Religious beliefs

[precious007]

Snusist !

LMAO

[devilock76]

Raised Presbyterian, grandfather was a minister. Educational background strong in the sciences. I believe religions can bring a sense of well being to some and offera general moral fortitude. However I have little tolerance for dogma and put more stock in the things of the physical world that can pass the scie tific method.

Ken

[CzechCzar]

Love love LOVE this video. I have always been a Christian (of the Episcopalian variety) but never really took my faith seriously until I started watching William Lane Craig absolutely obliterate his atheistic opponents in debate after debate, and reading scholarly works by Christians, Jews, and atheists, about the New Testament. CRAZY SHART right there.

For all you atheists and agnostics out there, I would pose the following argument, called the Moral Argument.

1: Absent God, objective moral values and duties do not (and cannot) exist.
2: Objective moral values and duties do exist (some actions, like, say, rape of children, or the Holocaust, are really, truly wrong, objectively (i.e., regardless of how anyone feels about them).
Conclusion: Therefore, God (a deistic God) exists.

I actually participated in a debate about this subject last weekend, and once the TV station gets done with it, I'll post it on youtube, and link to it here. This argument, if successful, does not get us to a Christian God (the life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus is needed for this) but it does get you to a general, deistic God.

I am curious: what do you all make of this argument? Theists and atheists alike, please respond!

[lxskllr]

1: Absent God, objective moral values and duties do not (and cannot) exist.
2: Objective moral values and duties do exist (some actions, like, say, rape of children, or the Holocaust, are really, truly wrong, objectively (i.e., regardless of how anyone feels about them).
Conclusion: Therefore, God (a deistic God) exists.

I don't understand the connection between "God" and morals. It's wrong to inflict discomfort on other creatures. It doesn't take deep thought to figure that out. "God" says nothing about kicking my cat, but it's wrong because it makes her life worse. I didn't get that out of a book, or anything else. If anyone needs a book to figure that out, then I'd call them defective, and they should probably be locked away, or killed before they negatively affect anyone else.

[Crow]

Skillet summed it up nicely. Morality has nothing to do with there being a deity. Sure, there are some good things to follow in the Christian bible, as there are in the Torah, or in Buddhist sutras, or Sanskrit verses, and so on... But that alone doesn't prove a deity.

[Bigblue1]

raised Catholic. Now a Pastafarian.


Hail Marinara

Hail Marinara,
Full of Spice,
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is filled with thee.
Tasty art thou amongst sauces,
and blessed is the fruit
of thy jar, tomatoes
(although fools believe they are vegetables).
Holy Marinara,
Chief Amongst Toppings,
Save a plate for us now,
and at about 6 o’clock when dinner is served, if you would be so kind.
RAmen.

In other words I don't believe I can pray for special favors and they will just happen. No matter how many times like many other things it has happened to PP. Actually I wonder what PP's version of God is actually like. I mean does he condone fleshlights and Blue barrels. I mean if your just gonna make it up as you go along and say well I go to church that means I'm saved but frick the rules the rest of the time, you may as well just not believe in anything.

[Crow]

raised Catholic. Now a Pastafarian.


Hail Marinara

Hail Marinara,
Full of Spice,
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is filled with thee.
Tasty art thou amongst sauces,
and blessed is the fruit
of thy jar, tomatoes
(although fools believe they are vegetables).
Holy Marinara,
Chief Amongst Toppings,
Save a plate for us now,
and at about 6 o’clock when dinner is served, if you would be so kind.
RAmen.

[Bigblue1]

I want that on a t-shirt

[Crow]

I want that on a t-shirt

I'm sure it exists

[Bigblue1]

found it

http://www.cafepress.com/mf/49375944...-emblem_tshirt

[CzechCzar]

I don't understand the connection between "God" and morals. It's wrong to inflict discomfort on other creatures. It doesn't take deep thought to figure that out. "God" says nothing about kicking my cat, but it's wrong because it makes her life worse. I didn't get that out of a book, or anything else. If anyone needs a book to figure that out, then I'd call them defective, and they should probably be locked away, or killed before they negatively affect anyone else.

This doesn't work as a counterargument, because it commits the logical fallacy of begging the question, presupposing objective morality. Many, many atheistic philosophers are also nihilistic, because they have concluded that if there is no God, there is nothing binding us to a given course of action.

Think of it this way: in order to get from is to ought, you need some form of authority that can say what is good and evil, obligatory or prohibited, without possibility of error. Otherwise, who is to say that the sociopath is wrong, and you right? You'd just be two differently-evolved subsets of the same species with different preferences for how to treat fellow members of the same species; it is impossible for either of you to judge the other as incorrect on anything other than a purely subjective basis.

[Crow]

You can observe morality in species outside of our own, yet I don't see any other animals preaching religion or worshipping a deity.

[mistahARK]

Love love LOVE this video. I have always been a Christian (of the Episcopalian variety) but never really took my faith seriously until I started watching William Lane Craig absolutely obliterate his atheistic opponents in debate after debate, and reading scholarly works by Christians, Jews, and atheists, about the New Testament. CRAZY SHART right there.

For all you atheists and agnostics out there, I would pose the following argument, called the Moral Argument.

1: Absent God, objective moral values and duties do not (and cannot) exist.
2: Objective moral values and duties do exist (some actions, like, say, rape of children, or the Holocaust, are really, truly wrong, objectively (i.e., regardless of how anyone feels about them).
Conclusion: Therefore, God (a deistic God) exists.

I actually participated in a debate about this subject last weekend, and once the TV station gets done with it, I'll post it on youtube, and link to it here. This argument, if successful, does not get us to a Christian God (the life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus is needed for this) but it does get you to a general, deistic God.

I am curious: what do you all make of this argument? Theists and atheists alike, please respond!

I think that this can be simply explained by the Golden Rule. Objective morals do exist, because the things we know are wrong, we would never want done to us. So basically, objective morality works off of empathy.

In other words I don't believe I can pray for special favors and they will just happen. No matter how many times like many other things it has happened to PP. Actually I wonder what PP's version of God is actually like. I mean does he condone fleshlights and Blue barrels. I mean if your just gonna make it up as you go along and say well I go to church that means I'm saved but frick the rules the rest of the time, you may as well just not believe in anything.

That's pretty hostile.

[lxskllr]

This doesn't work as a counterargument, because it commits the logical fallacy of begging the question, presupposing objective morality. Many, many atheistic philosophers are also nihilistic, because they have concluded that if there is no God, there is nothing binding us to a given course of action.

Think of it this way: in order to get from is to ought, you need some form of authority that can say what is good and evil, obligatory or prohibited, without possibility of error. Otherwise, who is to say that the sociopath is wrong, and you right? You'd just be two differently-evolved subsets of the same species with different preferences for how to treat fellow members of the same species; it is impossible for either of you to judge the other as incorrect on anything other than a purely subjective basis.

You're conflating morality with legality with the only difference being who made the laws( we're being philosophical here, because it's clear humans made all the laws ;^) ). Legal/illegal isn't the same as right/wrong. Kicking my cat is legal in almost every jurisdiction, but it isn't right in any jurisdiction. A sociopath is neutral due to defective wiring in his brain. He isn't exactly responsible for his actions, same as the retarded can't be held fully responsible. I'm not sure what to say to you if the only reason you don't do good things(or at least non-negative things) is due to fear of punishment. That would be clear indication of a sociopath.

[Thunder_Snus]

Love love LOVE this video. I have always been a Christian (of the Episcopalian variety) but never really took my faith seriously until I started watching William Lane Craig absolutely obliterate his atheistic opponents in debate after debate, and reading scholarly works by Christians, Jews, and atheists, about the New Testament. CRAZY SHART right there.

For all you atheists and agnostics out there, I would pose the following argument, called the Moral Argument.

1: Absent God, objective moral values and duties do not (and cannot) exist.
2: Objective moral values and duties do exist (some actions, like, say, rape of children, or the Holocaust, are really, truly wrong, objectively (i.e., regardless of how anyone feels about them).
Conclusion: Therefore, God (a deistic God) exists.

I actually participated in a debate about this subject last weekend, and once the TV station gets done with it, I'll post it on youtube, and link to it here. This argument, if successful, does not get us to a Christian God (the life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus is needed for this) but it does get you to a general, deistic God.

I am curious: what do you all make of this argument? Theists and atheists alike, please respond!

I respect anyone who wants to believe but i have to say....that is the worst argument ive ever heard in my entire life. Morals exist....but that doesnt mean god does and i have no idea how anyone would come to that conclusion. Thats like saying bread exists but when you heat it up it becomes toast so.......god exists. As for whoever this Mr. Craig is, i highly doubt he obliterates anyone in debates about the existance of god when all FACTUAL evidence points to no. I definitely dont want to come off as an asshole although its hard to phrase this response without sounding like one, so i apologize if anyone takes offense. I have no ill wishes on people that wish to worship and respect their right to do so, but you will never have an argument about gods validity that will make sense or trump any scientific evidence pointing to no.

I believe i answered your questions now i would like to ask you and any other believer a question as well.....and please remember i have no bad intentions or means of mocking anyone.
If i met you in person....told you i was the son of god...and that god put me here to die to free you of your sins that he originally created you with, would you believe me? If books were written about me now would you believe it was true? I guess my question is, coming from a person raised catholic....do you ever look at what you read and say you believe in....and ask yourself if it makes sense? Does it bother you that the bible was originally much much longer and things were taken out and eventually lost to time. The bible teaches that basically sex no matter what is a sin (maybe they say its cool if youre married and trying to have a child im not sure) but the book of eve used to be in there talking about things like the pleasure of orgasms and the "pull out" method. Theres TONS of things that were taken out, and things have been being taken out and revised since the creation of the bible depending on what the pope and whoever else makes those decisions decides. Do you find things like mormonism weird where the guy found golden plates he had to decipher despite you believe in a bearded man in the sky that grants wishes? Does it bother you that so much blood is shed and lives lost because of wars resulting from two different faiths arguing over who the true god is despite no evidence that either exists? I'm terribly sorry if i offend anyone but i'd personally like to get some responses to this.

And just one more question....why do you trust something so old? Let's remember...up until the mid 1800's people believed maggots spontaneously appeared wherever meat was until someone put meat in a jar with a cover over it. We used to use leaches to try to cure people of all diseases. We used to say smoking wasnt harmful. We can look back at so much that people believed in the past 200 years alone......do you know how unadvanced and stupid society was during Jesus' time? The methods of thought and logic during those times are so baffling to think about standing in a 21st century perspective but we still keep the idea of an overlord ruling over us as absolute and total fact.