such a meddling and bumbling God. I don't believe the Bible is any god's word and certainly not the word of the supposed "Creator of the Universe".


edit on 23-11-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 10:03 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I don't see how that proved anything other than you show that the statement "Raping babies is wrong" is structurally sound logically. You could have also used "Raping babies is Good" and it would still pass all three of those logic requirements. You say at the end that the answer of whether "Raping babies is Wrong" doesn't matter but the answer of whether or not it is "Wrong to Rape Babies" is what we're looking for, right??? I don't care if the statement itself is correctly stated, it's the meaning of that statement which is in question.

Also, I find it interesting that you use Logic as your proof because our last conversation about morality I thought you said logic and reasoning didn't make any difference because morality wasn't based upon one's reason or logic and that it was inherent within everyone. But maybe I'm not remembering correctly, it was a while ago.



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 10:05 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb




T: “each thing is the same with itself and different from another”
-Wiki
Law of noncontradiction
M: A cannot equal both A and not A in the same time and the same respect
T: "It is impossible that the same thing belong and not belong to the same thing at the same time and in the same respect."
-Aristotle
Law of the Excluded middle
M:A ∨ ¬A
T: "For any proposition, either that proposition is true, or its negation is true."


What is both hot and cold at the same time?



edit on 23-11-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 10:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

What is both hot and cold at the same time?


My wife laying naked in the snow!!!




posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 10:09 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

It proved a number of things to me. One was that if you wish to make your point, but have limited ways of doing it, you go for the "emotional" route, because "arguing that raping babies is ok is not going to happen". Its an appeal to emotion fallacy, and thus not legit. There was a lot of hand waving around there involving equations. Except equations are for quantitative not qualitative arguments.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 17  18  19    21  22 >>

log in

join