Poor analogy.
In your analogy, we are the money, not the one with the gun to our head. But money can't choose, so your whole analogy doesn't really work to begin with.
-
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.
Poor analogy.
In your analogy, we are the money, not the one with the gun to our head. But money can't choose, so your whole analogy doesn't really work to begin with.
W
Wesley
Guest
You misunderstood my analogy if that's what you took away from it.
In my analogy, we are the robbery victim, not the money. The very fact that the money cannot choose is exactly why we aren't the money in my analogy.
That renders your objection a straw-man; you're imputing upon me a point I'm not making.
Last edited:
The point is that in truth we are NOT the robbery victim. God (the robbery victim) created us. Our soul is HIS property. The devil, or ourselves, attempt to steal it away from him. Threatening to crush it.
As mentioned before, your analogy is a poor one, so yes the above is a stretch. But no matter what, we are not the one with a gun to our head.
No. This is an incredibly hard fact for most "atheists" to accept for some reason. Though it is scary when I find an atheist who has thought that hard and agrees with me haha. Without a God, morals are a man-made thing. A man-made idea. Believing in right/wrong would be like believing in a...well...a flying spaghetti monster.
Everything would have to be neutral without a God and you would just be following another man's INTERPRETATION of right and wrong.
If I said that it was totally cool and justifiable that Hitler killed a ton of Jews and you didn't agree with me who would be right without a God? Neither of us, because it would be one man's subjective opinion against the others'
T
Tethered
Guest
Noone would be right according to God, without a God.
The preference for a theory of morality which believes there is an ultimate right or wrong, is not an argument for the truth of moral systems.
It's an argument that says: (Premis) The moral system is more moral if there is a God, therefore -evidence for- God.
When you should be arguing: This moral system is validated by reality better if there is a God, therefore -evidence for- God.
So I guess here's the question. What would neutral morality mean for the real world, what would change? Would we lose our subjective moralities? why.. etc etc
Oh yeah I wasn't trying to say that morals prove God's existence. I was just saying that you can't believe in objective right and wrong and truly be atheist. It's how I filter out the angsty 14 year olds who troll forums who haven't thought about what the implications are of there being no God.
I think we have seen what neutral morality means for the real world. In America alone as we see a rise in Atheism, we see a rise in not only lawlessness, but disgusting acts of lawlessness. People weren't throwing their babies in dumpsters left and right back in the 1930s you know what I mean? Jeffrey Dahmer came to pretty much the exact conclusion of a true Atheist (realizing that there is no objective right and wrong) and while in prison exclaimed that he would have never done what he did had he known who/what God was. He said that it was only until he found out about the idea of God that he became remorseful for what he did.
Now am I saying that Atheists are running a muck and are sociopaths and are committing crimes everywhere and have no morals? No. What I am saying is that it seems that the more we throw God out our society's window, the more we seem to be throwing natural law out as well.
T
Tethered
Guest
I thought you originally meant to say that neutral morality was the consequence of:
A)There being no God.
Not
B) a correlation consequence of unbelief.
Few people deny the existance of moral relativists, or people using their subjective morals inspite of not being moral relativists.
My question was to address the question of what happens when God disappears, not when people disbelieve.
D
darkangellights
Guest
I don't view them negatively i like many atheistic bands and men Andy Biersack is a guy that i really like and i envy my mom for not letting me go to see him in concert with my friend because of Christianity she doesn't like
his look she told me No because Jesus wouldn't paint his face so i shouldn't like bands who paint there faces he was giving out hugs that day oh well another way how Christianity depresses me.
his look she told me No because Jesus wouldn't paint his face so i shouldn't like bands who paint there faces he was giving out hugs that day oh well another way how Christianity depresses me.
Like what would happen if God exists and there is objective moral authority (Him) and then He just disappeared? What would happen to objective morals? Is that your question?
N
needmesomejesus
Guest
I have no idea. Some atheists have more than some supposed Christians. I think Christians just don't having their faith tested so they view the one who tests them as evil.
T
Tethered
Guest
Yes. Although I meant it in this sense of the effect of no objective morality, not the other consequences of 'no God'.
Would the existance of objective morality (+subjective morality)
or the existance of only subjective morality
Make the world run in a way we can differentiate?
I say this, because I think the presence of an 'objective morality' has no effect. Even if something is truly correct, the subjective people of earth still have to evaluate whether they believe it is objective or not, for it to change them.
With no way to differentiate, debating morality always seemed like a moot point.
I think you might be accidentally trailing off the topic. The topic is why are Atheists viewed so negatively and one of my reasons was that they can't be trusted as well as most spiritual people because they have no moral authority.
It COULD run in a way we can differentiate if more Atheists thought about the concept of subjective morality. Only a very select few have fully thought out what morality means in atheism, which is nothing. You follow your own subjective morals but don't know why. You can say that you wouldn't steal anything (even if you knew you could get away with it), cheat on a spouse (even if you knew you could get away with it), kill your worst enemy (even if you knew you could get away with it), but when it boils right down to it, there is no real reason why you follow these morals because there is no moral authority (if there were no God), the only person saying that these things are without a doubt bad is you. You have no reason to believe in morals because without a God, morality, right and wrong, are just made up concepts like a flying spaghetti monster.
Am I saying throw morality out of the window now? No, because I do fully believe in God and fully believe in objective right and wrong.
T
Tethered
Guest
I understand your point to the topic question and agree, as for my question:
Rules people create for themselves (beyond shortsighted cost/reward analysis) depends on the identity (their hearts Romans:2-14-15) they choose for themselves. That 'nothing' is actually a changing environment and individuals responses to it. Yes, in their mind, they are made up concepts, not necessarily individually made up, but from forces of the community and parental influence as well.
The presence of the bible is like an achor to peoples perceptions of morality (if they accept it), consistency feels safe and stop internal subjective moral thought's (as described by Romans 2:14-15) from a prolonging accusation of what is right and wrong, because the answer an anchored person uses is more clear. Imagine the horror of thinking the environment could make your morality change in such a way the current morals are thrown out the window... that's where I think the fear comes in. However, an adults mind is more fixed in it's early lessons, it is the morality of the child that is much more influence-able as to warrant fear.
As an argument for the existance of objective morality, i.e. which is true?, the achor has to be proven to be objective (i.e. prove God), or some elements of everyones morality are to be proven unconditional (but does necessarily prove God). Since the former is the premis in dispute, using morality to argue backwards for God doesn't work as a truth based argument...BUT, as you say, there are natural consequences of an atheists premis and a christians premis (i.e. What morality is!) that should be accepted. Hard for angsty teens to accept, when they've just been through a 'right and wrong' lesson
A
ArtsieSteph
Guest
It could be the fact that Atheists sort of don't believe in anything, and so that means they can be considered an outsider or unbeliever not only in Christian circles but in every religion, so they tend to be sort of ousted more.
As far as not liking them, I feel they're the same as everyone else. They tend to be more vocal about their disbelief and criticism, so I tend to be more disapproving when I hear about some action or rally by Athiests or agnostics that shows their disapproval of Christianity. But other than that, with the people, I've never had any hate for them or anything.
As far as not liking them, I feel they're the same as everyone else. They tend to be more vocal about their disbelief and criticism, so I tend to be more disapproving when I hear about some action or rally by Athiests or agnostics that shows their disapproval of Christianity. But other than that, with the people, I've never had any hate for them or anything.