[jillianleab]

But how? Where’s the dignity, the humanity, in a soulless man who came from a primordial soup?

JoeT

Are you saying atheists have no dignity and no humanity? That your sense of dignity and humanity come only from your belief in god?

You have a lot to learn about the world.

[Alty]

JoeT777, even though I do believe in God, I don't believe that someone who doesn't have that faith is without dignity or humanity or a "soul".

Are you saying that without belief in God, being human isn't possible? That's a very judgemental misinformed opinion.

Tom, I'm done arguiing. Either provide these historical documents or don't, but I won't argue about "wording" anymore. I'm starting to understand you a lot better, you like to fight, and I will not give you what you want. If you want a rational discussion about God, then I'm here, until then I will ignore you.

[Tj3]

True Tom, I did say that, because even though I asked you wouldn't provide these historical documents, therefore I must assume that they aren't proof, otherwise wouldn't you supply them?

After all, it's your arguement, if it's not one thing then it has to be the other, right? So, if you can't supply the proof, then it must not exist.

You simply want to waste my time. You want me to waste my time to post all sorts of information so that you can say that if they prove what I said, then you reject them.

If I don't you reject them and then twist and misrepresent what I said (you have already done so).

So Why bother? You will say the same thing no matter what I do.

[Tj3]

Precisely. Tj3 NEVER provided any "evidence" (i.e. OSE) for any of his religious claims.

See Altenweg, this is exactly what I mean. Cred has seen mounds of evidence for years from myself and others, and then just denies that he ever saw it.

[Tj3]

this will go on forever... ^-^

As long as there are those who reject truth, yes.

[Alty]

Then I guess we have to agree to disagree.

You don't know me Tom, so to say that I wouldn't read this evidence you have with an open mind isn't fair.

Personally, I think that you aren't showing it because it doesn't exist, which proves that what I said from the beginning was accurate.

If you really had proof then your argument with me wouldn't matter, you be up on a roof top screaming this evidence to anyone who would listen. Well, I'm here, and I'll listen, but apparently there's nothing to listen to.

I really don't want to fight with you. But it takes two people to come to an agreement, one can't do it alone.

Good luck and Peace.

[Alty]

See Altenweg, this is exactly what I mean. Cred has seen mounds of evidence for years from myself and others, and then just denies that he ever saw it.

Then show me the evidence. I have yet to see it.

I'm not trying to start something here Tom, I really do want to see this evidence and judge for myself. You can even PM it to me if you want.

[Tj3]

Then show me the evidence. I have yet to see it.

I'm not trying to start something here Tom, I really do want to see this evidence and judge for myself. You can even PM it to me if you want.

Again, I am reluctant to waste time on someone who has, I believe that is is three times, said that she rejects the evidence if it disagrees with her.

I am busy right now preparing to speak at a conference, and I am not willing to waste valuable time to go digging up information for someone who only wants to ridicule that which might offend what she wants to believe.

[Tj3]

Delete - duplicate

[Tj3]

Then I guess we have to agree to disagree.

You don't know me Tom, so to say that I wouldn't read this evidence you have with an open mind isn't fair.

I did not say that you would not read it - but you did say that you would reject it is it proved what I said.

I never understood that attitude. If I were wrong, I'd rather find out and know that truth is rather than take your attitude at rejecting anything which proves that you are wrong. You are just deceiving yourself, and closing your eyes.

[Alty]

If I miswrote my thoughts then I apologize, it happens, I am after all only human. Obviously what I wanted to say and the way I wrote it didn't come across the way I intended.

I would not reject what your proof says. I will read it with an open mind. Will I agree? I can't guarantee that, but it won't be just because you seem to think that I want to disagree with you, no matter what.

Really Tom, if there is evidence that God exists and is not just a belief then I would love to see it, becaue I do believe in God, so why would I reject proof that he does exist without a doubt, that would prove to me that my belief isn't wrong, I have no reason to reject vaild proof.

I too have more important things to do right now, I have to write a eulogy, help plan a funeral, sit with my Aunt and Uncles and discuss what happens now that my Oma is gone.

I guess turn the other cheek, or forgive and forget doesn't apply here.

I tried, but I can't force you to meet me half way, you do have to cover a bit of the terrain as well.

[Tj3]

If I miswrote my thoughts then I apologize, it happens, I am after all only human. Obviously what I wanted to say and the way I wrote it didn't come across the way I intended.

I find it hard to believe when you say that it was simply mis-spoken, after all just a few minutes ago, you admitted it, and confirmed it.

you seem to think that I want to disagree with you, no matter what.

Those were your words.

why would I reject proof that he does exist without a doubt, that would prove to me that my belief isn't wrong, I have no reason to reject vaild proof.

I don't know - you surprised me when you stated that you would reject it out of hand, and we know that there are people who really don't want the truth - look at Cred!

I guess turn the other cheek, or forgive and forget doesn't apply here.

I tried, but I can't force you to meet me half way, you do have to cover a bit of the terrain as well.

I don't see this as a matter of offence. I am not offended. I feel sorry for those who take prejudicial stands. It is simply a matter that I must use my time wisely.

Tell you what, if, after this weekend, when I have more free time, if I truly see a change in your attitude and some willingness to consider the facts, I may re-consider.

[JoeT777]

But how? Where’s the dignity, the humanity, in a soulless man who came from a primordial soup?

JoeT

Are you saying atheists have no dignity and no humanity? That your sense of dignity and humanity come only from your belief in god?

You have a lot to learn about the world.

JoeT777, even though I do believe in God, I don't believe that someone who doesn't have that faith is without dignity or humanity or a "soul".

Are you saying that without belief in God, being human isn't possible? That's a very judgmental misinformed opinion.

I am saying that without God the human species is denied its dignity and its humanity. My statement was not intended as judgment; nor was my statement misinformed opinion.

Virtuous morals or ethics are those things found good in the eyes of God. Without God, right and wrong become subjective; morality and integrity become matters of positive law as opposed to natural law. An autonomous authority requires “freedom from” morals as well as “freedom to” implement a proxy ethic independent of God’s will. As such the standard of right and wrong become subjective and differ from individual to individual (or from group to group); thus we hear the refrain "it might be wrong for you but its right for me." Morality in a godless world becomes a social construct based on the whim of the community, changing based on the will of the fittest. The fault seems to be that conclusions drawn are autonomous intellectual exercises; judgments are subjective reasoning not founded on absolute moral truths that only Christianity brings. Thus it can be said that agnosticism becomes the program of rationalism; where “Free thought begets free morals, or immorality- Restraint is thrown off and a free rein given to the passions. WHOEVER THINKS WHAT HE PLEASES WILL DO WHAT HE PLEASES (sic).”

Without virtuous morality, mankind is stripped of its dignity and humanity. Therefore you can see that by removing God, you remove virtuous morals and ethics which in turn deny dignity and humanity.

JoeT

[Alty]

I know many people who do not believe in God, and the are some of the most virtuous people I know. The have wonderful morals and ethics, they know right from wrong.

WHOEVER THINKS WHAT HE PLEASES WILL DO WHAT HE PLEASES

You think what you please, and that is that God exists, and you do as you please, you just justify it because you claim it's "God's will".

Believing in God has nothing to do with being a good person. I've know many believers that are the worst people that humanity has ever seen, but they think that going to church, praying for forgiveness is enough, because they believe in God. So, they beat their wife and children, molest their 5 year old daughter, cheat in business and on their taxes, but go to church every Sunday.

I have a friend who is an atheist. He volunteers at the Humane Society every week, he gives money to charity, he loves his children, and his wife.

So, who is better? The man who believes in God, or the man who believes in being a good person?

[Alty]

Double post

[inthebox]

Indeed : for everyone what appears to be "truth" seems to be different, as it is based on personal (mis) interpretation of reality.
The linguistic meaning of "truth" however refers to the property of being in accordance with the actual state of affairs. And as the word "actual" refers to reality, it should refer to OSE as its only guideline.

Unfortunately in the religious field the words "true" or "truth" are used in and out of season to SUGGEST a level of accuracy, and in effect are used to provide some BOGUS VALIDITY to personal interpretations that are at best only covered by Subjective Supported Evidence.


Indeed : no one is better because there is no proof. However those who realize this non-existence of proof (for instance for the existence of "God") and try to force their own opinion upon others are in fact dishonest. BELIEF is BELIEF and without DIRECT OSE , religious BELIEF is no more than a wild claim.


There is no "absolute". Unless you can provide OSE for the existence of anything that is really "absolute". If so : show us by starting a new topic on "absolute".

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

.

.

So you feed into the moral relatavism. The same moral relatavism that one tribe may use [ they are inferior, or not like us or don't think like us ] to justify committing genocide against another?

[jillianleab]

I am saying that without God the human species is denied its dignity and its humanity. My statement was not intended as judgment; nor was my statement misinformed opinion.

Virtuous morals or ethics are those things found good in the eyes of God. Without God, right and wrong become subjective; morality and integrity become matters of positive law as opposed to natural law. An autonomous authority requires “freedom from” morals as well as “freedom to” implement a proxy ethic independent of God’s will. As such the standard of right and wrong become subjective and differ from individual to individual (or from group to group); thus we hear the refrain "it might be wrong for you but its right for me." Morality in a godless world becomes a social construct based on the whim of the community, changing based on the will of the fittest. The fault seems to be that conclusions drawn are autonomous intellectual exercises; judgments are subjective reasoning not founded on absolute moral truths that only Christianity brings. Thus it can be said that agnosticism becomes the program of rationalism; where “Free thought begets free morals, or immorality- Restraint is thrown off and a free rein given to the passions. WHOEVER THINKS WHAT HE PLEASES WILL DO WHAT HE PLEASES (sic).”

Without virtuous morality, mankind is stripped of its dignity and humanity. Therefore you can see that by removing God, you remove virtuous morals and ethics which in turn deny dignity and humanity.

JoeT

Certainly you're entitled to your opintion, but I fully, 100% disagree with you.

Morality is not only found in religion. It's found in community and society, not the will of the fittest. You make it sound like a dictatorship - the man in charge sets the morals - but that's not how things work in functioning societies. For example, it's not good for society if we go around squashing people's rights and killing people who wear red shirts. Those things make society bad. So, we don't do them. Are morals subjective? Sure, some of them are. Many Christians think premarital sex is wrong, I think there's nothing wrong with it. But the BIG morals - the one's that legislate the world we live in; those come about through humanity - "god" is not required.

You might think your statements aren't misinformed opinion, but I still say they are. You are essentially saying without god one can't be moral. If that's not your intention, you might want to revise your thoughts - because that's how it's coming out. Non-Christians are capable of being good, moral, law-abiding, fantastic people, all without the fear of god/hell/the devil. In fact, many Christians commit horrible atrocities, indicating that even though they have that fear, and they have that inherant morality you imply, they ignore it and do what they want.

[JoeT777]

I know many people who do not believe in God, and the are some of the most virtuous people I know. The have wonderful morals and ethics, they know right from wrong.



You think what you please, and that is that God exists, and you do as you please, you just justify it because you claim it's "God's will".

Believing in God has nothing to do with being a good person. I've know many believers that are the worst people that humanity has ever seen, but they think that going to church, praying for forgiveness is enough, because they believe in God. So, they beat their wife and children, molest their 5 year old daughter, cheat in business and on their taxes, but go to church every Sunday.

I have a friend who is an atheist. He volunteers at the Humane Society every week, he gives money to charity, he loves his children, and his wife.

So, who is better? The man who believes in God, or the man who believes in being a good person?

Altenweg, jillianleab, et al:

Morality includes those things natural and those things supernaturally revealed by God. In addition it includes those truths necessary for man's salvation. Ethics may be thought of as the science of morality's implementation. In short, morality is all actions that move man towards God's good. Since Christians seek good from God, those truths given from God, must be absolute. What they shouldn't seek is that good that is described by Epicurus, what feels pleasurable or avoids pain is good (see first paragraph of link.) . God doesn't say to one group seek goodness in feeding the poor, and say to another eat all the apple pie you can. Thus, in response to the opening question, yes there is an absolute truth, which in turn relates to an absolute moral guide. (c.f. St. Thomas Aquinas, The Summa Theologica)

"Now human law is ordained for one kind of community, and the Divine law for another kind. Because human law is ordained for the civil community, implying mutual duties of man and his fellows…

But the community for which the Divine law is ordained, is that of men in relation to God, either in this life or in the life to come. And therefore the Divine law proposes precepts about all those matters whereby men are well ordered in their relations to God. Now man is united to God by his reason or mind, in which is God's image. Wherefore the Divine law proposes precepts about all those matters whereby human reason is well ordered. But this is effected by the acts of all the virtues: since the intellectual virtues set in good order the acts of the reason in themselves: while the moral virtues set in good order the acts of the reason in reference to the interior passions and exterior actions. It is therefore evident that the Divine law fittingly proposes precepts about the acts of all the virtues: yet so that certain matters, without which the order of virtue, which is the order of reason, cannot even exist, come under an obligation of precept; while other matters, which pertain to the well-being of perfect virtue, come under an admonition of counsel." St. Thomas Aquinas, The Summa Theologica Part II, I, Q 100

Consequently, it is precisely because its “God's will” that I attempt to work out my salvation with fear and trembling. (cf Phil 2:12). (Also see the following link.) Furthermore, whether people beat “their wife and children, molest their 5 year old daughter, cheat in business and on their taxes”, doesn't change the virtues in morality - absolute truth remains absolute.

More important, this is a poor attempt to excuse the rule by the exception – which of course isn't done in this particular example. With this kind of moral rationalization we can excuse indiscriminate murder because your friend didn't fill out his taxes properly, which we know to be flawed reasoning. And, we see the reverse of this logic in your atheist friend; because he does a few good things to deny God is deemed right. Virtuous morals, like God's truth, are absolute and to throw off that tenet is to say “WHOEVER THINKS WHAT HE PLEASES WILL DO WHAT HE PLEASES” It seems that both your friends are in error.

JoeT

[Credendovidis]

So you feed into the moral relatavism. The same moral relatavism that one tribe may use [ they are inferior, or not like us or don't think like us ] to justify commiting genocide against another?

What a BS reply : is that all you could manage ?
You did not even react to the drift of my post...
You SUGGEST (of course without any OSE or other support) that I feed on "moral relativism", and than start referring that claimed relativism to inferiority and genocide.
What a total nonsensical rubbish!!

You showed with your post that you have no inkling of "what is truth?"
While you posted this drab in this specific topic.

How sad, how very sad...

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

.

.

[inthebox]

The absolute truth, Cred, is that you attack those you disagree with, and your post is OSE of it.

Hitler truly believed in a superior race, eugenics, which fits in with the theory of evolution. Is Hitler's truth any more true than yours or mine? Who is to judge who is misinterpreting when there are no absolutes?