Does God exist? (11 Viewers)

[katie tully]

stop wasting time with her

STOP POSTING INCONSEQUENTIAL CRAP

'LOL I HOPE U DONT COME BACK'
'SHUT UP EMY'
'BLAH BLAH SOME OTHER SHIT COMPLETELY NOT ON TOPIC'

STFU 3UNITZ ILL WASTE MY TIME ON WHATEVER I FEEL LIKE, INCLUDING YOU RINGWORM

 

[BradCube]

So when an atheist donates money and time to charities, and volunteers for non denominational charities etc these can be considered as worthless acts?

Under the atheist view, these acts are worthless. At best they satisfy some personally conjured up sense of morality.

Under the Christian view, I don't think I would regard these acts as worthless - at least not in the sense that you seem to be interpreting. To me, morally good acts will have merit regardless of the person that carries them out. This is because they are morally good things to do, and so they carry their own value and worth. However, I think what Emy is trying to say (and correct me if I am wrong) is that these deeds will not help an atheist get to heaven any more than they will a Christian. This is because it is not the deeds which "earn" a christian or any other persons place in heaven.

The verses you have quoted talk about good deeds as a necessary outworking of the active faith and belief that they have. This does not mean that without good deeds the person would be doomed to hell, but rather that if there is no good deeds (or even desire for) then that person probably has a problem in the foundation of their faith and thus a critical problem in going to heaven.

 

[BradCube]

I was imitating her, I thought I put a [comment] in there so if you quoted me you'd see it. Sorry guy.

Ha ha, I did see that, but thought I must have missed it in the initial post

Oh well, all is good.

 

[katie tully]

Under the atheist view, these acts are worthless. At best they satisfy some personally conjured up sense of morality.

Under the Christian view, I don't think I would regard these acts as worthless - at least not in the sense that you seem to be interpreting. To me, morally good acts will have merit regardless of the person that carries them out. This is because they are morally good things to do, and so they carry their own value and worth. However, I think what Emy is trying to say (and correct me if I am wrong) is that these deeds will not help an atheist get to heaven any more than they will a Christian. This is because it is not the deeds which "earn" a christian or any other persons place in heaven.

The verses you have quoted talk about good deeds as a necessary outworking of the active faith and belief that they have. This does not mean that without good deeds the person would be doomed to hell, but rather that if there is no good deeds (or even desire for) that person probably has a problem in the foundation of their faith and thus a critical problem in going to heaven.

No, no, no.
I do not understand how they can be worthless.

An atheist who contributes to society does so due to a sense of morality. Why is an atheist's sense of morality worthless. Because it is not motivated by faith? So you're saying that good deeds motivated by a persons own sense of morality are worthless?

The verses you have quoted talk about good deeds as a necessary outworking of the active faith and belief that they have. This does not mean that without good deeds the person would be doomed to hell, but rather that if there is no good deeds (or even desire for) that person probably has a problem in the foundation of their faith and thus a critical problem in going to heaven.

Again, this reiterates the idea that good deeds are necessary for a Christian to ascend into heaven. Faith without deeds is worthless. Says so in the Bible.

 

[katie tully]

lol, ur brain is fried talking to her

no u

 

[katie tully]

Yeah, um. Christians do good stuff out of moral obligation to their faith.

Atheists do it out of moral obligation to themselves.

I can totally see how a good deed by an atheist is worthless.

 

[BradCube]

No, no, no.
I do not understand how they can be worthless.

An atheist who contributes to society does so due to a sense of morality. Why is an atheist's sense of morality worthless. Because it is not motivated by faith? So you're saying that good deeds motivated by a persons own sense of morality are worthless?

I'm saying that "good" deeds performed in a place where no objective morality exists (as is what the atheist believes) have no value because right and wrong have no objective meaning - they are neutral words describing a personal construction of meaning. They have no intrinsic value or worth.

Again, this reiterates the idea that good deeds are necessary for a Christian to ascend into heaven. Faith without deeds is worthless. Says so in the Bible.

I probably should have expanded a little upon what I said last time. The reason why I said deeds themselves do not grant permission to heaven is because we can construct seemingly implausible scenario's where a person could be doomed to hell for not being able to perform good deeds.

Let us imagine that a man against his own will is left isolated in a room with no access to humanity but provided with enough food to sustain his life. Under these conditions, if the man became a christian would we say that he could never go to heaven because he had no opportunity to demonstrate an outworking of his faith through good deeds? I doubt this is the case. More reasonable in my mind, is that as a necessary outworking of the faith there will be an intention of good deeds even if it is impossible to carry them out.

I think we are actually pretty close to agreeing here Katie. If a christian had the opportunity to help others a multitude of times through out there life through good deeds, but chose not to, I doubt they would go to heaven. This is because I would doubt the integrity of their original faith. As you have said - faith without deeds is dead.

 

[schtrevey]

What a pointless thread, are you that bored that you've to come to this?

 

[BradCube]

That is an utterly despicable thing to say. It shows a substantial lack of understanding of human developed morality and human interactions.

atheists can still love people, just like christians. why would god say their love is worthless if its genuine? what about muslims?

I think both of you may have misunderstood what I was saying. I was not saying that an atheists morally "good" acts are worthless. I was saying that under an atheists own views there can be no such thing as good deeds since objective morality does not exist - they are neutral and worth nothing. The only way that "good" can exist, is through a personal subjective view of how you believe morality ought' to be. Hence why I said: "At best they satisfy some personally conjured up sense of morality."

 

[Charizard]

BradCube is a refreshing change from 'no u emytaylor164"

 

[katie tully]

I'm saying that "good" deeds performed in a place where no objective morality exists (as is what the atheist believes) have no value because right and wrong have no objective meaning - they are neutral words describing a personal construction of meaning. They have no intrinsic value or worth.





I probably should have expanded a little upon what I said last time. The reason why I said deeds themselves do not grant permission to heaven is because we can construct seemingly implausible scenario's where a person could be doomed to hell for not being able to perform good deeds.

Let us imagine that a man against his own will is left isolated in a room with no access to humanity but provided with enough food to sustain his life. Under these conditions, if the man became a christian would we say that he could never go to heaven because he had no opportunity to demonstrate an outworking of his faith through good deeds? I doubt this is the case. More reasonable in my mind, is that as a necessary outworking of the faith there will be an intention of good deeds even if it is impossible to carry them out.

I think we are actually pretty close to agreeing here Katie. If a christian had the opportunity to help others a multitude of times through out there life through good deeds, but chose not to, I doubt they would go to heaven. This is because I would doubt the integrity of their original faith. As you have said - faith without deeds is dead.

No.
That doesn't make any sense.
Of course atheists have objective morality. Look at the definition of objective. And of course an atheists view of morality can have intrinsic value.

An atheist believes murder is wrong because they believe no person has the right to take another perons life.
A Christian believes murder is wrong because the Bible says it's wrong.

Even if the atheists view of murder is a personal construct why is it any less correct than the view of murder by a Christian?

No what you're saying is it's impossible for a person without faith to have valid constructives of what consitutes as 'morals with intrinsic worth' in the eyes of a Christian.

I would say they have more worth because they're founded on a persons own humanity, and not on the constructs of a religion. They've been construced by a persons free will to decide what is good and what is bad, they haven't been dictated to. And yet they have been, because I don't think anybody can deny the impact religion has had on some of our laws, and the way we look at things as a society.

 

[BradCube]

we're doing the best with what we've got

Ha ha, aren't we all

 

[katie tully]

I think both of you may have misunderstood what I was saying. I was not saying that an atheists morally "good" acts are worthless. I was saying that under an atheists own views there can be no such thing as good deeds since objective morality does not exist - they are neutral and worth nothing. The only way that "good" can exist, is through a personal subjective view of how you believe morality ought' to be. Hence why I said: "At best they satisfy some personally conjured up sense of morality."

no, no, god damnit no.

How can there be so such thing as good deeds? OF COURSE THERE ARE. ATHEISTS DO NOT LIVE IN THIS FANTASY WORLD WHERE GOOD AND BAD ARE MERELY FIGMENTS OF OUR IMAGINATION.

Refer back to my e.g. about murder.

How are they neutral?

And a personal subjective view? THAT'S WHAT SUBJECTIVE MEANS DUDE.
SUBJECTIVE:Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.

Why is a personally conjured sense of morality less valid than one handed to you by the Bible?

 

[BradCube]

No.
That doesn't make any sense.
Of course atheists have objective morality. Look at the definition of objective. And of course an atheists view of morality can have intrinsic value.

I think you may be confusing the sort of objective morality I am talking about. When I say objective morality, I am talking about morality which is true regardless of whether people believe it or not. Objective morality is independent of peoples beliefs. This is to say that if something is wrong (ie rape) it always has been wrong and always will be wrong regardless of how many people believe it to be "right".

An atheist believes murder is wrong because they believe no person has the right to take another perons life.
A Christian believes murder is wrong because the Bible says it's wrong.

It doesn't really matter in my opinion how you believe each person came to conclusion that murder is wrong. It could just as easily be that the Christian believes murder is wrong because they know they have no right to take another persons life. Either way, both parties regard the murder of an innocent person as something which is objectively wrong (at least in most cases that I see in life people do).

Even if the atheists view of murder is a personal construct why is it any less correct than the view of murder by a Christian?

Well, if the christian construction was simply that - a construction, then of course it would be no more valid than an atheists construction of morality. This however is not what the Christian believes. The Christian believes that the very definition of that objective morality is not founded in their own creation, but in the character of the very God they believe in.

No what you're saying is it's impossible for a person without faith to have valid constructives of what consitutes as 'morals with intrinsic worth' in the eyes of a Christian.

Not at all, I believe all people can have a grasp of objective morality and doing deeds which are in fact good will have merit. All I am saying is that these deeds on their own will not get someone to heaven - or at least that's certainly not what Christianity teaches.

I would say they have more worth because they're founded on a persons own humanity, and not on the constructs of a religion. They've been construced by a persons free will to decide what is good and what is bad, they haven't been dictated to. And yet they have been, because I don't think anybody can deny the impact religion has had on some of our laws, and the way we look at things as a society.

There's that free will word again...

Either way, I don't see how it makes sense to say that that something has more worth because they are founded on a persons own humanity. This seems a little circular to me. Something is worth more because their definition of worth and value says it is?

Again, I am inclined to come back to the point that a personal construction of meaning is good and well when satisfying yourself. But making the jump in saying it is worth something for all of humanity seems to be pushing things too far. It seems to be apply an objective sense of morality to what you believe is actually subjective.

 

[BradCube]

no, no, god damnit no.

How can there be so such thing as good deeds? OF COURSE THERE ARE. ATHEISTS DO NOT LIVE IN THIS FANTASY WORLD WHERE GOOD AND BAD ARE MERELY FIGMENTS OF OUR IMAGINATION.

Sure, there can be good deeds - but they do not actually have any value of goodness apart from that which you personally assign to them (whether this comes from evolution, upbringing etc). When you accept subjective morality (as you seemingly must under atheism) you must also accept that there is no universal rule which says that rape is wrong. It is neither good nor wrong by any universal standards.

How are they neutral?

They are neutral under atheism because objective morality cannot exist and thus, any moral value applied to them is a personal construction. It's as valid as saying the color "blue" is bad or wrong.

And a personal subjective view? THAT'S WHAT SUBJECTIVE MEANS DUDE.
SUBJECTIVE:Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.

Of course subjective means personal. Hence why I used the words. If I was doubling up unnecessarily, it's only because I was trying to be as clear as I could

Why is a personally conjured sense of morality less valid than one handed to you by the Bible?

Simply put, because the bibles morality (assuming it is correct for a second) comes from a God who's very character is the definition right and wrong.

 

[katie tully]

I think both of you may have misunderstood what I was saying. I was not saying that an atheists morally "good" acts are worthless. I was saying that under an atheists own views there can be no such thing as good deeds since objective morality does not exist - they are neutral and worth nothing. The only way that "good" can exist, is through a personal subjective view of how you believe morality ought' to be. Hence why I said: "At best they satisfy some personally conjured up sense of morality."

I think you may be confusing the sort of objective morality I am talking about. When I say objective morality, I am talking about morality which is true regardless of whether people believe it or not. Objective morality is independent of peoples beliefs. This is to say that if something is wrong (ie rape) it always has been wrong and always will be wrong regardless of how many people believe it to be "right".

No. Rape is wrong because people have decided, collectively, that rape is wrong. Thus it becomes socially unacceptable. A person, I don’t believe, is born with the knowledge that rape is wrong. They’re taught through social constructs that it is wrong, and to further reinforce the idea that it’s wrong there is a legal punishment for it.
So why is rape wrong regardless of whether people believe it. What is wrong about rape? If we are to forget the social aspects and the legal aspects, the religious aspects, why is rape wrong? You can’t answer it because everything we believe about rape is a result of our social and religious constructs.
Thus again, I reject the idea that atheists do not have an objective morality. I don’t understand how you can say ‘objective morality does not exist with atheists’ but then say ‘objective morality is true regardless of whether people believe it or not’.

It does really matter in my opinion how you believe each person came to conclusion that murder is wrong. It could just as easily be that the Christian believes murder is wrong because they know they have no right to take another persons life. Either way, both parties regard the murder of an innocent person as something which is objectively wrong (at least in most cases that I see in life people do).

Then we go back to the idea that atheists have no concept of objective morality. Murder is wrong, regardless of whether people believe it. Atheists are not sociopaths, they can believe intrinsically that murder is wrong, regardless of whether there is a legal or social consequence. So if both an Atheist and a Christian see that murder is objectively wrong, how can you say that Atheists have no concept of objective morality?

Well, if the christian construction was simply that - a construction, then of course it would be no more valid than an atheists construction of morality. This however is not what the Christian believes. The Christian believes that the very definition of that objective morality is not founded in their own creation, but in the character of the very God they believe in.

So you’re saying Christians can’t think for themselves and that everything they believe about morality is a construct of their God, and not of their own doing. So again I ask how an atheists ‘self conjured’ sense of morality is any less valid, even if it was ‘self conjured’. I think that a persons ability to see the humility and humanity within themselves, and their ability to self govern by their own sense of morality is just as valid as the sense of morality Christians believe God has given them.

 

[katie tully]

Sure, there can be good deeds - but they do not actually have any value of goodness apart from that which you personally assign to them (whether this comes from evolution, upbringing etc). When you accept subjective morality (as you seemingly must under atheism) you must also accept that there is no universal rule which says that rape is wrong. It is neither good nor wrong by any universal standards.

Okay and my question is, why is this ‘value of goodness’ assigned personally inconsequential? And why is subjective morality less valid than objective morality? If we both agree murder is wrong, you believe it because of objective morality and I believe it because of subjective morality, why does it matter how we got to that point. And how does it make your belief in murder being wrong more valid than my belief?

 

[katie tully]

Basically the argument I'm seeing is that objective morality is better than subjective morality because you're getting it from a God who can determine good/bad better than anybody else.

But without proof of a God, I find it hard to accept that the objective morality Christians hold so dear is actually better than 'subjective morality' conjured up by Atheists.

 

[BradCube]

No. Rape is wrong because people have decided, collectively, that rape is wrong. Thus it becomes socially unacceptable. A person, I don’t believe, is born with the knowledge that rape is wrong. They’re taught through social constructs that it is wrong, and to further reinforce the idea that it’s wrong there is a legal punishment for it.
So why is rape wrong regardless of whether people believe it. What is wrong about rape? If we are to forget the social aspects and the legal aspects, the religious aspects, why is rape wrong? You can’t answer it because everything we believe about rape is a result of our social and religious constructs.
Thus again, I reject the idea that atheists do not have an objective morality. I don’t understand how you can say ‘objective morality does not exist with atheists’ but then say ‘objective morality is true regardless of whether people believe it or not’.

The section bolded is contradictory to what you have stated above it. You go on to try and show that there is nothing actually wrong with rape and its "wrongness" is a construct of society but then claim that objective morality does exist? By its very definition, objective morality exists outside and regardless of what society believes.

The atheist must believe there is no objective morality, because there is no objective source from which it could come. The theist and atheist both believe that objective morality must exist regardless of what people believe to be wrong or right because it is objective and independent of them. Hope that this clears that up

Then we go back to the idea that atheists have no concept of objective morality. Murder is wrong, regardless of whether people believe it. Atheists are not sociopaths, they can believe intrinsically that murder is wrong, regardless of whether there is a legal or social consequence. So if both an Atheist and a Christian see that murder is objectively wrong, how can you say that Atheists have no concept of objective morality?

So now murder is wrong regardless of what society believes, but rape isn't?

To be honest I think atheists truly do have a sense and belief in objective morality but they don't like to admit it because it alludes to something outside of their own existence - but that's a different matter

So you’re saying Christians can’t think for themselves and that everything they believe about morality is a construct of their God, and not of their own doing. So again I ask how an atheists ‘self conjured’ sense of morality is any less valid, even if it was ‘self conjured’. I think that a persons ability to see the humility and humanity within themselves, and their ability to self govern by their own sense of morality is just as valid as the sense of morality Christians believe God has given them.

No, I'm saying we all can't think for ourselves in regard to creating objective morality. If we do all truly decide our own morality, then there is no way it can be objective.

 

[Charizard]

This line of argument seems all a bit too exisentialist to me.