- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Stunning Admission By Renowned Atheist; Decline of Christianity is Hurting Society
Posted on 11/7/19 at 2:50 pm to Roger Klarvin
Posted on 11/7/19 at 2:50 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
The social contract
Lulz, derived within a nation of Christians, amirite?
2
Posted on 11/7/19 at 2:52 pm to CoachChappy
quote:What I've always wanted to ask religionists is: what would you do if Jesus commanded you personally to start knifing babies and small children to death?
One question I have always wanted to ask a real atheist is: What keeps you in line? Most crimes go unsolved. What keeps you from murdering someone who aggravates you?
Posted on 11/7/19 at 2:52 pm to Perfect Circle
quote:
When I ask them, "What is the Source of Morality?" They say something like, "We're born with it," or "Morality is innate in human nature."
There’s nothing innate about morality. There is an argument to be made for certain social behaviors being selected for as they confer survival benefit especially in large social groups, but ultimately there is no objective universal moral standard by which we are judged. Our behaviors are shaped largely by societal norms and what allows us to thrive in a given society.
Posted on 11/7/19 at 2:52 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
The only place on Earth where atheists don't live in fear are in the nation states that were founded on Christian beliefs, and that also allowed them to thrive without fear of repercussions
Japan says hi.. And it wasnt always that way. Christianity had its time of darkness and barbarism. And you can respect and teach christian principles and philosophy without the mysticism or belief in god to your children and still raise moral individuals.
Posted on 11/7/19 at 2:54 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
Lulz, derived within a nation of Christians, amirite
Most people are religious only in as far as it doesn’t inconvenience them. The depth of belief overall is fairly shallow in economically thriving societies.
In other words, the behaviors of most Christians are still largely shaped by their society and surroundings moreso than their theology. Very few in this part of the world will violate social norms in order to practice religion.
This post was edited on 11/7/19 at 2:55 pm
Posted on 11/7/19 at 2:55 pm to Azkiger
quote:
Who knew objective moral standards could change.
I know right. But, but, but its the inspired word of god...
Posted on 11/7/19 at 2:56 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
Lulz, derived within a nation of Christians, amirite?
Lulz, it only took well over a thousand years, amirite?
Posted on 11/7/19 at 2:58 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
The only place on Earth where atheists don't live in fear are in the nation states that were founded on Christian beliefs, and that also allowed them to thrive without fear of repercussions
Well that’s just not true. Atheism is very widespread and accepted in India, China, Japan and Southeast Asia.
Posted on 11/7/19 at 2:58 pm to ThuperThumpin
quote:Again, I can provide a basis for accepting that punishment within my worldview.
These are the laws in the bible punishable by death...
What is your basis for saying that such punishments are immoral or "wrong"?
quote:I have a basis for an objective moral standard: God's moral law that comes from His own holy and unchanging character.
Most would agree that most of these are not capital offences but there was a time when there were. We have grown morally in the west to accept that stoning gays to death is barbaric. Where does this growth over time come from? We are not locked into beliefs or laws on morality that existed 1000's of years ago. We evolve (or de-volve as is the case with some cultures and in the opinion of some) based on many factors. So how can you suggest moral truth is objective?
What basis do you have to call any act "barbaric"? What standard can you compare one society's morals to to judge whether or not "growth" has occurred? Whether or not we're "evol[ing]" or "de-volv[ing]"? In order to measure progress or regress, you have to have a standard to measure by. What is your standard for making such measurements and judgements?
Posted on 11/7/19 at 3:01 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
What is your standard for making such measurements and judgements?
At the most basic level I would not want to be murdered, raped or stolen from so I think I would not do that to someone else. I feel empathy for fellow humans.
This post was edited on 11/7/19 at 3:05 pm
Posted on 11/7/19 at 3:01 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
If morality is nothing more than an accepted social contract, then that means any accepted social contract is as valid as any other accepted social contract. There are many societies that have their own versions, after all. How do we determine which one is "right"? We can't, because "right" requires a standard to judge by, and if our only standard is whatever society accepts, then the standard can change all the time, meaning you have no ultimate basis to condemn the actions of a society who adheres to one standard (even if it's morally evil in our current estimation) because they were acting in accordance with their particular societal moral standard at that time.
You’re absolutely right. So what’s the issue?
Posted on 11/7/19 at 3:02 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
What is your basis for saying that such punishments are immoral or "wrong"?
Using a Christian's own moral code shows those sorts of behaviors are internally inconsistent.
Before attempting to spike the ball you should ask whether or not that poster thinks they have access to a objective moral standard. If they concede that point your question is pointless.
Posted on 11/7/19 at 3:05 pm to ThuperThumpin
quote:Good for you, but what about the person who doesn't care about their own life, body, or possessions? What is immoral about them doing to others as they want (or don't mind) others to do to them in that context?
At the most basic level I would not want to be murdered, raped or stolen from so I think I would not do that to someone else. I feel empathy for fellow humans.
And why does it matter if you're empathetic or not towards fellow human beings? Where does human dignity and value come from that prompts such empathy and where is the objective moral obligation to act with empathy towards others?
Also, what about actions we might all called evil or immoral that are done by others in the name of empathy? Like the desire to commit genocide to save the planet for future generations?
Posted on 11/7/19 at 3:08 pm to Azkiger
That’s the thing, all religious apologetics require you grant them the presupposition that there is some objective moral standard by which we all should be operating. They then argue (correctly so) such a standard can’t exist with a standard bearer.
Admit that there is no objective moral standard and existence is ultimately pointless beyond subjective meaning/happiness and the entire field of apologetics falls apart.
Admit that there is no objective moral standard and existence is ultimately pointless beyond subjective meaning/happiness and the entire field of apologetics falls apart.
Posted on 11/7/19 at 3:09 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:The issue is that only God provides a rational basis for moral objectivity that allows us to meaningfully praise or condemn the actions of others.
You’re absolutely right. So what’s the issue?
We live lives with the assumption that morality is objective (we tell people what is right and wrong as if there is an objective standard that they should be held accountable to) and we see the value and worth within fellow human beings that gives us a desire for goodness and justice. These sorts of things can not be accounted for in the atheistic worldview.
The Christian worldview provides a rational coherence to what we "know" to be true, namely that moral absolutes exist and that humans have intrinsic value, among others.
Posted on 11/7/19 at 3:09 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Good for you, but what about the person who doesn't care about their own life, body, or possessions? What is immoral about them doing to others as they want (or don't mind) others to do to them in that context?
Nothing, but such a person won’t last very long in our society which is the point.
Posted on 11/7/19 at 3:13 pm to Perfect Circle
quote:
I would argue that the removal of Christianity from our schools was replaced with Secular Humanism.
If so then it stands as a testament to its own inferiority.
Posted on 11/7/19 at 3:13 pm to Azkiger
quote:We have a basis for judging something as consistent or inconsistent because Christians have an objective standard to compare our actions by. It's also why repentance is such a big deal within Christianity.
Using a Christian's own moral code shows those sorts of behaviors are internally inconsistent.
quote:I don't need to ask: unless they subscribe to a Biblical worldview, I know they don't have access to an objective moral standard. If they do subscribe to a Biblical worldview, I can discuss those things in more depth from that same worldview.
Before attempting to spike the ball you should ask whether or not that poster thinks they have access to a objective moral standard. If they concede that point your question is pointless.
It's not pointless because my point is that people naturally make moral judgements, but unless they can point to an objective moral standard to support their judgements, their judgements are nothing but mere preferences; arbitrary opinions.
Posted on 11/7/19 at 3:14 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
We live lives with the assumption that morality is objective
But see, that’s not really true. We may claim this to be the case but nearly all of us base our day to day actions around what provides us subjective benefit and what adheres to the social norms of our society. If I’m honest with myself, I stop to help an injured motorist not because there is an objective moral urge within me but because I know society expects it from me and I benefit subjectively from a society whether we all help each other survive
Posted on 11/7/19 at 3:15 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:Not at all. We all acknowledge the existence of evil, but evil can only exist if good exists, and if good and evil don't objectively exist, then there's no problem to talk about, yet we all talk about it. The problem is having a worldview that is coherent and comports to reality as we know it.
Admit that there is no objective moral standard and existence is ultimately pointless beyond subjective meaning/happiness and the entire field of apologetics falls apart.
This post was edited on 11/7/19 at 6:07 pm
Page 6 of 19
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News