Godless morality

[Kyuuketsuki]

It's not, I was pointing out that your logic was flawed from it's original presupposition. If God is true then morality isn't a religious concept but a concept that applies to everyone, all together, regardless of whether you think you adhere to it or not. If Christianity is a reality then your statement is like you standing right next to the ocean as a tsunami is coming in and saying "I don't believe there is water there so I'm not going to be knocked over." Reality still applies to you. Belief doesn't diminish truth.

In that case, since morality is quite evidently variable by culture, history and other factors your god can't exist

I haven't gotten there, I was just pointing out that the problem wasn't a problem if Christianity is true. AGAIN, I haven't PROVEN Christianity, in fact that wouldn't even qualify as evidence. It merely shows that Christianity is not NOT true, if you understand what I"m saying.

If, if , if ... I don't hold out much hope for whatever point you appear to be trying to make.

Kyu

[Titan]

In that case, since morality is quite evidently variable by culture, history and other factors your god can't exist  

The certainty atheists use when stating this makes atheism seem like a faith... I'm not trying to be mean but morality can be far more closely tied to religion with a few deviations than to culture.

If, if , if ... I don't hold out much hope for whatever point you appear to be trying to make.

In order to answer any accusations concerning the Christian faith I HAVE to do that. It would be like me saying that atheism doesn't provide a system of morality, you replying that "it does because in atheism..." and then I interrupt you with "You haven't proven atheism yet so your answer is irrelevant." Don't you see, if you want to ask questions about Christianity, for instance, internal contradictions, you have to suppose that the Bible is true merely so that the person can ATTEMPT to answer the questions. You will never get anywhere if you don't allow a person to make an assumption to answer deeper issues. The assumptions aren't going to be proven in the course of the argument, they will merely help the person show you that you are mistaken.

[curiosityandthecat]

Don't you see, if you want to ask questions about Christianity, for instance, internal contradictions, you have to suppose that the Bible is true merely so that the person can ATTEMPT to answer the questions.

In all fairness, do I have to suppose that Great Expectations is true to ask questions about Miss Havisham?

[Titan]

You would have to accept that Great Expectations EXISTS in order to ask a question about Miss Havisham otherwise you are speaking in nonsensical terms. I'm going to post a detailed description of what I mean by this in another forum so I don't have to defend this concept everywhere.

[Kyuuketsuki]

In order to answer any accusations concerning the Christian faith I HAVE to do that. It would be like me saying that atheism doesn't provide a system of morality, you replying that "it does because in atheism..." and then I interrupt you with "You haven't proven atheism yet so your answer is irrelevant." Don't you see, if you want to ask questions about Christianity, for instance, internal contradictions, you have to suppose that the Bible is true merely so that the person can ATTEMPT to answer the questions. You will never get anywhere if you don't allow a person to make an assumption to answer deeper issues. The assumptions aren't going to be proven in the course of the argument, they will merely help the person show you that you are mistaken.

I don't believe atheism carries any philosophy at all but then neither (IMO) does basic theism ... you have to choose a religion (an actual ideology) to claim a philosophy

OK, if you want me to accept your assumption as valid I will but understand that it is purely for the purpose of debate, any time you base something on that assumption I will (in any response I make) point out that it invalidates the argument except from a totally hypothetical POV.

Kyu

[Titan]

OK, if you want me to accept your assumption as valid I will but understand that it is purely for the purpose of debate, any time you base something on that assumption I will (in any response I make) point out that it invalidates the argument except from a totally hypothetical POV.

Yes, but please realize that I already hold that to be true when dealing with arguments past A and B. They don't become valid when we are arguing for N, it is just a necessity for logical inquiry. You don't have to point it out everytime it happens because it is going to happen whenever I'm answer questions like "how can a loving God kill innocent children" or "how is verse 1 and verse 2 not a contradiction?" Those kinds of things will require that alphabet argument and I know that it won't prove that God exists or that Christianity is true, only that it isn't not true.

[Tom62]

Tom62

My 2cts. I believe that morals are not absolute. Many people think that there is a clear distinction between good and right, but most of the time it is not black or white but a gray zone.

If you state "most of the time it is not" that automatically implies that there are cases the demonstrate the opposite. Therefore, according to your own statement, there are moral black and whites.

Yes,  have to agree with you. There are some morals which I think are pure black or white. At least they are to me, others may have a different opinion, like this Nazi wannabee that we saw earlier on this forum. On the black side I put things like, the cruelty towards animals and fellow human beings, greed, ruining the environment for economical gains (another form of greed) and electing George W. Bush for the 2nd time in office . On the 100% white site, I place things like the love between humans; people helping other people for no personal gain, etc. BTW that reminds me of a famous quote of the German author and poet Ricarda Huch: "Love is the only thing that increases when shared with others".

[Titan]

I want to debate this point but we seem to have 3 topics all running about this.

[Kyuuketsuki]

OK, if you want me to accept your assumption as valid I will but understand that it is purely for the purpose of debate, any time you base something on that assumption I will (in any response I make) point out that it invalidates the argument except from a totally hypothetical POV.

Yes, but please realize that I already hold that to be true when dealing with arguments past A and B. They don't become valid when we are arguing for N, it is just a necessity for logical inquiry. You don't have to point it out everytime it happens because it is going to happen whenever I'm answer questions like "how can a loving God kill innocent children" or "how is verse 1 and verse 2 not a contradiction?" Those kinds of things will require that alphabet argument and I know that it won't prove that God exists or that Christianity is true, only that it isn't not true.

Titan,

If something is built with no foundations then it's built with no foundation s and it doesn't matter how much you build on that argument UNLESS some future argument is able to support the assumptive foundation.

Kyu

[Titan]

I know Kyu, the point that is being made via this form of logic does not rest on itself. It MERELY shows that the position isn't self-defeating at that particular point...that is ALL that it shows, nothing more. You may then go back to discussing A or B or C or whichever one you are on.

[Kyuuketsuki]

I know Kyu, the point that is being made via this form of logic does not rest on itself. It MERELY shows that the position isn't self-defeating at that particular point...that is ALL that it shows, nothing more. You may then go back to discussing A or B or C or whichever one you are on.

Coming from a rationalist bent it makes no sense to me at all, the logic an argument is built on is key to an argument's validity.

Kyu

[Titan]

Okay, so you will never bring up a contradiction within the Bible as evidence against the Bible and Christianity as a whole? Can you tell me you've never used the argument of genocide against the conception of a just and kind God?

[Kyuuketsuki]

Okay, so you will never bring up a contradiction within the Bible as evidence against the Bible and Christianity as a whole? Can you tell me you've never used the argument of genocide against the conception of a just and kind God?

Nope! I said I didn't agree with his argument ... that doesn't mean I wont use your bible against you.

Kyu

[curiosityandthecat]

Okay, so you will never bring up a contradiction within the Bible as evidence against the Bible and Christianity as a whole? Can you tell me you've never used the argument of genocide against the conception of a just and kind God?

Nope! I said I didn't agree with his argument ... that doesn't mean I wont use your bible against you.

Kyu

Using the Bible to confront Biblical claims is perfectly reasonable, in my opinion. Neither the Bible nor any other religious text should be exempt from the same scrutiny as any other text people consider to be full of truths or (more dangerously) Truths. Ever seen a bad textbook? One that, by using a number of editors and contributors, is completely self-contradictory, while all on the same topic? I have. I've seen many. And, in critiquing that text (or, even the people who base their facts off that text), I am perfectly within my right to use that text to belittle itself.

Just sayin'.  

[Titan]

Nope! I said I didn't agree with his argument ... that doesn't mean I wont use your bible against you.

Using the Bible to confront Biblical claims is perfectly reasonable, in my opinion. Neither the Bible nor any other religious text should be exempt from the same scrutiny as any other text people consider to be full of truths or (more dangerously) Truths. Ever seen a bad textbook? One that, by using a number of editors and contributors, is completely self-contradictory, while all on the same topic? I have. I've seen many. And, in critiquing that text (or, even the people who base their facts off that text), I am perfectly within my right to use that text to belittle itself.

Exactly! So when you say: "What about this in the Bible?" Do you expect me to reply "Well, I believe that the evidence for God is thus" and then provide evidence that the God is the God of the Bible then provide evidence that the Bible is complete then provide evidence that the Bible is trust worthy then provide evidence for the inclusion of the manuscript or book of the Bible being addressed and THEN address your point?

Of course not! Which is why I would need to assume that all those other ones are true for an instant just to be able to address your point. That is all I'm saying...please pause and think about that for just a second because otherwise the ONLY thing we will be able to debate in this forum is the existence of God, you won't be able to attack the Bible because there will be no room for it.