Why do Atheists Bother?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
K

Kerry

Guest
Thanks for the link Cycel. Will take a look at it for sur ������
Don't read it or even look at it, It is an attempt to sway you from God. They are content in their sin and long for others to do the same so they don't feel so bad.
 

T_Laurich

Senior Member
Mar 24, 2013
3,356
122
63
29
I thought I made it clear when I said that I do not believe that there is an objective morality that I am not claiming that one thing is cosmically right just because I say it is. That is the nature of subjectivity. What I think is wrong is my subjective morality. It is not correct or incorrect. That would require objectivity. What society determines moral and immoral is also subjective. It is usually consistent because of the social nature of our species (and other species) that people reason that actions which cause suffering are immoral. It is not a matter of right and wrong in the sense that there is an objectively correct answer. Pragmatically, whatever society deems is subjectively immoral, you will face the consequences for doing if that is what you choose to do. The authorities and the jury aren't going to care whether or not free will is an illusion or not. They will do what has practical results.

By the way, when I say pragmatic, I am refering to the philosophy of pragmatism defined as: "an approach that assesses the truth of meaning of theories or beliefs in terms of the success of their practical application." This has nothing to do with logical axioms. When I said we know, I mean that we know this is what our society and I have deemed subjectively immoral. Not that we know these things are objectively immoral. As I said, this is pretty clear when I specifically state that I don't believe in objective morality. As a side note, "I think, therefore I am," is not a logical fallacy. It is a logical truth, and it must be true because of the impossibility of the contrary. It doesn't beg the question because for the opposite to be true ("I do not exist") there must be a thinking entity which is thinking that statement. Whoever is doing the thinking (we would refer to ourselves as "I") must necessarily exist, or they couldn't have any thoughts. In order for the statement "I do not exist" to be true, it must necessarily be false. Not really related to free-will, but since you brought it up...
Objective morality is the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person's subjective opinion, but factually true. Proponents of this theory would argue that a statement like "Murder is wrong" can be as objectively true as "1 + 1 = 2.



You keep jumping between truth and reality. My point was, you are judging morality based upon appeal to majority or appeal to self, you argue against this by retorting that you do not believe in an "objective morality", which is fine. But then you contradict yourself, and say that your argument is based off of an appeal to majority.
When I said we know, I mean that we know this is what our society and I have deemed subjectively immoral. Not that we know these things are objectively immoral.
You must understand, just because you use fancy rhetoric to say you are appealing to majority does not make you more correct...

The problem is what I am getting out is the only reason you know these things is because society knows these things... This is extremely scary considering that society in 1939 Nazi Germany was completely different then today, but according to your own reasoning (appeal to majority) it would be correct to gas Jews in that society.


I think therefor I am is a logical fallacy, it is begging the question, appeal to self, and circular reasoning... The saying "I do not exist" has the exact same fallacies, it is begging the question, appeal to self, and circular reasoning.
 
Oct 30, 2014
1,150
7
0
Don't read it or even look at it, It is an attempt to sway you from God. They are content in their sin and long for others to do the same so they don't feel so bad.
An article about human remains that contribute evidence to evolutionary theory (a scientific theory, thus one with no metaphysical implications) is an attempt to sway a person's metaphysical belief? Seems a bit of an extraordinary claim. Another extraordinary claim is that if a person doesn't belief in your exact doctrine that they are content to be immoral to any worse standard than you.

You're not that different. In fact the only difference between you and I is that when you 'sin' you may very well by the teachings of your own creed consider yourself washed clean and absolved, while when I make a mistake or do something against my conscience I recognize its ill-benefit and try to learn from it.

We all do things that are wrong, Kerry.
 
K

Kerry

Guest
Objective morality is the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person's subjective opinion, but factually true. Proponents of this theory would argue that a statement like "Murder is wrong" can be as objectively true as "1 + 1 = 2.



Furthermore you keep jumping between truth and reality. My point was, you are judging morality based upon appeal to majority or appeal to self, you argue against this by retorting that you do not believe in a objective morality, that is fine. But then you contradict yourself, and say that your argument is based off of an appeal to majority.

You must understand, just because you use fancy rhetoric to say you are appealing to majority does not make you more correct...

The problem is what I am getting out is the only reason you know these things is because society knows these things... This is extremely scary considering that society in 1939 Nazi Germany was completely different then today, but according to your own reasoning (appeal to majority) it would be correct to gas Jews in that society.


I think therefor I am is a logical fallacy, it is begging the question, appeal to self, and circular reasoning... The saying "I do not exist" has the exact same fallacies, it is begging the question, appeal to self, and circular reasoning.
Your young and full of vigor you fight with them, they will not bend and will keep coming up with stupid stuff, but keep fighting. I have shown them time and time again and they refuse, Just like Pharaoh even after the frogs and the darkness and the water turned to blood and even after all the firstborn died He still did not believe and that is who you are talking to.
 
Oct 30, 2014
1,150
7
0
Objective morality is the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person's subjective opinion, but factually true. Proponents of this theory would argue that a statement like "Murder is wrong" can be as objectively true as "1 + 1 = 2.



You keep jumping between truth and reality. My point was, you are judging morality based upon appeal to majority or appeal to self, you argue against this by retorting that you do not believe in a objective morality, that is fine. But then you contradict yourself, and say that your argument is based off of an appeal to majority.

You must understand, just because you use fancy rhetoric to say you are appealing to majority does not make you more correct...

The problem is what I am getting out is the only reason you know these things is because society knows these things... This is extremely scary considering that society in 1939 Nazi Germany was completely different then today, but according to your own reasoning (appeal to majority) it would be correct to gas Jews in that society.


I think therefor I am is a logical fallacy, it is begging the question, appeal to self, and circular reasoning... The saying "I do not exist" has the exact same fallacies, it is begging the question, appeal to self, and circular reasoning.
But you consider your unquestionably subjective decision to adhere to the ethical views within your selective interpretation of the teachings of a two thousand year old text, by merit of personal belief in an omniprescent metaphysical being whose existence can neither be confirmed nor denied, a manifestation of adherence to 'objective morality'?
 
Last edited:
K

Kerry

Guest
But you consider your unquestionably subjective decision to adhere to the ethical views within your selective interpretation of the teachings of a two thousand year old text, by merit of personal belief in an omniprescent metaphysical being whose existence can neither be confirmed nor denied, a manifestation of adherence to 'objective morality'?
And yall dug up some bones that are dated millions of years ago and know exactly what they are gimme a break
 

T_Laurich

Senior Member
Mar 24, 2013
3,356
122
63
29
But you consider your unquestionably subjective decision to adhere to the ethical views within your selective interpretation of the teachings of a two thousand year old text, by merit of personal belief in an omniprescent metaphysical being whose existence can neither be confirmed nor denied, a manifestation of adherence to 'objective morality'?
First off, how is it subjective and if it is subjective how would it not adhere to my own ethical views...

Secondly age does not make something incorrect, the theory of the atom is far older, yet you hold that view correct.

Thirdly It can be confirmed and denied, through prophecy.

Fourthly If there is objective morality it would also confirm the plausibility of a single creator.
 
Last edited:
K

Kerry

Guest
Did you know that Einstein was so smart that he could not tie his shoes and would get lost on the way home
 
T

TaylorTG

Guest
Come on, Kerry. Relax.
 
Oct 30, 2014
1,150
7
0
First off, how is it subjective and if it is subjective how would it not adhere to my own ethical views...
It is subjective because it is influenced by personal feelings. It is 'individual'. Not everyone holds that view; it isn't objectively, irrefutably the only view to have. Look up the word 'subjective'.

Secondly age does not make something incorrect, the theory of the atom is far older, yet you hold that view correct.
While that is true, the atom has also been scientifically proven. God has not.

Thirdly It can be confirmed and denied, through prophecy.
Like these? Failed biblical prophecies - RationalWiki

Fourthly If there is objective morality it would also confirm the plausibility of a single creator.
Cirular reasoning, argument from ignorance, faulty correlation. The creator, at the beginning of this discussion, was supposed to be the source for the morality, now you are asserting that the mere speculated existence of 'objective morality' is 'evidence' (which it isn't) that proves the existence of an omniprescent creator. So belief in God (in your eyes) proves objective morality exists, and the fact that objective morality exists (in your eyes) proves the existence of a creator. (circular). It's an argument from ignorance to assume that objective morality's existence and the existence of a scientifially unprovable creator have any correlation, let alone causation. It's an argument from assumption too. It's also several other logical fallacies.

T_Laurich, I appreciate how logical you're trying to be, and logic is of course a scientific, clinical method of argument used to prove points and facts, however, you can't argue logically to defend the existence of that which lies outside the bounds of logic. Metaphysical belief doesn't abide by logical rules, as a general rule.
 

T_Laurich

Senior Member
Mar 24, 2013
3,356
122
63
29
It is subjective because it is influenced by personal feelings. It is 'individual'. Not everyone holds that view; it isn't objectively, irrefutably the only view to have. Look up the word 'subjective'.



While that is true, the atom has also been scientifically proven. God has not.



Like these? Failed biblical prophecies - RationalWiki



Cirular reasoning, argument from ignorance, faulty correlation. The creator, at the beginning of this discussion, was supposed to be the source for the morality, now you are asserting that the mere speculated existence of 'objective morality' is 'evidence' (which it isn't) that proves the existence of an omniprescent creator. So belief in God (in your eyes) proves objective morality exists, and the fact that objective morality exists (in your eyes) proves the existence of a creator. (circular). It's an argument from ignorance to assume that objective morality's existence and the existence of a scientifially unprovable creator have any correlation, let alone causation. It's an argument from assumption too. It's also several other logical fallacies.

T_Laurich, I appreciate how logical you're trying to be, and logic is of course a scientific, clinical method of argument used to prove points and facts, however, you can't argue logically to defend the existence of that which lies outside the bounds of logic. Metaphysical belief doesn't abide by logical rules, as a general rule.
1.) Because there is pathos does not mean it is not objective... Philosophy 101
2.) How do you know God has not?
3.) Tyre was destroyed to the EXACT 'T' of how the bible said it would be.
The Nile River is in fear of being dried up as we speak, and Egypt is considering about war over this problem.
Next time when you Google "failed bible prophecies" research your source to make sure it's not lying.
4.)Circular reasoning does not deem it incorrect, Philosophy 101. but please explain how it is an argument from ignorance, you are assuming because you don't know something that it has not been proven. THIS IS AN ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE!How is it faulty correlation? Did you not read the word plausibility?




And lastly, I love how you are trying to be all logical and smartical, but if you are to continue, I would ask that you do not make blank assertions, and that you research your sources and don't just accept them because they support your view, Thank you.
 

damombomb

Senior Member
Feb 27, 2011
3,801
68
48
Exactly, it looks like an ape and yet it walks upright. Below is a forensic facial reconstruction.



"Compared to the modern and extinct great ape, A. afarensis has reduced canines and molars, although they are still relatively larger than in modern humans" (Wikipedia: A. afarensis). The point is this species has a mix of ape and human features throughout its skeleton, though its skull is about the size of a chimp.

Darwin and other early evolutionists expected our hominid ancestors would develop more human-like brain capacity first and upright gait later, but the reverse has proven true. Lucy and her kin looked essentially ape-like in the skull but appear adapted for walking on two legs. A number of features point to this in the skeleton but in addition to these the feet have lost their adaption for life in the trees. The big toe of apes and other primates (except humans) is described as abductable, that is it is adapted for grasping. A. afarensis had lost that ability, though its toes and finger bones remained curved.

Creationists continue to argue that Lucy and her kin were only another kind of ape and not bipedal. Accepting that they were bipedal would mean that these are transitional fossils, which creationists continue to insist don't exist.

Oh, wait for a major announcement coming out early in 2015. A large number of complete, or nearly so, hominid remains were found by cavers last year in South Africa. A team of 60 researchers was put together to recover them, and what they found is said to have stunned everyone. The excavation is on going, but a big announcement is expected in just a few months. Should be exciting, whatever it is.

He looks just like John Amos
 
Oct 30, 2014
1,150
7
0
1.) Because there is pathos does not mean it is not objective... Philosophy 101
The art of rhetoric isn't the same as the science of logic. Logos is seperate from pathos. If it is 'subjective', it is not objective. Logos. Pathos (appeal to emotion in a debate) is not the same as a statement's factual (Logos) authority being based of nonfactual subjective emotional reasoning.

2.) How do you know God has not?
Because we don't know if he has.
3.) Tyre was destroyed to the EXACT 'T' of how the bible said it would be.
By Alexander (not what prophecy states), and not all of it. It has also been rebuilt.

The Nile River is in fear of being dried up as we speak, and Egypt is considering about war over this problem.
Nile-River-1.jpg

Really? Looks okay to me.

4.)Circular reasoning does not deem it incorrect, Philosophy 101. but please explain how it is an argument from ignorance, you are assuming because you don't know something that it has not been proven. THIS IS AN ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE!How is it faulty correlation? Did you not read the word plausibility?
It doesn't deem it irrefutably incorrect, no, just extremely unplausible and logically unsound. God has not been proven, since nobody has come forward with proof of his existence. It is logically sound to assert that God has not been proven. It is logically, very unsound to assert that God is proven by the fact that objective morality exists in your mind based on the assumption that objective morality proves God's existence.
 
Last edited:

T_Laurich

Senior Member
Mar 24, 2013
3,356
122
63
29
The art of rhetoric isn't the same as the science of logic. Logos is seperate from pathos. If it is 'subjective', it is not objective. Logos. Pathos (appeal to emotion in a debate) is not the same as a statement's factual (Logos) authority being based of nonfactual subjective emotional reasoning.



Because we don't know if he has.


By Alexander (not what prophecy states), and not all of it. It has also been rebuilt.



View attachment 93667

Really? Looks okay to me.



It doesn't deem it irrefutably incorrect, no, just extremely unplausible and logically unsound. God has not been proven, since nobody has come forward with proof of his existence. It is logically sound to assert that God has not been proven. It is logically, very unsound to assert that God is proven by the fact that objective morality exists in your mind based on the assumption that objective morality proves God's existence.
1.) Define logos, and because it is an appeal to pathos does not mean it is incorrect.

2.) Let me quote this so you can see how stupid you sound...
While that is true, the atom has also been scientifically proven. God has not.
I then said "How do you know God has not?" and you retorted...
Because we don't know if he has.
Did you not just get on me for argument from ignorance? And now you use it to try to refute me?
Let me rephrase this in "lamens terms"
you said: God has not been proven!
I asked: how do you know this?
You said: because we don't know.

LOL WHAT!

3.)Read the prophecy, it clearly states that the settlements on the main land are not Tyre, and historians accept this view... The only people who view the settlements as ancient Tyre are those trying to disprove the bible.

BBC News - Will Ethiopia's Grand Renaissance Dam dry the Nile in Egypt?

Again please do your research, it's not fun to debate someone who does not care if the use false data, and they only care about winning...


4.)You just contradicted yourself, in #2 you said
Because we don't know if he [God] has.(referring to being proven)


in #4 you say
God has not been proven




MAKE UP YOUR MIND!

Dude you need to stop switching your parameters in order to try to win the debate... !
 
K

Kerry

Guest
1.) Define logos, and because it is an appeal to pathos does not mean it is incorrect.

2.) Let me quote this so you can see how stupid you sound...

I then said "How do you know God has not?" and you retorted...


Did you not just get on me for argument from ignorance? And now you use it to try to refute me?
Let me rephrase this in "lamens terms"
you said: God has not been proven!
I asked: how do you know this?
You said: because we don't know.

LOL WHAT!

3.)Read the prophecy, it clearly states that the settlements on the main land are not Tyre, and historians accept this view... The only people who view the settlements as ancient Tyre are those trying to disprove the bible.

BBC News - Will Ethiopia's Grand Renaissance Dam dry the Nile in Egypt?

Again please do your research, it's not fun to debate someone who does not care if the use false data, and they only care about winning...


4.)You just contradicted yourself, in #2 you said



in #4 you say






MAKE UP YOUR MIND!

Dude you need to stop switching your parameters in order to try to win the debate... !
They won't, they will not stop even after seeing the truth, they love their sin so much that anything that comes against it is militant and wrong just look at America say something about gays and you will be demonized.
 
Oct 30, 2014
1,150
7
0
1.) Define logos, and because it is an appeal to pathos does not mean it is incorrect.

2.) Let me quote this so you can see how stupid you sound...

I then said "How do you know God has not?" and you retorted...


Did you not just get on me for argument from ignorance? And now you use it to try to refute me?
Let me rephrase this in "lamens terms"
you said: God has not been proven!
I asked: how do you know this?
You said: because we don't know.

LOL WHAT!

3.)Read the prophecy, it clearly states that the settlements on the main land are not Tyre, and historians accept this view... The only people who view the settlements as ancient Tyre are those trying to disprove the bible.

BBC News - Will Ethiopia's Grand Renaissance Dam dry the Nile in Egypt?

Again please do your research, it's not fun to debate someone who does not care if the use false data, and they only care about winning...


4.)You just contradicted yourself, in #2 you said



in #4 you say






MAKE UP YOUR MIND!

Dude you need to stop switching your parameters in order to try to win the debate... !
God has not been proven, otherwise, he would be proven. The Nile has not dried up as prophecy says, Tyre was not destroyed entirely as prophecy says, Tyre was seiged and captured by Alexander (not what prophecy says), there is more than one failed prophecy on that list (yet you keep rattling on about one), if a thing is subjective it cannot be objective, Logos means factual information and logos is not the same as pathos. What you asserted originally wasn't even pathos. We were talking about your subjective decision to believe in God. That isn't pathos, it's subjective personal choice. As for correctness, pathos (appeal to emotions) cant be correct, nor can it be incorrect anyway. It is nothing but an appeal to emotion.

Learn the difference between logos, pathos and ethos.
 
K

Kerry

Guest
Get em T get em and may God bless you