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.

 

Good question from a muslim: Why did god need Jesus to die?

page: 6
2
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 21 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


I don't believe morality is objective.
I've just explained it's an illusion. I believe in a moral landscape and that the essence of morality is to improve human solidarity and prevent every possible instance of suffering.

Again, i don't believe morality is objective but i do believe there are certain concepts that are not considered "good" by any civilisation (humans on earth anyway) Why would murder within a community by warranted as "moral" conduct? I can't think of any society that that pledges this conduct as "moral" - Again, just because everyone agrees on a certain moral conduct, doesn't make it objective.

It's self defeating to be in a civilisation where murder is warranted and kindness and co-operation is frowned upon. The civilisation would soon kill itself. Perhaps that why some species become extinct.

It's objective as far as that every human has considered it a certain thing "immoral". For all you know, there could be life forms out there who thrive on killing each other, and don't have any moral quandering with this, oh wait, just look to the wild. They NEED to in order to survive, because they havn't evolved the brain we have to invoke awareness and empathy.
edit on 21/5/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 21 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   

I'm not accusing you of immorality


Well good, I love my species, what can i say, i want to improve solidarity - Even if i hate religion, it doesn't mean i hate the peopel behind it.


But surely to you - i am immoral? Isn't a disbelief in God seen as immoral in your eyes? Potentially even a "sin"?



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
But surely to you - i am immoral? Isn't a disbelief in God seen as immoral in your eyes? Potentially even a "sin"?


No, of course not. If a lack of faith drives immoral behaviour, then it is the act which is immoral, not the lack of faith. And if a person leads a moral life, but has no faith, they are still a moral person.

Your faith is a matter between you and God, not you and society.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Thanks i agree with the most part.


Your faith is a matter between you and God, not you and society.


Firstly, Atheism is not a faith, i havn't put faith in anything, i just disbelieve certain men's theory of "GOD". I could do the same for any other theory - religious or not. The difference being, i don't have a name for my lack of belief in Unicorns, i'm not an Aunicornist.

Atheism CAN be a positive claim, but it's not a position i assume, i'm not Gnostic, i'm an Agnostic Atheist. I don't even claim God can't be proven, only that so far, i have found insufficient evidence or reason to warrant a belief in such a theory.

And if there is a judgement day, i would hope that a benevolent God would state:-

"you were honest with your own judgements, you needed the evidence, perhaps existence wasn't enough, i can understand your doubt, you were a moral person, you were kind person- i won't send you to an ETERNITY IN HELL)

Such a proposition is posed in the "Atheist's Wager" but the Atheist, perhaps, is wrong to assume that this God is merciful. So perhaps a fail wager.
edit on 21/5/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


I need to put a disclaimer on all my posts that says "the word 'you' in my text does not necessarily indicate you personally", lol.


And if there is a judgement day, i would hope that a benevolent God would state...


As would I -- the concept of purgatory, which would allow for that, is one of the aspects of Catholicism that very much appeals to me.

I have been working through a hypothesis that combines Reformed Theology's Doctrine of Double Predestination with the Quaker notion of Universal Salvation, but it speaks to this very issue and demonstrates, I think, a righteousness that goes beyond what either theology proposes. But at this point, it's just a thought experiment.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by adjensen
 


Thanks i agree with the most part.


Actually, I'm not sure that you would agree, because it refutes Dawkins' assertion that religion is evil because it leads some small number of people to commit immoral acts.

If one agrees that a lack of faith, even one which leads to immoral activities, is not immoral in itself, then the corollary is also true -- faith, even a faith which leads to immoral activities, cannot be immoral in itself.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
As would I -- the concept of purgatory, which would allow for that, is one of the aspects of Catholicism that very much appeals to me.

I have been working through a hypothesis that combines Reformed Theology's Doctrine of Double Predestination with the Quaker notion of Universal Salvation, but it speaks to this very issue and demonstrates, I think, a righteousness that goes beyond what either theology proposes. But at this point, it's just a thought experiment.


Perhaps a new thread on that theme?

I have issues with both Reformed and RCC theology, as well as Universalism in its various flavors. While I think we all agree that nobody, not even atheists, can be expected to be all-knowing about their belief system (or alleged anti-belief system), I do see these various positions as having some implications or unintended consequences that raise more questions than they answer.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


I have no quarrels with a belief in God, i have no concerns with the Deist. I may argue the logic path of such a belief but certainly I won't actively criticise unless in the context of a philosophical debate. And i agree with Dawkins, the man-made dogma (religion) of God is damning and causes prejudice. It's has been, and still continues to be a direct threat the stability of civilisation.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


Morality may not be objective in your view, but you clearly have an objective standard as a basis. The absolute worst suffering for everyone is the worst possible thing, is it not?



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


No, you're arguing for a subjective morality...it's just that you're shifting the subject to the person who can enforce their moral standard by being the most powerful.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 


We tend to be on different sides of the fence, but thanks for this one. As a former Catholic, I sort of get a bit annoyed when Protestants get their doctrines wrong. Sometimes its the same Protestants who accuse me of not understanding the positions I oppose.

Catholicism has clauses in its theology for those who are ignorant. It's actually why my family often argues about whether or not I'm going to hell. Seriously, they argue about whether or not I'm technically sinning as an atheist.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


It's i what i personally believe in for a "healthy" civilisation. I guess i would have to condede, in saying that i personally believe morality SHOULD be "the least possible suffering". We created the word "morality"

Perhaps an E.T civilisation may have no such concept, or no such communication for a concept. (very much like our animal kingdom)

Also, what about this concept of health, is that really objective? Wasn't that Sams argument?

Please put me right, you know i appreciate your incite.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


Harris was saying that there wasn't one objective, but we can objectively say that eating nothing but movie theater popcorn butter is definitely less healthy than spending an hour or two a week exercising.

I'd recommend checking out the Harrs v Craig debate on whether a deity is necessary for an objective moral standard. It's always funny to see play the "guess which argument William Lane Craig" will use game because you always win after you've played it a few times.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Oh, so it's a might makes right system. The idea of a sovereign is just a dictatorship. An unjustified one. It also means that there is no objective standard for morality because the absolute sovereign can make any decision and command that it's moral.


His sovereignty isn't predicated upon your level of agreeing or disagreeing to it. In fact, your thoughts on the matter are insignificant.

He created the universe, He gets to make the rules. Just like when you have a family someday, you'll pay the bills so you'll get to decide the rules. No matter how hard the kids pout and throw tantrums claiming your household sovereignty is "unjust".

You're not God, you don't get to make the rules. If that isn't acceptable you can always create your own universe and rule that one as you see fit.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Jesus has never proved to be a false prophet. In fact, the Christians who listened to Jesus escaped the Roman's siege and destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

Harold Camping wrote a book titled "1994" in 1992 that said Jesus would return in 1994. Harold Camping was proved a false prophet 17 years ago.


Jesus claimed that he would return within the lifetime of at least a few of the people who were following him prior to the purported crucifixion. His prophecy didn't come true. Therefore, false prophet.

But your cognitive dissonance goes way to far. Cue the apologetics gymnastics in 3...2....


We've went over this before, apparently you weren't paying attention. Christ never said He would return in the lifetime of His apostles. He said the generation to see all the signs He linked to the end would not pass away before His return. You refuse to grasp the important detail that the disciples asked Him 3 questions, not one.


edit on 21-5-2011 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


And you refuse to accept the basics precepts of Greek grammar that prove you are wrong...hell, it translates pretty well into English. This generation is referring to the generation shall not pass...not: these things will happen and then a generation will pass.

Dispensationalism is just so...well, it's an epitome of cognitive dissonance, let's put it that way.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


What's your thoughts on the train dilemna?


You are at a train track and see five people tied to the track ahead. A switch is in front of you which will divert the train, but as you look down you see a man is strapped to that track and will be killed. Is it permissible to flip the switch and save the five people at the expense of one?

If you are like most people, you said yes.

Now imagine in order to save the five people, you have to push a stranger in front of the train to stop it. You know for certain it would stop the train in time to save the five people tied to the tracks. Is it permissible to push the man and save the five people at the expense of one?

You probably said no. But the results are the same — the only difference is the method (passive vs. impassive). But in both cases you sacrifice one life to save five.

So why do we see one as moral and the other as immoral?



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


And you refuse to accept the basics precepts of Greek grammar that prove you are wrong



Wow, when did you learn Koine Greek?? Odd that no Biblical scholars or Greek-speaking Theologians over the past 2,000 agree with you don't ya think?

(Warning flags that your understanding is in error should be apparent at this point)



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


And you refuse to accept the basics precepts of Greek grammar that prove you are wrong


Wow, when did you learn Koine Greek??


I didn't actually learn to read it, but I did actually bother to read a concordance and I did learn enough about it to understand the difference in tenses. Granted, I can't do it by heart and I require reference, but that's more than enough.



Odd that no Biblical scholars or Greek-speaking Theologians over the past 2,000 agree with you don't ya think?


Well, I doubt that a theologian could get over cognitive dissonance, and there are actually Bible scholars that do agree with me.



(Warning flags that your understanding is in error should be apparent at this point)


Appealing to authority, tradition, and popularity are all warning flags that you don't really have an argument at this point.

Please, demonstrate to me that the grammar of the statement means anything other than what I claim it means. It should be easy enough, it's one sentence. Doesn't require full fluency and comprehension of a language.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


I think it is an issue which has an objective metric: more death is worse than less death. Even if you must act to prevent a lot of death by being either the direct or indirect cause of a little death. Sure, it's psychologically harder to actually pull the lever, but the actions are essentially the same.




top topics



 
2
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join