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

reply to post by NOTurTypical

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

This is either a lie or straight up ignorance.

This is NOT what evolutionists claim.



23:10 explains how people mistakenly think evolution is "random"

reply to post by awake_and_aware

This is NOT what evolutionists claim.

Then their claim is even more preposterous. Explain to me how the first amino acid existed without random chance. How was the very first cell developed without a previous cell being copied.

Random chance is exactly what the Evolutionists want us to assume for the origin of life on this planet.

reply to post by awake_and_aware

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.

Really? If you do not 'know" that God doesn't exist in any location in the universe or in any of the known or unmeasurable dimensions then the belief in your mind must rely on faith. And faith must rely on reason or it is arbitrary.

I like to call Atheists "Chinese Prospectors". I don't mean that disrespectfully, but because of an illustration.

How would I know if there was no gold in China? What information would I need at my disposal to make the claim "There is no gold in China."? Well, I would need to be in every location in China simultaneously to visually verify there was no gold. I would need to be in every cave simultaneously to know no gold was in any cave. Or in any body of water, or anywhere in the earth (not planet but the dirt). And at the same time I'd need to look into every piece of electronics and look into every mouth to verify again there is no gold anywhere in China... simultaneously.

What would I need to verify if I were to make the claim "there IS gold in China."? I'd only need to be in one location to see gold there once. That's the difference between Atheists and Theist. For a Theist to claim or "know" God exists in their critical thinking they only need one evidence. For Atheists to claim He doesn't exist they would need all the attributes of God Himself. Omniscience, omnipresence et cetra.

BOTH beliefs rely on faith of the individual making the claim or holding the belief and the Atheist position requires exponentially more faith than the Theist position.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

How would I know if there was no gold in China?

Simple answer really, and this claim is very different to the claim to an omnipotent being. 1) Gold is real, it exists, we can prove it, this claim can be falsified (if there is indeed no gold in china, but there is). 2) The probability that gold exists in china is probably quite high, and even more so when backed up by anprobability based on the study of geology, and a history of evidence.

This claim is obviously untrue if you just do a bit of study. Easily falsified.

The claim of God is an irrational claim. It's an unfalsifiable hypothesis. It's not based on evidence, mathematics or reason.

Now bare this in mind.

Although unfalsifiable hypothesis cannot be proved nor disproved this does not mean it is neccisarily false.

The God hypothesis is similar to claims of fairies and other mythical creatures. This is illustrated in Bertand russel's teapot anology. While absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, why should the argument from ignorance allow anyone to form random abtract ideas without evidence. "There is a teapot on the moon".

In an article titled "Is There a God?" commissioned, but never published, by Illustrated magazine in 1952, Russell wrote:

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


You realize you're giving me example of why you can have FAITH gold exists in China. You cannot KNOW this unless you personally verify it.

Belief and Knowledge are two different things. My point remains.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
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.

edit on 26-1-2011 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

You're now simply playing semantic games.

Firstly. You assign belief to indifference. "I see no need for" does not equate to "I believe". You assign faith where there is none. I have no faith in the universe. It simply is, I accept it "as is" no faith or superstitions required.

Assign a rational basis to believing in an entity there is zero evidence for other than the aforementioned act of believing.
Mankind has believed in many of them.
Once you can do this we can discuss rationality in earnest.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


A teapot exists on Pluto. You can't prove it isn't there until you go to Pluto. I have faith lalalala.

It's also out of range of our best telescopes, so no person can verify or falsify. Lalalala.

I see your dirty tactics for debate btw. Lying about what scientists claim, about what evidence is out there. We are an evolved species, not created. God doesn't care, stars blow up, volcanoes kill many, earthquakes shatter lives, if that is God, he does not give a *****. If God exists, he's an incompetent designer.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
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.

Atheism comes from Theism... but this particular minority seems to have latched exclusively onto monotheism, which is quite understandable coming from this particular monotheist.

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.

even our cousins the Ape have to be taught social adherence, have you ever watched the documentary called (Why Dogs Smile and Chimpanzees Cry?) it is very educational considering the angle you wish to take on this particular subject... no comment about the Piranha.

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.

Mr Gervais only showed his ignorance in that video, and it is quite evident he is living in his own little world in which the rest of the planet does not exist... it's only his true nature showing which is not enlightened at all. He and Dawkins make very poor proponents of their belief structure.

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.

our dear leader and master of morality has written into stone that which is valued and in the hearts of all men and women. Our dear leader exists, you just can not see our leader, although I know you can feel the presence. I just say you are looking in a too small and narrow of a place... broaden the mind and stop looking for a white haired man with eyes of fire only, though you are allowed to view our dear leader this way if you wish.

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"

morality is man-made eh ? I still say sh*t happens and that is morality... Morality goes way beyond the Bible or monotheism my friend, I say books like the Bible and even in tales before the Bible it is just a quest to better understand and solidify these moral values.

Cool rant bro, cool rant.

thanks, I have to say the same for you on this particular response, although I thought you already told me goodbye like you were leaving out of town or something ?

reply to post by awake_and_aware


watch this video and remember why sometimes humans have to remind themselves of this morality you mentioned, so me might not devolve back into our primitive selves... which is happening more frequently it seems in this day and age sometimes.

there is science involved too, check out atleast the first 5:min and see how science is trying to grasp human/animal emotion and feeling.

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

Atheism comes from Theism

A lie. The only way that Atheism comes from Theism is that some people make some theories up(Theism), some people have a lack of belief in those theories(Atheism)

Atheism is not a religion, and it doesn't require faith. It doesn't have dogma, there are no rituals or commands.

You don't have faith that Santa claus doesn't exist or faith that multicoloured unicorns do not exist on earth........you just either believe it or you don't.

Like any pursuer of truth, i believe you should require evidence to form a belief.

I believe Astrology is nonsense, do i need faith for this? No, i just know it's an absurd idea that celestial bodies can dictate the future events of humans, i know that someone claiming to have this power to predict based on stars is a liar.

Also, someone who claims to know of a creator of the universe, and then go further and claim he knows his thoughts and desires is a liar.

It's like saying "i know there is a teapot on pluto, without looking through a telescope; i have faith that it's green"

Without evidence, you can only have faith. I could have faith that there is gold in China, that would be rational faith, as there is evidence of Gold is similar geographical locations. I could have faith that there is a invisible spagetti monster, this would be irrational.

morality is man-made eh ? I still say sh*t happens and that is morality... Morality goes way beyond the Bible or monotheism my friend, I say books like the Bible and even in tales before the Bible it is just a quest to better understand and solidify these moral values.

It amazes me how you can fail to see that morality is man made. Words are man made, language is man-made, writing is man-made. That's all the bible is; the words of other men. Not the words of God. it's the words of other men.

Moses or previous religious figures were not the first introducers of morality or altruism. Humans are naturality solidary. We evolved for at least 75,000 years, no mention of Jesus or God up until a few milleni ago, we made in fine without God or Jesus.

It's quite scary to think that if God was proved WRONG tommorow, that you would feel you had lost your source for morality, that killing, raping and theiving would have no "right" or "wrong" because there is no dictator to say so, this is nonsense, we still would have to work out what's best for humanity, and we do to this day, it's called Secular society.

reply to post by awake_and_aware

I see your dirty tactics for debate btw.

Sorry, but forcing you to not use arbitrary arguments isn't a "dirty" tactic, it's elementary debate. You can be as arbitrary in your reasoning as you wish to, but don't expect your arguments to stick whatsoever.

reply to post by awake_and_aware

It amazes me how you can fail to see that morality is man made.

Because morality that appeals to mankind for it's moral authority is self-refuting. That would mean that murder of innocent people is moral for some people and morally repugnant for others. Same with rape, pedophilia, theft, et cetra. If mankind determines right or wrong there would be no universal right or wrong because not everyone agrees on what is right or wrong.

Moral authority for all men must be appealed to an authority higher than all men.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Of course you would believe that if you have faith. Morales are man made, as is language and civilisation.

Again, if God was proved wrong tommorow, would you lose all morality, would you cease being a good person?

If God was infact proved wrong tommorow we would still have to be civil and work out what is best for humanity, and we do now in modern goverments, it's called Secular society. A Democratic approach to what's best for humanity, not an absolute objective approach that Theocracy uses.

U.S.A had the right idea to separate church from state, it's seen the equal rights of women, black people and even homosexuals, if we lived under the OBJECTIVE morales of your God we would be treating homosexals like 2nd class citizens, many people still do under their ignorance of God.

I really doubt you would have the courage to watch this video, or read my thread but here's the link anyway.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Morales are man made, not God made. Man's thinking has improved since 2000 years ago, this means we don't still think gays are evil, the morales of God have changed with mans changes. You fail to admit this.

I urge you to go to this thread and watch this videos. Atheists are just as capable of being moral as any religious person, infact in some cases, they are MORE moral.

reply to post by awake_and_aware

Of course you would believe that if you have faith. Morales are man made, as is language and civilisation.

Sorry, but it doesn't take faith in God to realize morality that is true for all mankind cannot appeal to mankind for it's authority. If that were the case you'd have murder being both good and evil.

Have you ever heard of the Law of Non-Contradiction before?

I urge you to go to this thread and watch this videos. Atheists are just as capable of being moral as any religious person, infact in some cases, they are MORE moral.

Moot point. The Bible says God has written His laws on ALL men's hearts. (Consciences) No one is claiming faith or Religion is true because we have the same intrinsic morality. But that God exists who has declared His laws of what is right and wrong.

Hebrews 10:16 ~ "This [is] the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;"

In the Christian worldview you'd expect that all men have morality instinctively hardwired into them.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


It's not a case of "Thou shall not murder" being "right" or "wrong" - It's that most humans agree that this is an undesirable act. No society, Atheistic or Theistic condones such violence.

I belive morality is subjective - I believe objective morality is an illusion of human thought.

de-conversion.com...
Many tribes are cannabilistic and see no moral qualms with eating other humans. Their morals are relativistic, cannibilism is probably morally right in the eyes of their supernatural deity.

As you can see, it is beneficial to promote health and well-being of other humans, we can form civilisation and technology when we show solidarity. It's almost evident means of finding morality

Morality can be scientific, if we should set a goal "What can we do to improve human well-being and suffering?"

Develop medicines, give people warmth and comfort, stop corruption and lies, promote healthy sexual relationshipsm etc. etc. etc.

As you can see their are many subjective ideas of God, therefore there can be no objective rules handed down from "up-high" - They are entirely subjective to your religion.

I'll read your source if you read mine

Also here's Sam Harris:-

edit on 29/1/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)

reply to post by NOTurTypical


You are not open minded in the slightest.

You have narrowed your mind with the philosophy and proclaimed truths of ancient doctrine, of ancient man.

What is the point of debating with you? I can't change your mind. Debate someone else.

Even if you did present me evidence of God and i would still not go along with your beliefs, i still would not worship "GOD" because i believe the God of ancient scripture to be evil, capricious, malevolent, tyrrannous and jelous. Even without scripture, it is obvious from nature that God is without "care"

Thanks, and nice debating with you. Good luck in your path.

reply to post by awake_and_aware

It's not a case of "Thou shall not murder" being "right" or "wrong" - It's that most humans agree that this is an undesirable act. No society, Atheistic or Theistic condones such violence.

That's an Appeal to Numbers fallacy.

reply to post by awake_and_aware

You are not open minded in the slightest.

Ridiculous. My mind operates on logic. Morality that appeals to mankind for it's authority is self-refuting, therefore I cannot logically agree that it is true. This has nothing to do with being open-minded. Unless you mean to say that I'm close-minded to logical fallacies, then I'd agree.

Yes I am, I reject them universally.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


It would appear that way. and i admit that's not something i'm fond of. I'm not saying that stands in conviction of it's moral truth, I'm honestly saying that morality is subjective. Some people are vegetarians, some people are not. It really just depends.

Most animals are solidary towards the same species at least, look at piranham, look at monkeys, they all have social adherences or understandings, however small.

Most humans innately feel empathy, we feel guilt, we don't like being hated because we have caused harm to our friends in a community, we wouldn't feel comfortable in their presense, if we had upset or hurt them.

If you can't feel this without God, i pity you. This isn't disrespect, i honestly do pity you if you don't believe humans could be moral without God, you're actually insulting MY intelligence by saying i can't be as moral as you.