CALLING ALL ATHEISTS TO A CHALLENGE!!!

Ok. I understand this. By the way, we should never not listen to them because they don't agree with us.

So, it is really simple. They believe there is a God, and we believe there is a God. Now, which god is God? Or are there many gods? I will tell you there are many gods in this world. Yes, many gods. These gods are feared and worshiped, and honored. But if I take my computer, and set it on a altar, call it god, and say to it, BRING ME RAIN FROM YOUR HEAVENS OH LORD!!'' would you say I was worshiping God? PFFTT! NO!!!

Elijah challenged these false gods in a mighty way. He said (In general). OKAY YOU SILLY PEOPLE! TODAY WE WILL SEE WHO IS GOD!! IF GOD IS BAAL LET HIM BE GOD! BUT IF HE IS THE GOD OF ISRAEL, LET HIM BE GOD! AND THE GOD THAT ANSWERS BY FIRE IS THE ONE TRUE GOD!!

And you know how that ended. WHICH ONE OF YOU WANT TO PUT GOD TO THE TEST??? AND I WARN YOU, HE WARNED YOU NOT TO PUT HIM TO THE TEST!!

And you are certainly welcomed here.

well, I guess I'm technically an atheist as I do not believe in a or any god, but I consider myself more of a Buddhist. Anyway.

The idea of whether or not God exists is irrelevant. It does not solve any problems living right now if he exists or not. Whether he's real or not, the earth still orbits the sun. Knowing the answer to that question does nothing for you in terms of eliminating desire from oneself, which is the main cause of our suffering while we are alive. The same goes with what happened before the universe was made, and other philosophical questions of that nature.

Do the atheists on this thread hold to moral relativism or absolutism (or maybe Nihilism)?

I'm more Daoist. Basically, if you have to talk about what's right and wrong, you've already lost what's right and wrong. It's just something you know instinctively.

How did you arrive at that assumption? Any logic or reasoning behind it?

What is the source of this "instinct"?

The basic assumption of all Daoism is that words distract from the true meaning behind something. Very similar to Mahayana Buddhism in that sense. It has a lot to due with the Doctrine of Emptiness which is something most Buddhist monks don't even fully understand. If your more interested I can direct you places

The instinct is evolutionary. Its basically coded in to help the survival of the individual. It just so happens that for humans, it is better to have the individual be in a group then alone. For example, Killing other members of your family group is bad, as it weakens your group and lowers your survival chances. As we started banding into bigger groups, the laws got extrapolated to cover them. That's basically the gist of how laws came about.

Sorry if I'm unclear or confusing, I'm REALLY bad at arguing about morality.

Hi. Thanks for taking the challenge and standing up!!! May Jesus bless you.

Actually you are right about a lot of what you said. The idea of whether he exists or not does nothing for anyone in terms of eliminating desire from oneself, which is indeed the main cause of our suffering while we are alive. Very wise words here, very true words here. Now, lets discuss this more. Please:

There are only 2 main absolutes that people cannot do away with. They are LIFE and DEATH!

When it comes to these 2 things questions must be asked. Because whether Christian, Atheist, Buddhist, Muslim etc. We can be sure that people have died, and people are living. Can you refute this? And so many questions about the purpose of Life and what is after death.

Let's take this basic thing, it was written, in the bible, that man came from dust, and they will return to dust. So then, we know this is true we have seen this. And then some presume, that is simply it, that is the end, no more life, dust. Some go further to say life goes on and is transfered to other forms and such as in animals. Of course they are making presumptions because they are still alive and they haven't died yet. OH WELL.

So, this is how many people say, CHRISTIANS PRESUME TO KNOW GOD! And this is said because they also believe God cannot be seen.

But I am telling you the truth, when I thought to search and see if I could know God, I said, I will not be like the Atheist nor like the Christian. I will read every word in this book, and judge it. And I did. I did, and I ended up being judged. Then I read the words, '''DRAW NIGH TO ME AND I WILL DRAW NIGH TO YOU.''

So this is the condition of God, if you don't draw close to him, he will not draw close to you. That is it, and that is why they say we don't know God. But until you have done it, you have no case. And since I know even so much more that he is real, because he reveals himself ACTUALLY, to people who stop being arrogant and seek to know him, I cannot tell you a lie that he isn't just because you don't believe me.

But some people don't like it when God tells them certain things. Neither did I. So some people who actually knew God, I mean ACTUALLY TALKED WITH HIM, they didn't want anything to do with his standards so then they created other gods and served them. And I know some people might hate this, but there are a lot of Christians that have not been serving God, but false gods. Judge this. COME BACK AT ME!!

Well, lets put it like this. I assume you believe that everyone has a thing called a "soul." The modern Christian view of the soul is that it is essentially your essence, its what makes you you, and when you die, it goes to either heaven or hell. It is an absolute part of life.

Tell me then, what part of your self is absolute? Can you point to one thing that makes you you (personality traits, quirks, interests, etc) that is absolute? Chances are, no. You are not the same person you were when you were born. Nor will you be the same person you are now when your 64. Your interests, beliefs, who you are will have changed. This points to the fact that there is no absolute self, or soul.

Consider this analogy. You have a car, and decide to disassemble it into all its component parts. You have the doors, tires, engine, etc. You cannot, however, point to any one piece and call it a "car." Such is the same with yourself. You can't point to one part of you that is absolute, unchanging. It is the aggregate of all these aspects of yourself that make you "you."

Basically, what this implies is that life and death don't matter. when you die, the aggregates that make up who you are just cease to exist in the form that they are in. Traditional Buddhist views say that they just take another form, or get "reborn." Kind of like reincarnation, except there's no incarnation to reincarnate

tl;dr - The soul does not exist, because there is no absolute you. Life and death are just terms we use to refer to things the formation and disintegration of the different aggregates that make up one person.

Just be glad I didn't dip out the Diamond Sutra. I could try and make a case as to why there is no such thing as life, and because there is no such thing, there is a thing called life. It's...dense.

I think it's extremely dangerous to base morality on an evolutionary foundation. The fundamental premise of such a moral code would be something along the lines of "might makes right". A moral code which makes a society stronger than other societies or individuals is superior because it enables one group to flourish and eventually come to dominate and oppress other societies (in terms of evolution, natural selection ends with the extinction of other "species" or subspecies, akin to the destruction of other societies and philosophies).

I would also question the impact these notions would have within any given society; this places a great deal of emphasis on collectivism and dedication to "the group". It may be important to note concerns about the promotion of social solidarity and the survival of the group being promoted to the detriment of the individual. If we were to hold a moral premise near and dear (we have a wide variety of freedoms, most of them would fit) purely on the basis that it increases our chances of collective survivial, then would anything be wrong with dismissing all of these the moment that they pose a threat to the solidarity of the group?


It also closes the door on making any moral judgements regarding the practices of other civilisations, past and present. If a society is able to flourish, yet bases itself (its economy, social structure, political system etc.) at least in part on something we would regard as immoral, what grounds would we have to condemn them? For instance, if there was a nation that used something like a caste system that resulted in the oppression of a certain group or race of people, how could we criticise them?

That's the problem I see with using evolution as a foundation anyways; it reduces morality to nothing more than power politics and a system where one achieves moral righteousness through strength of arms (or some other suitable subterfuge that ensures success).





That is such an awesome unicorn, did you draw it?

1) I told you I was bad at arguing morality. I TOLD YOU ABOUT MORALITY BRO. I TOLD YOU DOG

2) I base morality on evolution because there is no real alternative to its arising from a naturalistic perspective. It makes sense from an evolutionary psychology perspective, but I am not qualified to talk about that. I know it sounds like I'm avoiding the subject, but that's because I am =P I really don't know how to argue about pure ethics.

3) No, I didn't draw the unicorn unfortunetly. It's a meme image from the new My Little Pony cartoon =P You should totally check it out! it's really popular amongst college age guys, primarily from 4chan ;P

Yeah, I think I understand.

I tend to view the notion of God as the fundamental basis for ethical reasoning. Many moral assertions coming from absolutists and modern theories are based on premises for which I see very little reasoning from an evolutionary perspective; why should we promote the autonomy of the individual and protect them from coercion, why should the strong defend the weak, why should we simply assume that "all men are equal" etc.?

We commit ourselves to some kind of Liberal egalitarianism, yet I'm not sure if this can exist against the background of an aggressively secular or especially naturalistic/evolutionary framework, seeing as how our "absolute" assumptions about freedom and equality would be thrown out when they became inconvenient.

I suppose you could say I believe in an unreasonable source of moral reasoning; an irrational foundation of rational discourse. A source with the appropriate authority (bearing the title of "God", whatever it is) provides the basics, and philosophical discourse surrounding moral arguments is built on the natural conclusions of those supposed first principles.




I'm not a 4chan guy, I just like unicorns and I'm not afraid to admit it.

Again, a lot of things you said are true. It is true that such things as interests beliefs and all aspects of yourself are subject to change. It is as you say with the car, that all parts make up the car. But does this mean there is no absolute self, or soul? Does it really?

Lets take a scenario of Good guy verses Bad guy. If a person says, I AM GOOD! Then that means he has to be good from beginning to end. That means he can't be impartial in his goodness. He has to be good from birth to death, because such a statement is a bold one. But then you have people who determine their own goods and bads. For instance, some people think it is bad to kill. Yet these same people justify killing in one case over another. But God says DO NOT KILL! He is very impartial here. Isn't this good? And in another case as we know adultery breaks up families. And some people say, ''well if they cheated on me, I will get even and cheat on him.'' Yet these same people condemn adultery. Isn't this hypocrisy? But God says DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY! So which is good? Many other cases. If you take the 10 commandments alone, not being biased to them, wouldn't you say they are good? I mean, are they evil? Really! Honestly! Check them out!! COME BACK!! AT ME

So, tell me this, are you good or are you bad? Explain.

Then why does God apparently order people to kill others, burn cities, enact the death penalty etc.

Killing is obviously acceptable in some cases, if you go by what the Bible says.

Why would an atheist be a member on a Christian blogging website :/

What blogging website?

Yes, it does.

There are no good actions, nor are there bad actions. There are simply actions. Just actions. no fluff, glitter, or tinsel. just actions. These actions can be assigned different qualifiers such as, what is, in general, beneficial to society (good) or what is detrimental (evil). There is no absolute dharma called "good" or "evil," such phrases are empty of meaning. But because they are empty, they are called good and evil. Basically this just means that things that are empty are not inherently "empty", as in devoid of substance

Good and evil aren't absolutes by themselves either. Neither exists except in correlation with the other. How can one know what good is if there is nothing evil to oppose it? This is called the concept of dependent arising. Essentially, because two things, in this case good and evil, cannot exist except in relation to each other, they are not an absolute, and are empty.

I know its confusing, but that's Buddhist thought =P Now I'm going to bed. Goodnight, everypony!

Good question. Deserves an answer. But it was written THOU shalt not kill. So who is THOU? Is he talking to himself? I know you know that story about Frankenstein's monster. If that monster was created for a good purpose, and was given a will, and by that will chose to do evil, would you say that the one who gave that monster life has a right to take it? Of course you hear parents say this all the time, but they don't give anyone life. So they can't take it or else they will loose even their lives. God gives life and he can snuff it out at any moment. Only because he is merciful has he allowed me to stay alive long enough to realize this.

And then, we can look at David. Now, David would always ask God what to do with his enemies when they did something to them. He would ask God, and God would say, ''GO FIGHT THEM AND I WILL GIVE THE BATTLE INTO YOUR HANDS!'' So every victory he won in battle was because of God. If you look at the history in the bible, Israel never won ANY battle that they initiated on their own right. God won their battles for them. So it was God who destroyed those enemies by his OWN hand.

And now, lets look again at David. He killed a servant of God to take his wife, and do you think God let him get away? NO!! God sent a prophet and boy was he cut deep to the heart. But because he humbles himself God gives him an option, either he could be given over to his enemies, or he could be judged by God himself. But David is no fool, he wants God to judge him, because he knows that God cannot be angry forever with him. He knows he will eventually show mercy. This is why Jonah was angry and God judged him. Because even though Nineveh was an EVIL EVIL nation, God showed mercy on them, and Jonah was mad about that. So the same God who destroys also shows mercy.

Lets look at one more thing. Lets look at Israel herself. Now, this is a big one, because this drama is still being played out today. But God has destroyed the nation of Israel more times than any nation EVER. Yet they are his people. YES! He destroyed Israel MANY MANY MANY TIMES! And yet, because he is merciful he did not destroy her completely. READ ABOUT IT!! I know it sounds strange, but I know it is true. He would use the heart of an evil king and turn it against his own people, who know better. And this is the present state today of Israel, UNLESS SHE REPENTS!

Last case, I have been destroyed many times. When you actually meet the Lord, and learn about him, and find out he is real, then you are held accountable. But you might ask me how he judges me. Well, many times he would move people against me. Actually. He would provoke people to mess with me. I know this sounds counterproductive but that is how he does it. When I am going off in my own little way, he will take my boss, or my parents, or even a complete stranger and they would be full of wrath and things would start to go bad. Just terrible. But he does this to keep me focused. Again, this is exactly what Jonah did, and he got swallowed by a WHALE!!! LOL!! GO READ ABOUT IT!!

I am sorry, maybe i went to far. May Jesus bless you.

When you wake up, this is for you. Okay lets take this buddhist thought then and see how it stands up against Justice. I am not going to be merciful with this, because this is how unmerciful the law is. I am speaking as the Law does:

As surely as one man kills another man in my country, he will be convicted of murder. Now, if that murder says, well, in my Buddhist faith this is not considered bad, and so, I am excused. I am sorry dear, but he will be laughed to scorn. Yes. He will be at to death! It will be like, ''WHAT!!!'' GET OUT OF HERE!! YOU ARE CRAZY!! GET A GRIP!!

Yeah, right, try going into court and justify 3rd degree murder based on your faith and see won't you get the chair like a fool. That is just plain silly, and anyone who goes around with this type of idea set is going to meet a harsh fate my friend.

It is like those people on American Idol. I don't know who lied to them but most of them are terrible. And they didn't like Simon because he told the truth. NO HE WAS NOT HARSH! But their families should have told them the truth before they got in front of the judge and look like a fool in front of everyone. And I personally, if I were really a good friend would have told them to stop in the bathroom mirror.

So, NO! Try again. That does not pass the test of what is good and what is bad. And believe me, God's standards are much higher than men's. THE LAW SHOWS NO MERCY!

Because we want to be cuz we love you christain folks so darn much