Recruiting Forum Off Topic Thread III

Status
Not open for further replies.
#1,901
#1,901
Bassmaster_Vol said:
Rather than have an ongoing discussion about this, everyone can listen to the debate if they would like that I will post at the end of this statement. This debate was between Christian Apologist Dr. James White and the Vice President of American Atheists David Silverman. Silverman is no layperson, but is very well known and has wide influence. Listen to him affirm everything that I have said in these discussions. The implications of atheism and evolution are that there is no transcendent meaning, purpose, or value for human life, and yes, there is no objective standard for morality. Silverman will argue that the common census of men determine what morality is. That will lead him to the eventual, and quite shocking, admission that he could not stand at the gates of Auschwitz and say that what happened there is evil. He can only say that in his opinion it was evil. This is where the implications of atheism lead.

While of course there are atheists that will not teach their children this, just as you said that Christians will disagree with one another, they cannot explain why they would not teach their children this. In order to teach children that there is a purpose to their lives, that they do have transcendent value, and that there is a standard of morality, they would have to borrow from the Christian worldview to do it. James White masterfully points this out in this debate. So while atheists may teach there is a standard of morality, that is inconsistent with their worldview and does not flow from it. Morality in a consistent atheistic worldview would be nothing more than subjective opinion, as Silverman admits.

Is The NT Evil? (White vs Silverman) | SermonAudio.com
Click to expand...

:good!: Morality comes from God. If it comes from man then it's just one man's opinion vs another as to what is right or wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,902
#1,902
Glitch said:
We are animals, physiologically. However, our laws all stem from the basic standards that God hands down to us. Societies that don't have God at their foundation fail. The powerful can take advantage of the weak and law and order breaks down.
Click to expand...

There have been many societies throughout history without God that have sustained themselves for hundreds of years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#1,903
#1,903
roosterjbh said:
Yeah, you can take that and shove it. I am moral because I can feel empathy, and have a consequentialist ethical system. If you think the only thing holding you back from killing and raping is believing there is a god, or a god gave you rules to follow, that's pretty shameful IMO. I think to believe millions on millions will burn in an internal hell because they didn't believe something you do isn't very ethical.

.
Click to expand...

You and I are not going to dialogue anymore because you have no concern to represent what I have said multiple times fairly. If you do not care to represent my statements in a fair and honest manner then we will get nowhere. Of course, in an atheistic worldview, why would you care about fairness? You have no reason to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,904
#1,904
BigZiti09 said:
:good!: Morality comes from God. If it comes from man then it's just one man's opinion vs another as to what is right or wrong.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly what Silverman admits. To argue otherwise is to borrow from the Christian worldview. A consistent atheist must admit that there is no standard other than his own opinion or, as Hitchens and Silverman said, the majority of people in an area's opinion. Which meant for Hitler's Germany they got to decide what was right and wrong. Which is why Silverman could not say that it was evil, only that to him, it is evil. The implications of this are very scary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,905
#1,905
Bassmaster_Vol said:
Which is exactly what Silverman admits. To argue otherwise is to borrow from the Christian worldview. A consistent atheist must admit that there is no standard other than his own opinion or, as Hitchens and Silverman said, the majority of people in an area's opinion. Which meant for Hitler's Germany they got to decide what was right and wrong. Which is why Silverman could not say that it was evil, only that to him, it is evil. The implications of this are very scary.
Click to expand...

I'm agnostic and yet have a moral compass that is based on the golden rule and common sense. Where does that come from?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,907
#1,907
bignewt said:
I'm agnostic and yet have a moral compass that is based on the golden rule and common sense. Where does that come from?
Click to expand...

Did you read what I wrote? Of course you have a standard of morality, but you cannot explain why. Common sense can change. What was the common sense in Hitler's Germany?

What if you are on an island with 3 people and they believe it is moral to kill and eat you. How can you tell them its evil? Common sense on that island is to kill and eat you. You are moral, and I argue that there is a reason for that, but the implications of the atheistic worldview is that there is no reason to be.
 
#1,908
#1,908
Bassmaster_Vol said:
You and I are not going to dialogue anymore because you have no concern to represent what I have said multiple times fairly. If you do not care to represent my statements in a fair and honest manner then we will get nowhere.
Click to expand...

What did I not represent fairly? this seems like taking your ball and going home

Of course, in an atheistic worldview, why would you care about fairness? You have no reason to.
Click to expand...
Nice one bud. Seems like you don't understand what I said about moralty in the slightest. You just wrote it off immediately.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,909
#1,909
roosterjbh said:
What did I not represent fairly? this seems like taking your ball and going home


Nice one bud. Seems like you don't understand what I said about moralty in the slightest. You just wrote it off immediately.
Click to expand...

Your statement that I quoted is a complete misrepresentation of what I have said over and over in this thread.

And that last statement continues to demonstrate that you either have not understood or do not care to represent what I have said about morality. Have a good day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,910
#1,910
Bassmaster_Vol said:
Rather than have an ongoing discussion about this, everyone can listen to the debate if they would like that I will post at the end of this statement. This debate was between Christian Apologist Dr. James White and the Vice President of American Atheists David Silverman. Silverman is no layperson, but is very well known and has wide influence. Listen to him affirm everything that I have said in these discussions. The implications of atheism and evolution are that there is no transcendent meaning, purpose, or value for human life, and yes, there is no objective standard for morality. Silverman will argue that the common census of men determine what morality is. That will lead him to the eventual, and quite shocking, admission that he could not stand at the gates of Auschwitz and say that what happened there is evil. He can only say that in his opinion it was evil. This is where the implications of atheism lead.
Click to expand...


This isn’t as big of a “gotcha” as you think it is. No creator=no one all encompassing system of morality=morality is based upon the consensus of societal values. Saying “IMO, Auschwitz was evil, but I can’t claim some some cosmic, infallible reason for it” isn’t all that different from “IMO, Auschwitz was evil, because I believe God said so.” You’re getting to the same place. One person just isn’t claiming to speak for god.

While of course there are atheists that will not teach their children this, just as you said that Christians will disagree with one another, they cannot explain why they would not teach their children this. In order to teach children that there is a purpose to their lives, that they do have transcendent value, and that there is a standard of morality, they would have to borrow from the Christian worldview to do it. James White masterfully points this out in this debate.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily true. Plenty of societies with little or no judeo-Christian influence prescribe or have prescribed a higher value to humans than other animals. It’s not like nobody believed humans had more value than animals before we had Christianity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#1,912
#1,912
Bassmaster_Vol said:
Your statement that I quoted is a complete misrepresentation of what I have said over and over in this thread.

And that last statement continues to demonstrate that you either have not understood or do not care to represent what I have said about morality. Have a good day.
Click to expand...

Mk. :hi:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,914
#1,914
Darth_Shiveman said:
This isn’t as big of a “gotcha” as you think it is. No creator=no one all encompassing system of morality=morality is based upon the consensus of societal values. Saying “IMO, Auschwitz was evil, but I can’t claim some some cosmic, infallible reason for it” isn’t all that different from “IMO, Auschwitz was evil, because I believe God said so.” You’re getting to the same place. One person just isn’t claiming to speak for god.


Not necessarily true. Plenty of societies with little or no judeo-Christian influence prescribe or have prescribed a higher value to humans than other animals. It’s not like nobody believed humans had more value than animals before we had Christianity.
Click to expand...

Thank you for representing my position correctly. This is it, you understand the position that I have stated about the atheistic worldview. You do not understand the Christian worldview though. Morality isn't just "God told you so," it is that there is a standard. There are objective moral values because there is an objective standard: God. Without God there is no objective standard as you have rightfully said.

And yes, plenty of societies will prescribe value to humans and they will have moral values. But they cannot tell you why other than it feels right to them. In an atheistic worldview there is no reason to. That is the point. Why should you prescribe value to them? Hitler did not prescribe value to the Jews, and as you pointed out, in an atheistic worldview all we can say is that it is just our opinion that Hitler was wrong.

If you can see the dangerous implications of this I don't know what to tell you.
 
#1,916
#1,916
Bassmaster_Vol said:
Did you read what I wrote? Of course you have a standard of morality, but you cannot explain why. Common sense can change. What was the common sense in Hitler's Germany?
Click to expand...

I mean, this even happens within the Christian worldview. Common sense morality during Joshua’s Canaanite campaign was that killing all the women and children of a conquered city was the morally upright thing to do.

What if you are on an island with 3 people and they believe it is moral to kill and eat you. How can you tell them its evil? Common sense on that island is to kill and eat you. You are moral, and I argue that there is a reason for that, but the implications of the atheistic worldview is that there is no reason to be.
Click to expand...

That’s not necessarily the implication. You look at that hypothetical and say “if there’s no god, there’s no reason to be moral and not to kill and eat those people!” I look at it and say “Yeah, we have a way better chance of surviving if we work together, so it’s probably in our best interest to figure out a way to get on together.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#1,917
#1,917
Bassmaster_Vol said:
Did you read what I wrote? Of course you have a standard of morality, but you cannot explain why. Common sense can change. What was the common sense in Hitler's Germany?

What if you are on an island with 3 people and they believe it is moral to kill and eat you. How can you tell them its evil? Common sense on that island is to kill and eat you. You are moral, and I argue that there is a reason for that, but the implications of the atheistic worldview is that there is no reason to be.
Click to expand...

If human flesh is needed to survive is it evil? time to draw straws and live by the decision.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,919
#1,919
Darth_Shiveman said:
I mean, this even happens within the Christian worldview. Common sense morality during Joshua’s Canaanite campaign was that killing all the women and children of a conquered city was the morally upright thing to do.
Click to expand...

extreme oversimplification. They were living in a theocracy and has nothing to do with New Covenant Christianity. The New Testament teaches this very clearly.



That’s not necessarily the implication. You look at that hypothetical and say “if there’s no god, there’s no reason to be moral and not to kill and eat those people!” I look at it and say “Yeah, we have a way better chance of surviving if we work together, so it’s probably in our best interest to figure out a way to get on together.”
Click to expand...

You may say that, but they might not. And you can't look them in the eye and say what you are doing is wrong. It would just be your opinion. And they outnumber you so if our morality is based off of consensus, then they must be right.
 
#1,920
#1,920
bignewt said:
If human flesh is needed to survive is it evil? time to draw straws and live by the decision.
Click to expand...

Well, at least you admit it. In the atheistic worldview morality is completely subjective because there is and can be no standard other than human opinion.
 
#1,921
#1,921
Bassmaster_Vol said:
Well, at least you admit it. In the atheistic worldview morality is completely subjective because there is and can be no standard other than human opinion.
Click to expand...

So would you starve to death never to see your family again or eat one of the people on the island to survive and be rescued?

Also as I mentioned earlier, I am not an atheist nor have I ever claimed to be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,923
#1,923
Bassmaster_Vol said:
Didn't you claim agnosticism earlier? This is not an agnostic statement.
Click to expand...

It's not? I dunno man, I'm not a card carrying member of any of these clubs you guys are discussing. I'm not extreme one way or the other. I grew up catholic, went to mass every Sunday, Sunday school, I was baptized, etc...but as I got older I did some thinking and changed. Then decided I didn't agree with heaven and hell and all the extreme beliefs religious folks have. And it's cool if you do, I don't mind. Most people believe in some form of "god". I get it. My wife does, she gets upset at times because I don't.

I doubt there's a god, but maybe there is, I don't have proof either way. But as a betting man my money is on there not being one. Personally, I think it was all made up to keep the masses in check, give people hope and something to live for, slow down the chaos if you will. Or something like that.

Either way, I don't need the Bible or god to live a good, clean life, raise a family, be a good citizen and love my friends and family. But if some people do, that's cool too. I get it. Or at least I think I do, somewhat.

What group should I be in, IYO?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement



Back
Top