Advertisement

Author Topic: God Is Dead -- What are the consequences?  (Read 19929 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline dogmai

  • Jr. Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 2846
  • Respect: +87
    • View Profile
Re: God Is Dead -- What are the consequences?
« Reply #30 on: August 10, 2018, 03:45:05 AM »
It's only circular because I keep taking you back around to the truth.

LoL.  Apparently you're ignorant of circular reasoning. You are going back to the truth. Your reason is circular because your conclusion is used as your premise.



Like this post: 0

Adverstisement

Offline dogmai

  • Jr. Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 2846
  • Respect: +87
    • View Profile
Re: God Is Dead -- What are the consequences?
« Reply #31 on: August 10, 2018, 05:14:53 PM »
The Moral argument for God goes like this...

1. If God does not exist, objective morals don’t exist regards to the existence of god
2. Objective morals exist regards to the existence of objective morality
3. Therefore God exists  regards to the existence of god


Why it's circular reasoning. The conclusion is the same as premise 1.

Using premise 1 wouldn't be circular reasoning if the conclusion is about objective morality.

Example:
1. If God does not exist, objective morals don’t exist
2. God exist
3. Therefore objective morality exists

This wouldn't be circular reasoning but of course it is still a fallacy, just a different one, because there has to be proof of god's existence first.



Like this post: 0

Yengimer

  • Guest
Re: God Is Dead -- What are the consequences?
« Reply #32 on: August 10, 2018, 09:34:57 PM »
It's not circular. It's more about the origin of the morals and how they can't be subjective, otherwise everyone would have a different meaning of right and wrong and that's not what we find.

You can say it's circular until you are blue in the face for all I care. You still have to know it's origin before you can even come to that conclusion.

If there are morals, there is a moral law giver.



Like this post: 0

Offline dogmai

  • Jr. Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 2846
  • Respect: +87
    • View Profile
Re: God Is Dead -- What are the consequences?
« Reply #33 on: August 12, 2018, 11:37:54 PM »
Oh but I wasn't a morally good person before I've come to believe in God. I still sin everyday. Just being transparent here.

Yes, I fear God which lead me to believe. The Bible said to Repent and believe the Gospel. It's what Jesus and His apostles used.

As one wise preacher once said, "Until sinners hear the bad news, they are not ready to hear the Good News."

You're presupposing that somehow this is bad. I argue that it's not. Apparently you don't know what presupposing means because I never said anything of the sort. I refuted your argument by using your own example, showing that you yourself, proved you wrong. And posting a random quote that has nothing to do with your argument doesn't help you in any way. The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, and hell is really real.

Noah was righteous before God, yes, but I don't think he was perfect like any other, but the Lord knows his/our hearts, and the remorse we feel when we sin against Him.

Righteous means right standing. He obey God and followed God's directions against what the public said to him. I don't have to listen to what you or others say, just read what God's word says about Noah.

True, robbing a bank is wrong and immoral. If God does not exist, then moral is not objective in this way it doesn't matter what anyone thinks.

Actually, no, I feel like if I remove God out of my life, I would feel more fear and have no remorse. You just refuted your own argument. You showed that objective morality doesn't exist. Morality is subjective based on your own feelings
(Fear)
When I am united in Christ, it changes all that.

What really happen as an atheist is this will extended into a fear that you know you are not actually saved, and a deep fear of hell set in. This would be an example of presupposition . I'll explain why it is. You assume that atheists believe in what you believe in and concluded that they fear hell like you do.

What I am saying is when you remove God out of your life, you remove all the moral duties and responsibility that came with it. And with this, you just proved that you don't think that objective morality exist. Going by your logic, either, A. morality is subjective based on the individual. Morality does not come from god.  Or B, "morality" is forced on to you by god, and that is not morality. Or c, you don't know what morality means. And this is why your argument fail like I mentioned earlier. And this is why fear of hell is a bad thing because you don't know/believe that murder is wrong. The reason why you don't commit murder is not because it's wrong, but because you are scared of hell, and when you are no longer afraid of hell, you choose to do immoral acts. 



Like this post: 0

Offline dogmai

  • Jr. Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 2846
  • Respect: +87
    • View Profile
Re: God Is Dead -- What are the consequences?
« Reply #34 on: August 13, 2018, 05:35:43 AM »
Not true. In bible history, they hated us. If God is dead, why aren't we dead yet?

Because we don't need god.



Like this post: 0

Yengimer

  • Guest
Re: God Is Dead -- What are the consequences?
« Reply #35 on: August 13, 2018, 09:56:14 AM »
This would be an example of presupposition . I'll explain why it is. You assume that atheists believe in what you believe in and concluded that they fear hell like you do.

A materialistic worldview ultimately leads to moral skepticism, nihilism is the final condition of atheist.

If are an atheist and you disagree... then you are contradicting yourself.

You just refuted your own argument. You showed that objective morality doesn't exist. Morality is subjective based on your own feelings

I think that's how it is when God is removed. Fear sets in. You either are driven by Faith or Fear. I think being an atheist led to more fear than being a Christian.

And with this, you just proved that you don't think that objective morality exist. Going by your logic, either, A. morality is subjective based on the individual. Morality does not come from god.  Or B, "morality" is forced on to you by god, and that is not morality. Or c, you don't know what morality means. And this is why your argument fail like I mentioned earlier. And this is why fear of hell is a bad thing because you don't know/believe that murder is wrong. The reason why you don't commit murder is not because it's wrong, but because you are scared of hell, and when you are no longer afraid of hell, you choose to do


If you don't believe in God, you can't necessarily believe that murder is inherently wrong. Let me ask you a question. How do you know murder is wrong?

Even if you think murder is still wrong, you will have to show that being an atheist and having objective morality is NOT mutually exclusive. You haven't done that yet.



Like this post: 0

Yengimer

  • Guest
Re: God Is Dead -- What are the consequences?
« Reply #36 on: August 13, 2018, 09:57:54 AM »
Because we don't need god.

There you go. You are already presupposing that you don't need God. So of course your conclusion = God does not exist!

But everyone has presupposition al. Nobody is neutral.



Like this post: 0

Offline dogmai

  • Jr. Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 2846
  • Respect: +87
    • View Profile
Re: God Is Dead -- What are the consequences?
« Reply #37 on: August 14, 2018, 01:58:02 AM »
There you go. You are already presupposing that you don't need God. So of course your conclusion = God does not exist!

But everyone has presupposition al. Nobody is neutral.

Do you even know the definition of presuppose? Someone disagreeing with you is the definition of presuppose.

There is no presupping in the answer that I gave. I'll explain it to you. I answered Theafterlife's question,  "If God is dead, why aren't we dead yet?" In this topic's scenario, god is without a doubt.  And since we are still alive, we don't require god to be alive for us to be alive. If we need for us to live, then we would be dead, if is dead.

Now you what fear can do to you? You're so scared in the possibility of god not existing that it makes you want to defend god every time you have a discussion with an atheist whether it's about the existence of god or not.

Throughout this thread, I never argued for or against the existence of god. I argued that the divine command theory fails.




Like this post: 0

Offline dogmai

  • Jr. Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 2846
  • Respect: +87
    • View Profile
Re: God Is Dead -- What are the consequences?
« Reply #38 on: August 14, 2018, 09:01:37 AM »
A materialistic worldview ultimately leads to moral skepticism, nihilism is the final condition of atheist. Failed again. That's only an assertion. No evidence, so it doesn't mean that it's true.

If are an atheist and you disagree... then you are contradicting yourself. Failed again. If that's not the beliefs of an atheist,  than he/she is not contradicting themselves.

I think that's how it is when God is removed. Fear sets in. That's a possibility if you're a theist. God can't be removed from an atheist if it wasn't there to begin with. You either are driven by Faith or Fear.Failed again. False dichotomy. I think being an atheist led to more fear than being a Christian. Failed again. In regards to this topic, your logic shows that a Christian has more fear than an atheist because you have one more fear than an atheist,
Your fear of hell. I'm not claiming that it's true but, in this thread, a Christian has been showing us a lot of his fears.

 

If you don't believe in God, you can't necessarily believe that murder is inherently wrong. Let me ask you a question. How do you know murder is wrong?still waiting on your evidence. You've dodging the question when you were asked earlier

Even if you think murder is still wrong, you will have to show that being an atheist and having objective morality is NOT mutually exclusive. You haven't done that yet.Still waiting on your evidence



Like this post: 0

Offline dogmai

  • Jr. Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 2846
  • Respect: +87
    • View Profile
Re: God Is Dead -- What are the consequences?
« Reply #39 on: August 14, 2018, 09:07:36 AM »
There you go. You are already presupposing that you don't need God. So of course your conclusion = God does not exist!

But everyone has presupposition al. Nobody is neutral
.

After carfully reading this comment again. I'm starting to think that you don't know the definition of presuppose because being neutral has nothing to do with it.



Like this post: 0

Yengimer

  • Guest
Re: God Is Dead -- What are the consequences?
« Reply #40 on: August 14, 2018, 11:58:26 AM »
Failed again. That's only an assertion. No evidence, so it doesn't mean that it's true.

The evidence is this.

1) You don't live consistent with your worldview.

Moral skepticism such as urself who still want a general morality operating in your life, yet do not want to abandon subjectivism.

Nihilism is the final outcome, it is the ramifications of living out your life without God, but many atheist are too scared, they can't bear the thought of living it out.

2) Your worldview can't justify moral knowledge because your brain is just a machine chemically reacting to stimulus.

You have no way to know they are true.  In fact, being materialists, you would have to say they are not true.

Failed again. If that's not the beliefs of an atheist,  than he/she is not contradicting themselves.

I'm not talking about other atheists. I'm talking about YOU.

That's a possibility if you're a theist. God can't be removed from an atheist if it wasn't there to begin with.

Semantics. Also that's a revision of the term not the strict meaning of the term.

False dichotomy.

How so?

. Failed again. In regards to this topic, your logic shows that a Christian has more fear than an atheist because you have one more fear than an atheist,
Your fear of hell. I'm not claiming that it's true but, in this thread, a Christian has been showing us a lot of his fears.

Fearing Hell is certainly a reasonable thought if ur an atheist or prior to becoming a Christian, however the joy of knowing God and His Grace after becoming a Christian is far more moving thought.



Like this post: 0

Offline dogmai

  • Jr. Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 2846
  • Respect: +87
    • View Profile
Re: God Is Dead -- What are the consequences?
« Reply #41 on: August 24, 2018, 10:17:03 PM »
The evidence is this.

1) You don't live consistent with your worldview.On the contrary, I do live consistent.  You're the one that don't live consistent. You've shown time and time again that, you constantly change according to your fears.

Moral skepticism such as urself who still want a general morality operating in your life, yet do not want to abandon subjectivism. How do you define moral skepticism?it's now apparent as to why your arguments fails again and again. You're confused with the meaning of these theories and what it is used for. 

Nihilism is the final outcome, it is the ramifications of living out your life without God, but many atheist are too scared, they can't bear the thought of living it out. This fails because you haven't given any evidence as to how god is needed and how it leads to nihilism. But you have shown again and again how your argument does lead to it.

2) Your worldview can't justify moral knowledge because your brain is just a machine chemically reacting to stimulus. This claim is wrong because atheists are able to justify morality. Also, the second part fails because I believe slavery is morally wrong, so just with that, I've proven that I'm not reacting to stimulus.

You have no way to know they are true.  In fact, being materialists, you would have to say they are not true. This is false, when materialism is used in this context.

I'm not talking about other atheists. I'm talking about YOU. And This is why your argument fails because you assumed what my beliefs are.

Semantics. Also that's a revision of the term not the strict meaning of the term. This is irrelevant to the topic.
But I'm assuming that you are referring to "atheism" To bring it back to the core, theism=god. Atheism=no god. Belief has nothing to do with it. But in common use these days, theism=Belief in the existence of god. Atheism=no belief in the existence of god. They are opposites, therefore saying "I believe that god exist " is a claim and burden of proof is on that claim. "I don't believe that god exist " is the default.  Believing that god don't exist is a claim, and not a requirement for atheism. And not every atheists claims that. But an atheist claim that,  that's when the burden of proof is on the atheist. In accordance with that claim, the default would be, "I don't believe that god does not exist. 


How so?

Fearing Hell is certainly a reasonable thought if ur an atheist Wrong. Fear of hell requires that you must believe hell exist in the first place. or prior to becoming a Christian, however the joy of knowing God and His Grace after becoming a Christian is far more moving thought.If That's your opinion,  then yes. However your does not determine whether somethingis true or not.



Like this post: 0

Yengimer

  • Guest
Re: God Is Dead -- What are the consequences?
« Reply #42 on: August 25, 2018, 08:15:01 PM »
On the contrary, I do live consistent.  You're the one that don't live consistent. You've shown time and time again that, you constantly change according to your fears.

There is no moral ought or obligation to live or think in any way in your view. It's simply just illogical and moral anarchy.

If you want to be consistent, you would have to say atheism profess to have no moral 'ought', but you certainly don't live that way.

Atheists are open to moral relativism, but they live as if there are moral absolutes.

That right there is the inconsistency.

How do you define moral skepticism?it's now apparent as to why your arguments fails again and again. You're confused with the meaning of these theories and what it is used for.


Moral skepticism is when truth isn't truth. What I find ironic about atheists is that when I reference their atheistic beliefs, they'll be the first to say that atheism isn't a belief, but a lack of belief in god. And therefore theists are to be blame for all the history of atrocities. But when they are trying to sell atheism, suddenly there exists a collective atheist mind of virtues and good will.

Atheists has No Reason for his "good" humanism. Atheist don't even know how to account for goodness and kindness without God, and yet they demand it.

This fails because you haven't given any evidence as to how god is needed and how it leads to nihilism. But you have shown again and again how your argument does lead to it.

I did via the Moral Argument.

To quote Ravi Zacharias:

"When you say there's too much evil in this world you assume there's good. When you assume there's good, you assume there's such a thing as a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. But if you assume a moral law, you must posit a moral Law Giver, but that's Who you're trying to disprove and not prove. Because if there's no moral Law Giver, there's no moral law. If there's no moral law, there's no good. If there's no good, there's no evil. What is your question?"  -  Ravi Zacharias

So  the very concept of morality requires a moral standard, which requires someone to set the standard. So, the very use of the word "morality" implies God, the moral law-giver.

The implications of not believing in a god changes your worldview in a way that lead you to meaningless because it carries no sufficient to provide for anything. Atheism does not give any reasons to support it. Go and read an honest atheist, Friedrich Nietzsche.

This claim is wrong because atheists are able to justify morality. Also, the second part fails because I believe slavery is morally wrong, so just with that, I've proven that I'm not reacting to stimulus.

How would atheists do that? Nietzsche was honest about the implications of his worldview just like when Dawkins said "The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference." Most atheists deny this and pretend like they have some justification for morality. Look even your philosophers admit it, you have no justification for condemning any act as immoral, no matter how much pain it causes.

This is false, when materialism is used in this context.


 I would ask you from a purely naturalistic universe, how can anything whatsoever be right or wrong? 

There is no logical reason to trust our own reasoning. If our reasoning only is a result of natural processes.

And This is why your argument fails because you assumed what my beliefs are.


Just look at your arguments it's typically a atheist-only charge.

This is irrelevant to the topic.
But I'm assuming that you are referring to "atheism" To bring it back to the core, theism=god. Atheism=no god. Belief has nothing to do with it. But in common use these days, theism=Belief in the existence of god. Atheism=no belief in the existence of god. They are opposites, therefore saying "I believe that god exist " is a claim and burden of proof is on that claim. "I don't believe that god exist " is the default.  Believing that god don't exist is a claim, and not a requirement for atheism. And not every atheists claims that. But an atheist claim that,  that's when the burden of proof is on the atheist. In accordance with that claim, the default would be, "I don't believe that god does not exist.

Did ya'll see what dogmai said there?? She said "I believe that god exist" has the burden of proof while " i don't believe god exist" is the default and therefore does not require burden of proof."

I'm sorry but you're wrong. "Believing that god don't exist is a claim, and not a requirement for atheism"

Wrong. Fear of hell requires that you must believe hell exist in the first place.

I agree.

If That's your opinion,  then yes. However your does not determine whether somethingis true or not.

I would not argue that it is true, but sincere.



Like this post: 0

Offline dogmai

  • Jr. Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 2846
  • Respect: +87
    • View Profile
Re: God Is Dead -- What are the consequences?
« Reply #43 on: August 26, 2018, 11:33:37 PM »
There is no moral ought or obligation to live or think in any way in your view. It's simply just illogical and moral anarchy.

If you want to be consistent, you would have to say atheism profess to have no moral 'ought', but you certainly don't live that way.

Atheists are open to moral relativism, but they live as if there are moral absolutes.

That right there is the inconsistency.

Moral skepticism is when truth isn't truth.
 You're confused and is talking about two different and separate things here, objective morality and moral absolute.


 What I find ironic about atheists is that when I reference their atheistic beliefs, they'll be the first to say that atheism isn't a belief, but a lack of belief in god. And therefore theists are to be blame for all the history of atrocities. But when they are trying to sell atheism, suddenly there exists a collective atheist mind of virtues and good will.

Because you, like many other theists, are either confused about what atheism and theism are. That's why when having a discussion about a particular topic,  you use irrelevant responses, jump from one thing to another. Or they intentionally do it thinking it can be used to support their argument, resulting in failure.

Regarding the thing you said, ignorance have a lot to do with it.


   


Atheists has No Reason for his "good" humanism. Atheist don't even know how to account for goodness and kindness without God, and yet they demand it.

I did via the Moral Argument. No you didn't. Stating the argument is considered as evidence.
Premise dddd
  1. If God does not exist, objective morals don’t exist
I reject that premise because there's no evidence to show that it's true. You failed to that, instead, you just repeatedly reworded your assertion.
 


To quote Ravi Zacharias:

"When you say there's too much evil in this world you assume there's good. When you assume there's good, you assume there's such a thing as a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. But if you assume a moral law, you must posit a moral Law Giver, but that's Who you're trying to disprove and not prove. Because if there's no moral Law Giver, there's no moral law. If there's no moral law, there's no good. If there's no good, there's no evil. What is your question?"  -  Ravi Zacharias

So  the very concept of morality requires a moral standard, which requires someone to set the standard. So, the very use of the word "morality" implies God, the moral law-giver.
Quoting someone's morality aruguemnt, in which you based your argument on is failure to show evidence. It doesn't matter if you use his long version and/Or Your short version, the same fallacy applies, circular reasoning. Repetition doesn't make your argument any more true than the first time.

The implications of not believing in a god changes your worldview in a way that lead you to meaningless because it carries no sufficient to provide for anything.
And this why your argument fails. You just gave evidence that there is objective morality doesn't exist. Not this is irony. You refused to show evidence as to why your argument is true, but is willing to show evidence as to why your argument fails. 
Atheism does not give any reasons to support it. Go and read an honest atheist, Friedrich Nietzsche. Heres my advice for you. Don't base a book by its title, don't just read the title and assume what the book is about. If you read it , then you should re read it and/Or gave someone interpret it to you. You kept mentioning Nietzsche and his works but no understanding of it.

How would atheists do that? Nietzsche was honest about the implications of his worldview just like when Dawkins said "The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference." Most atheists deny this and pretend like they have some justification for morality. Look even your philosophers admit it, you have no justification for condemning any act as immoral, no matter how much pain it causes. Atheism has no apologetics philosophers. But are philosophers who are atheists. 
 

 I would ask you from a purely naturalistic universe, how can anything whatsoever be right or wrong? 

There is no logical reason to trust our own reasoning. If our reasoning only is a result of natural processes.
 

Just look at your arguments it's typically a atheist-only charge.

Did ya'll see what dogmai said there?? She said "I believe that god exist" has the burden of proof while " i don't believe god exist" is the default and therefore does not require burden of proof."

I'm sorry but you're wrong. "Believing that god don't exist is a claim, and not a requirement for atheism"
And This fallacy is called Argumentum ad lapidem. You can't if in something that you don't have a reason to believe it. That's why the lack of belief is the default. That's why we are innocent until proven guilty. That's why in court we plea guilty or not guilty. 
I agree.

I would not argue that it is true, but sincere.



Like this post: 0

Yengimer

  • Guest
Re: God Is Dead -- What are the consequences?
« Reply #44 on: August 27, 2018, 11:44:20 AM »
Because you, like many other theists, are either confused about what atheism and theism are. That's why when having a discussion about a particular topic,  you use irrelevant responses, jump from one thing to another. Or they intentionally do it thinking it can be used to support their argument, resulting in failure.

Regarding the thing you said, ignorance have a lot to do with it.

I brought that up because morals contradict naturalism. Nature can only tell us what is, not what ought to be. There is no morality in nature. Anytime the atheist talks about things being either "right" or "wrong" he is talking nonsense given his worldview.

I do know what atheism is. Atheism is the BELIEF that there is no God. Atheists BELIEVES there is no God. They can't prove that, and therefore has no convincing arguments. They are believers just as much as theists. Maybe you are too afraid to defend atheism.

No you didn't. Stating the argument is considered as evidence.
Premise dddd
  1. If God does not exist, objective morals don’t exist
I reject that premise because there's no evidence to show that it's true. You failed to that, instead, you just repeatedly reworded your assertion.

So murder is moral?

Rape is moral?

I guess Slavery wasn't wrong in American too huh? it was just America's best business practice.

Racism wasn't wrong in America either, it was America's best business practice. Hitler killing 6 million Jews wasn't wrong in fact it was Germany's best business practice. 

GTFOH!!

The Moral argument in a nutshell is that God is the necessary precondition for objective morality. This basically means that something is really right and something is really wrong in all time periods. So if God does not exist, then it follow that objective morality would not exist in such a way that is binding. If culture determines morals at any time, then morals are irrelevant since today's morality can be tomorrow's morals. I would hope that's not your stance.

Theft is wrong because God's not a thief. Murder is wrong because God isn't a murderer. Adultery is wrong because God is perfectly faithful. God and Jesus Christ is the objective standard of good.

How do you feel about murder becoming "moral?" No one is born gay. There is no evidence of that no matter what people may claim.

I'll just leave it here since there's no point of answering everything you said.



Like this post: 0

 

Advertisements