Another interesting view on this is that you are apparently claiming that purpose and right/wrong can only exist if we believe in god - regardless of the actual existence of such a deity. However, if one were to believe in god, but that deity did not exist, then all the things you claim flow from that would be - in reality - meaningless too.
So, I will assume that you accept that you are in the same boat in which you’ve said atheists are floating.
Cyrin, do you have any support for the assertions you make?
For example, you say:
That is, do you believe this simply because you want to believe this or do you have a reason to believe it?
If you do have a reason, please present it.
You also say:
Can you support this assertion?
Think about if I said this:
Logic is based on God’s nonexistence.
Any argument employing logic must therefore presuppose the nonexistence of God.
Therefore, any logical argument for God’s existence contradicts itself.
Do you agree with the above argument? If not, why not? Do you see how it parallels your assertion that I quote above?
Çyrin wrote:
I can, because whether or not God exists, it’s quite clear that no moral code is given to us at birth. Moral codes are taught by the parents and/or caretakers of the children. Kids do immoral things quite often, until the lessons sink in and empathy emerges. Honestly, what was the point of Moses bringing down the Ten Commandments if everyone already knew them?
Why don’t children pick up sharp sticks and kill their families? Because the parents tend to be bigger, faster, and stronger, and can stop little kids from doing harm to others. Along the same lines, kids tend to be weak and clumsy, and a sharp stick is a weapon which takes some strength and skill to kill with.
Here in the U.S., we don’t arrest two-year-olds when they bite or hit others, yet these acts are obviously “assaults.” If these kids innately knew right from wrong, they should be arrested and charged.
And when serious violence is done to families by the little children (and it does happen), it’s not because the children “think it’s right,” it’s because they don’t know the difference between right and wrong, and/or don’t understand the consequences of their actions.
Of course, I don’t understand why you’re even trying to argue these points with logic, since you reject any logic from atheists as being impossible. I, being a militant agnostic, cannot make any statements which you will agree with on a logical basis, either, since it’s quite easy for me to state with certainty that your “theists and/or agnostics have a purpose” argument is simply wrong. I don’t have one clue of what my ultimate ‘purpose’ for being is, in any theistic context.
What, I have to ask, is your purpose?
Ok, if your going to quote a sentence, at least quote the brackets put after it.
And no, that statement has no bearing on Gods decision to give us free will.
Oh yes, I forgot that when you read the Bible, you are supposed to stop thinking :rolleyes:
Given the circumstances of an omniscient god making a prediction what would be the more likely use of the word? This is fun…how many more can we do?
You are starting from the basis that the Bible is full of bunk and finding superficial things to support that basis. Try seriously thinking about the passages you quote, and looking at it holistically. The Bible is full of metaphors, parables, symbols, etc. and what it says may not be obvious until you stop and think about it for a few minutes with an open mind. It won’t cause you to start believing in God, but it might give you a little more appreciation for the book.
“the detector for God is faith”
That has to the single most absurd statement I have ever heard in my entire life. Wow! Thanks for the laugh.
Cyrin,
You’ve been going on and on about how without God there are no morals and bla bla bla, when the real issue is, ** How can a CHRISTIAN have morals?**
By being a Christian you ally with some very specific beliefs. How can a moral person justify casting innocent children into furnaces of fire for all eternity?
Think about that; burning and torturing little children. That’s sick and immoral.
As a christian you’re not supposed to eat shellfish, pork, etc (and don’t say that only applies to Jewish people b/c you can’t just take one half of the bible and not the other), you condemn homosexuality…
honestly, where are your morals? You’re the one who thinks people should be burned for an eternity. that’s sick.
Sorry Çyrin, the book is entitled “The Atheist Debater’s handbook.” Also try and read a Biology 101 textbook.
Later. (:
Cyrin,
Are all Non-Christians under the control of Satan or just us atheists?
To worship the God who I believe created me, and Loves me even though I continually disappoint Him.
You asked.
Everybody, I’m tired, I’m weak and yes I am in the same boat as all of you. This human condition has any number of interpretations which can be arrived at to help us get through it. We all seem to have chosen one side or another, dug in our heels and we “ain’t goin’ nowheres!”
Personally, I don’t like what this thread has turned me into (not that it wasn’t my own posts which did it, I think it’s just the constant bombardment against my views didn’t necessarily help either) So, enough, I’m done! Call me a quitter but this was my first trip into Great Debates, even thought Maximum Override warned me not to! I was much happier in MPSIMS. My personality can’t take this much serious discussion, it’s very draining!
So before I make any more enemies…
Peace! 
Cyrin, I wasn’t trying to give you a disproof of the statement “without god morals are impossible” – to do so would take an entire thread.
I just wanted you to understand when thousands of irate dopers insult you (which this time, apparently, they didn’t – go dopers!), why you are receiving so much vitrol, for doing “nothing”. (and so you don’t start getting another complex about how rude dopers are).
Atheistic Morality is very interesting – it’s worth an entire thread. And many brilliant people have already written about it. I know I learned a lot reading such threads.
Me’Corva
Cite? Or are you just once again talking off the top of your head with no clear idea of what it is you are saying?
You know Lolo you are awfully fond of quoting the Bible when it suits your agenda, however, I get the impression that your quotes don’t come from your having actually read the Bible, but from some source that is selectively quoting, such as atheist.org. If you actually took the time to understand what the hell you are talking you about you would know that in Mark 7:19 Jesus declared all foods clean. So there is no taking one half the Bible and not the other.
Cyrin, a word of friendly advice: part of the reason that you got so hammered is that you trotted out the Same Old Arguments against atheism, and were treated to the Same Old Rebuttals, to which you gave the Same Old Responses (not to mention the Same Old Hijacks by people on both sides of the debate.)
As someone already suggested, use the search feature–searching GD for “atheist” and/or “agnostic” should do it–and take a look at what has already been hashed out. When you are ready start another thread, craft the most specific question you can, and try to stay focused on the question to avoid another sprawling six-page spittle-fest.
p.s. If you’re looking for pointers on how to respectfully address the faithless without looking like a wuss, read everything that Polycarp and Mangetout have ever posted.
I think the point is, we can’t PROVE God doesn’t exist, just like we can’t PROVE he does.
One thing that might give me a HINT of faith is that we learn, what was once considered Sci-Fi, is now… just, “Fi”. Earth is round… GET OUT OF HERE. Anywho, I wonder if God is out of the realm of Science…? There’s so much we don’t know.
Later
it wasn’t, however, an omniscient God making such a statement, it was an end-of-the-world cult leader. And we can’t be sure he even existed.
Raised Catholic I never started out thinking the bible was bunk. I thought it was true. Looking back, I see it is bunk.
believe me, I’ve read the book.
Your attitude is exactly as I said it would be and I’m not surprised at your response.
I read it, find the bunk.
You hear me talk about the bunk and assure me, “you’re just not reading it right.”
Maybe, and try this, YOU aren’t reading it right.
Do you dislike homosexuals?
Do you eat shellfish?
Do you eat pork?
Hmm?
Well, yeah, he was a prolific and insightful poster with some intelligent questions to answer, but hardly that good!
Lolo:
I confess to being highly offended by your sardonic remarks founded on total ignorance of other persons’ belief structures. Look up what “prophecy” means in the context of Scripture, for starters. Allow the presumption that many of us believers do have the common sense to realize that delusions can exist, through serotonin, misperception, confabulation, or many other sources. And that we may have sound, logical reasons for believing what we do despite such evidence. I’ll be happy to discuss that at more length if you’ll get rid of the sophomoric “all Christians believe thus and so, and that’s just plain ridiculous to do” attitude.
Otherwise, join me in the Pit.
I have never seen a wombat. I’ve seen pictures of wombats, galore, but they could have been faked. I’ve even spoken with Australians, some of whom see wombats on a daily basis. But, of course, they could be mistaken in what they think they see. Prove to me there is such a thing as a wombat.
Some of the allegations put forth by Cyrin and others, though, deserve discussion. The “morality” issue is one strong one. There are numerous schools of ethics that are not founded on a postulated God or gods. Humanism, practiced in some form by most of us here, believer or not, is one that does not require a deity as source – though it functions quite well with the teachings of the Christian Trinity as foundation. Likewise, the misapplication of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (I believe I have the right alleged refutation) does not work because it speaks solely of closed systems in an overall setting; it leaves plenty of room for reversed entropy by concentration of work, for organized structures to perpetuate and even improve (“evolve”) in their relationship to their environs, and so on.
The arguments that “all Christians, to be consistent, need to believe everything in the Bible because it’s allegedly the Word of God” don’t work, whether they’re advocated by fundamentalists or atheists/agnostics – for exactly the same reason as Mississippi refuses to enforce its laws requiring erection of separate schools for blacks and whites. (I think they’re the state with those laws still on the books, in the same way as New York’s consensual sodomy law is still on the books; I welcome correction.) Quite simply, there’s a constitutional issue involved – a statute conflicting with the constitution is voided. Likewise, God the Son made it very clear what the principle for interpretation of Torah is, and anything inconsistent with it is voided. So take your quotes from Leviticus, fold them until they’re all corners… :mad:
Really? I must have missed that declaration from the Vatican declaring Jesus to not be a part of the trinity anymore. My mistake. :rolleyes:
Really? I’m surprised you missed the Mark passage then in response to your question about dietary laws. Try reading it again. You obviously didn’t do such a great job the first time.
Well, I dislike some homosexuals…but then, I dislike some heterosexuals, too. A persons sexual orientation doesn’t come into my liking them or not. And frankly, I’m rather offended by your prejudiced assumption.
Yes, I do eat shellfish.
Yes, I do eat pork.
See Mark 7:19
I’m inches away from asking you to see me in the Pit.
please, I’ve read it. I understand it. I understand your point. I understand the nonsensical Christain point of view. I’ve had this conversation before; a thousand times. It’s nonsense.
and as far as quoting the bible to suit my agenda, yes, I certainly do that, just like Christians.
Jesus comes along and says it’s okay, so everyone’s back to eating pork again.
Here’s a question. Why would an all powerful God need to write a second book? He wouldn’t. He certainly wouldn’t need a son. Like Bill Maher said, what is this, “Bonanza”?
Christians are just Jews with another book. So who’s right? The one with the first book? Or the end of the world cult leader?
either way, the book is nonsense. You shouldn’t be eating pork.
and furthermore, my quotes come from biola.edu, unbound bible, Young’s literal.
But aside from the eating shtuff, what about the homosexuality and, more importantly, the burning of innocent children?
try matthew, daniel, it’s all there. eternal hell, furnace of fire for the wicked, i.e. those not accepting Jesus Christ, i.e. little children whose mommies and daddies didn’t teach them about jesus
don’t act like you don’t know what I’m talking about, please. It’ll save us both a great amount of time if you’re honest.
I’m glad I offended you. That was my intention. I’m well aware of how to make a peaceful discussion, but not today.
Not today.
My problem is with Christians calling themselves Christians when they ain’t Christians.
sure, we can discuss it at length. i’d love to hear what you have to say.
like I said, don’t be dishonest.
it’s all or nothing. Is it or isn’t it the word of a perfect God? It’s all or nothing. Picking and choosing is for noses and supposed Christians.
to the pit, silly Christian?
I think that’s the nicest complement I’ve ever been paid, and it’s a huge honour to be included in the same sentence as Polycarp
Podkayne, thank you - you get to cuddle the Koalas for a while now. [sym]O{[sup]o[/sup]·[sup]o[/sup]}O[/sym] [sym]O{[sup]o[/sup]·[sup]o[/sup]}O[/sym]
[sup](Now, how do I get my huge swollen head through the doorframe?)
Oh, and don’t take Podkayne’s advice too literally; don’t read everything I’ve ever posted, there’s more than a fair sprinkling of ignorance in amongst my posts, but hey, that’s what we’re here for.[/sup]