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.

 

Philosophy defends God

page: 7
3
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 04:58 PM
link   
“The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. Psalm 14:1”
Everything777
Research anything “Everything777” ( is that the anti – Christ’s older bro? 777 vs 666) LOL!
Anyway,
O.K. Your argument is that anyone that disagrees with your book of law is evil! Sorry, you are a silly person www.youtube.com...
Try walkin in rhythm!
www.youtube.com...
Anyway, I apologize.
www.youtube.com...

edit on 21-8-2012 by wittgenstein because: (no reason given)

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
But this is cool?!
www.earthcam.com...




edit on 21-8-2012 by wittgenstein because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-8-2012 by wittgenstein because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 05:24 PM
link   
I welcome Id!



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeahright
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried. -- G.K. Chesterton


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

How often true, but G.K. Chesterton obviously hung out with the wrong crowd. He should have met some of the folks I've met. One that comes immediately to mind is one I spent some time with today; a little ol' lady named Earline.

She's in a nursing home. I met her while visiting someone else. She can barely push herself in her wheelchair, but that doesn't stop her from spreading some love around. Earline is especially keen on the unfortunate ones who are most out of their mind and hard for the staff to deal with and/or relate to. They are usually agitated and loud and smell like poop.

Earline stops by each one and speaks sweetly to them and pats their arms. It's very loving and touching and it springs forth from her faith.

Are Christians the only folk on earth who can be kind? No. But that Chesterton quote should be a reminder for us, it's certainly not a truism. Peace.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue Shift
...The minute you think your good is right and the other person's good is wrong, you create God. Rather than just be honest and say that my DNA is driving me to kill the other person because they have what I and my family need to survive and I'm strong enough to take it. That's a harsh thing to admit. Much better to have some mythical superbeing take the blame (or credit).

But the morality we speak of couldn't possibly all fit in that rather narrow slot. There are plenty of sociopaths that steal or brutalize because they want, not need.

Ayn Rand took moral relativism to extremes, and the extreme, brave, and most intellectually honest moral relativist would indeed be a sociopath:


What did Rand admire so much about Hickman? His sociopathic qualities: "Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should," she wrote, gushing that Hickman had "no regard whatsoever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel 'other people.'"
atheism.about.com...

Rand's "Superman" Mr. William Edward Hickman:


Hickman kidnapped Parker on December 15, 1927, by appearing at her junior high school, claiming that her father, Perry Parker, was ill, and that he wanted to see his daughter. He did not realize there were twin Parker daughters, and did not know either child's name, but the school administrator turned one of the girls over to him. The next day Hickman sent the first of three ransom notes to the Parker home, demanding $1,500 in $20 gold certificates.

On December 19, Parker delivered the ransom in Los Angeles but in return Hickman delivered the girl's dismembered body. Her arms and legs had been severed and her internal organs removed. A towel stuffed into her body to absorb blood led police to Hickman's apartment building, but he managed to escape. A $100,000 reward was offered for his capture, and for nearly a week Hickman eluded authorities.
en.wikipedia.org...

Believe what you want BlueShift, what makes sense to you, but I don't know that I would be arguing forcefully for the concept...no telling what you might be putting out for the universe to answer.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


That's Why Everyone Needs...The Savior, Jesus Christ!

For “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” Romans 10:13



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ResearchEverything777

That's Why Everyone Needs...The Savior, Jesus Christ!

For “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” Romans 10:13


How do you know that? I don't think you do. Maybe you are just letting this book tell you what and how to think.

Sometimes I wonder if Christians are God worshipers or Bible worshipers, because the only thing they believe about God is what is in The Bible, and they take "it" for 100% truth without questioning it, as if the bible were God itself... oh but wait, it is "The Word of God", right? And how do you know that? Because it says so... Bible worshipers



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ResearchEverything777
 


Why? Why does everyone need a savior? What is he going to save of from?
edit on 21-8-2012 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 

You assumed of course that I was just talking about the book and nothing apart from the book. Don't assume.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeahright
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried. -- G.K. Chesterton


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

Sadly, that was funny..!



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by dpeacock
Premise 1 If God does not exist then absolute morale values do not exist

premise 2 If Absolute moral values exist then God exist

Ok so an absolute moral is a moral that remains the same all the time.

The only way to try and defeat it is to accept relative moral values which is like saying it is moraly equivelant to eat a deer as it is to eat a baby


I think we could invent an absolute moral value much like we invented morals, values and the absolute.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 



I think we could invent an absolute moral value


Not unless everyone in the world agrees with it; otherwise, it isn't absolute.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 



I think we could invent an absolute moral value


Not unless everyone in the world agrees with it; otherwise, it isn't absolute.


do you agree with... or follow the law?



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Laws change.

So they are temporarily absolute?



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Laws change.

So they are temporarily absolute?


some minor laws,, but some written and unwritten laws have existed since humans have,,,, humans have always been pack animals /communal..... for reasons such as necessary for reproduction,,,, and the more the merrier,, its easier to take on nature with a group then by yourself for yourself,,.,. so laws like dont kill your neighbor or covet their wife, or take their possessions are almost intuitive or absolute,.,.,.
laws like the amount in dollarge of driving without a seat belt are subjected to change over time....

and the person i responded to,, only stated that in order for something to be absolute,,, would only require everyone in the world to agree upon it and obey,..,,.. it is an absolute for every and any human civilization that them members of the civilization must accept that they are not allowed to kill other members.,.,. if killing members of the civilization was accepted then it would be ok for everyone to kill everyone,,,.., this is not what is wanted by living humans,, so it is absolutely unacceptable for a member of society to kill another.,,.,.. this world is not perfect and so snip happens,,,, to create an equal and opposite force,, the law must kill a member of society that kills another,, to stop further law breaking,, this is the death penalty,.,.,.
edit on 22-8-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by ResearchEverything777
 


Why? Why does everyone need a savior? What is he going to save of from?
edit on 21-8-2012 by windword because: (no reason given)


To be saved from a place of torment that the savior created to save us from.


Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 



I think we could invent an absolute moral value


Not unless everyone in the world agrees with it; otherwise, it isn't absolute.


Even if everyone on Earth agreed, it still wouldn't be absolute. It would just be a global social construct. If there was a moral construct ALL would be following it, humans and animals, and any other species that may exist in the universe.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 01:33 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


I must disagree with your theory on absolutes.

You raise the idea of don't covet your neighbor's possessions, don't kill your neighbor, and don't take their wife as examples of absolutes. I must disagree with all three.

Seeking the possessions of our neighbors comes under the realm of war, and trade. If a country does not have a product, say lumber (hypothetical), then they covet their neighboring countries lumber. A trade agreement is arranged and, by breaking your "absolute moral" humanity becomes better.

Not taking the wife from another man, is also sketchy. Suppose the man she is with is a psychopathic serial killer, like Charles Manson. Would you deem is advisable or not to try and take his wife from him, if you knew what his intentions were? Again, your "absolute moral" has a loophole.

As for killing, this one is easy. Charles Manson, from above, is going to kill your child, unless you kill him. Or, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, Adolf Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, whomever. They are going to kill every human being in your town, unless you kill them. Would you not kill them, because of your "absolute moral" judgement?

Further question on that one: the death penalty in prisons.

For every absolute moral, there is absolutely no reason to think there will never be a situation in which it needs to be broken.

~ Wandering Scribe



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wandering Scribe
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


I must disagree with your theory on absolutes.

You raise the idea of don't covet your neighbor's possessions, don't kill your neighbor, and don't take their wife as examples of absolutes. I must disagree with all three.

Seeking the possessions of our neighbors comes under the realm of war, and trade. If a country does not have a product, say lumber (hypothetical), then they covet their neighboring countries lumber. A trade agreement is arranged and, by breaking your "absolute moral" humanity becomes better.

Not taking the wife from another man, is also sketchy. Suppose the man she is with is a psychopathic serial killer, like Charles Manson. Would you deem is advisable or not to try and take his wife from him, if you knew what his intentions were? Again, your "absolute moral" has a loophole.

As for killing, this one is easy. Charles Manson, from above, is going to kill your child, unless you kill him. Or, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, Adolf Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, whomever. They are going to kill every human being in your town, unless you kill them. Would you not kill them, because of your "absolute moral" judgement?

Further question on that one: the death penalty in prisons.

For every absolute moral, there is absolutely no reason to think there will never be a situation in which it needs to be broken.

~ Wandering Scribe


I understand,,, and i guess your point is exceptions with always make absolutely relative?



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 02:47 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


That would just about sum it up. Every law or moral that a group of people give value is based on their personal opinion, and not some concrete certainty. Everything, therefore, is a shade of gray. Even bad things, like murder, can be turned into something good, as in the case of self-defense, or war, etc.

~ Scribe



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Wandering Scribe
 


The world is 500,000 shades of gray, but the people choose to see it in black and white because sorting through the gray requires a depth of thought that threatens to reveal just how arse backwards we already are.

They look at it from very certain perspectives, to avoid the truths that would otherwise be revealed.
edit on 23-8-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join