How atheists became the most colossally smug and annoying people on the planet

erowe1 said:
The concept of morality is that it is something that can't be just a matter of opinion or social convention. Anything that is merely one of those things is not morality. For something to be immoral, it must actually be wrong, such that the claim that it ought not to happen is a true claim. It can't just be something that's disliked or uncommon or any other mere "is."
Click to expand...

But how is "wrong" determined? Is polygamy immoral? Or masturbation?
 
VIDEODROME said:
What would it mean to defend a morality? Try to get everyone living by it?

What if i think people should be free to do immoral things as long as they are harmless to others?
Click to expand...

You are mixing the idea of legislation and morality. They are in no way the same. Furthermore, it is a statist Roman Catholic idea that social morality and social justice is to be enforced by the State. That is not the Biblical view.
 
Sola_Fide said:
Sonny, we've already proved that atheistic worldviews cannot determine morality.
Click to expand...

No, all you have done is repeat your unprovable assumptions.

If morality is something you find worthy to defend (I assume it is because you are here on a liberty board, and liberty is a question of morality), then you cannot be an atheist.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think it is possible that objective moral standards can exist without a deity. If you were to ask me how such standards could exist without an author, I would have no answer other than "That's just the way reality is." It's just as intellectually satisfying an answer as saying "God made them."

Christianity is that worldview. Why? Because the Triune God exists, and He has revealed Himself in the Scriptures. You already know this is true in your heart of hearts.
Click to expand...

As I said, all you do is repeat your unprovable assumptions. Incidentally, you never answered the question why God would have revealed Himself through the Bible, since one can't read it or listen to someone reciting from it or otherwise know what's in it without using sense perception, which you claim never leads to the truth.
 
Sola_Fide said:
You are mixing the idea of legislation and morality. They are in no way the same. Furthermore, it is a statist Roman Catholic idea that social morality and social justice is to be enforced by the State. That is not the Biblical view.
Click to expand...

Okay so I guess what you mean by "Defend" morality is to just preach it to people?

I guess I wasn't sure what you meant because it sounded wrapped in Libertarianism and Politics.
 
eduardo89 said:
Sola, are you going to answer my questions?

What is the Arabic word for god? What word do Arabic-speaking Christians use for god? When an Arabic-speaking Christian prays, what word does he use for God?
Click to expand...

Sure Eduardo. Since you conceded the point that the Pope is evil, I will concede the point about language.
 
Sola_Fide said:
Sure Eduardo. Since you conceded the point that the Pope is evil, I will concede the point about language.
Click to expand...

I have never said the Pope is evil. Sure, there have been evil Popes, all men are affected by sin, but I do not consider Francis to be evil, even though I have many disagreements with him.
 
Sonny Tufts said:
No, all you have done is repeat your unprovable assumptions.
Click to expand...

Since you commit the is/ought fallacy with your arguments from nature, my complaint against you is confirmed. You are engaged in a fallacious argument. There is no way out.

As I said, all you do is repeat your unprovable assumptions. Incidentally, you never answered the question why God would have revealed Himself through the Bible, since one can't read it or listen to someone reciting from it or otherwise know what's in it without using sense perception, which you claim never leads to the truth.
Click to expand...

You read the Bible with your senses, yet you don't know the truth. My point proved again. Knowledge doesn't come by sensation. It's revelational.
 
Sola_Fide said:
Since you commit the is/ought fallacy with your arguments from nature, my complaint against you is confirmed. You are engaged in a fallacious argument. There is no way out.
Click to expand...

Wrong. All I said was that objective, transcendent moral truths may exist without a deity. Nowhere did I argue from nature. When I use the word "reality", I refer to everything, transcendent or nontranscendent.

Sola_Fide said:
You read the Bible with your senses, yet you don't know the truth. My point proved again. Knowledge doesn't come by sensation. It's revelational.
Click to expand...

You continue to dodge the question. If knowledge comes from revelation, what is the purpose of the Bible?
 
Last edited:
Sola_Fide said:
Wrong is determined by what God has revealed in His Word. There is no morality apart from the laws of God.
Click to expand...

If you choose to define morality as only being determined by the word of god, then of course atheism can't determine morality. You have an interesting way of framing arguments with your own peculiar definition of words...which you believe strengthens your circular argument. By making morality exclusively biblical, you've created an argument similar to "atheism cannot speak of the resurrection", or anything else exclusive to your scripture.
 
Sonny Tufts said:
Wrong. All I said was that objective, transcendent moral truths may exist without a deity. Nowhere did I argue from nature. When I use the word "reality", I refer to everything, transcendent or nontranscendent.
Click to expand...

Are you now admitting that arguments from nature are illogical? Thank you.


You continue to dodge the question. If knowledge comes from revelation, what is the purpose of the Bible?
Click to expand...

What is the point of a sensation of burning? What is the point of an image of a tree?

Since it is impossible that sensation yields knowledge (since sensation must be universal for one to know something truly, or else they commit the fallacy of induction), the sensations provide the occasion that God reveals either true or false information to someone.

The purpose of the senses is to provide the occasion whereby God gives a person information. This is proved by your own example about the Bible. You read the Bible with your senses, yet you don't know the truth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top