Ask an Atheist
- Thread starter SkepticJosh
- Start date
-
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.
- Status
I know full well the prevalence of slavery in the world, but it does not exist in the Western world on the scale that it did in the Roman empire. This is what I meant. Slavery was the backbone of the economy as it was in the Southern USA. That kind of slavery no longer exists in the West. The slavery that exists here is hidden and it is not legal.
Instead of rudely making accusations why don't you first ask????!!!
Instead of rudely making accusations why don't you first ask????!!!
A
Unlikely in that particular case. But there's plenty more where that came from. The Journal of Near-Death Studies is a quarterly peer-reviewed academic journal covering near-death studies that is published by the International Association for Near-Death Studies.
Journal of Near-Death Studies (JNDS)
Knock yourself out.
Journal of Near-Death Studies (JNDS)
Knock yourself out.
A
They have a refuted circular theory they are clinging to. Stenger misrepresented Noether's theorem claiming it shows the laws of nature originate from the universe's symmetries, although the theorem is actually dependent upon the existing laws of physics. So, Stenger's argument is essentially circular.
Ok Percepi. Trying to make this concise and stay on topic.
Your first objection to morality being objective- abstract and objective are dichotomous. This is false.
The laws of physics (and all natural laws) are objective and abstract. I just needed to demonstrate that abstract and objective were not dichotomous like you were claiming. While you provided no basis for your claim(you just stated it), I have shown examples of why it is false. If you want to hold onto this conclusion, “something cannot be both objective and abstract”, you need to provide some rationale to base it on and show why my example is false.
I can accept that you reject the existence of objective morality.
However,
Here’s the claim you are presenting- Morality is both subjective and meaningful.
The rational you provide for your claim is- moral opinion is more important than other opinions because it’s based on outcome and emotion.
Here, I don’t see how basing an opinion on emotion makes it more important than other opinions. It would still be arbitrary. Can you provide an illustration or reason for why you believe this?
Personal taste is just another way of saying “opinion” and most opinions are based on social/environment conditions (which includes past, present, and perceived outcomes).
My claim: There are no rational grounds to claim morality is both subjective and meaningful.
You can call something good and I can call something evil. It’s arbitrary. Ultimately, these phrases are meaningless since there is no moral reality. I have given example after example of how subjective morality is just opinion. Apparently I’m not wording it clearly enough. So instead of me continuing fruitlessly to show this, perhaps you will better understand it coming from the mouths of fellow atheists.
There are more, I just don’t know if you want to read a book of quotes. There are atheists that disagree of course, but I have yet to see one rational argument against this. I only see people talking about their “feelings” and alluding to how others "feel" which just shows they are being intellectually dishonest with themselves. If there is a rational argument against this - why subjective morality has meaning- I’d like to see it.
Yes it is, isn’t it? And yet if naturalism is true, that’s the reality. But I have no reason to believe naturalism is true. =)
Seems a shallow reason to be happy.
I have already stated several times that all humans feel emotion, which would include joy.
Sure, give me time to try to put it together in a concise manner. 2 years worth of study isn't easy to condense down. And the study is ongoing obviously... Learning is a life long process.
And? Seems like an attempt to downplay philosophy (?)
Regardless, you can’t refute a rational argument with, “that’s philosophical.” If I responded to an atheist’s argument with “that’s philosophical,” I would just be stating the obvious and it adds nothing to the conversation.
I’ll end with I appreciate the fact you are actually engaging in this conversation Percepi. I’ve noticed here some tend to ignore the harder questions and stick with things they are comfortable with.
Your first objection to morality being objective- abstract and objective are dichotomous. This is false.
The laws of physics (and all natural laws) are objective and abstract. I just needed to demonstrate that abstract and objective were not dichotomous like you were claiming. While you provided no basis for your claim(you just stated it), I have shown examples of why it is false. If you want to hold onto this conclusion, “something cannot be both objective and abstract”, you need to provide some rationale to base it on and show why my example is false.
I can accept that you reject the existence of objective morality.
However,
Here’s the claim you are presenting- Morality is both subjective and meaningful.
The rational you provide for your claim is- moral opinion is more important than other opinions because it’s based on outcome and emotion.
Here, I don’t see how basing an opinion on emotion makes it more important than other opinions. It would still be arbitrary. Can you provide an illustration or reason for why you believe this?
Personal taste is just another way of saying “opinion” and most opinions are based on social/environment conditions (which includes past, present, and perceived outcomes).
My claim: There are no rational grounds to claim morality is both subjective and meaningful.
You can call something good and I can call something evil. It’s arbitrary. Ultimately, these phrases are meaningless since there is no moral reality. I have given example after example of how subjective morality is just opinion. Apparently I’m not wording it clearly enough. So instead of me continuing fruitlessly to show this, perhaps you will better understand it coming from the mouths of fellow atheists.
There are more, I just don’t know if you want to read a book of quotes. There are atheists that disagree of course, but I have yet to see one rational argument against this. I only see people talking about their “feelings” and alluding to how others "feel" which just shows they are being intellectually dishonest with themselves. If there is a rational argument against this - why subjective morality has meaning- I’d like to see it.
Yes it is, isn’t it? And yet if naturalism is true, that’s the reality. But I have no reason to believe naturalism is true. =)
Seems a shallow reason to be happy.
I have already stated several times that all humans feel emotion, which would include joy.
Sure, give me time to try to put it together in a concise manner. 2 years worth of study isn't easy to condense down. And the study is ongoing obviously... Learning is a life long process.
And? Seems like an attempt to downplay philosophy (?)
Regardless, you can’t refute a rational argument with, “that’s philosophical.” If I responded to an atheist’s argument with “that’s philosophical,” I would just be stating the obvious and it adds nothing to the conversation.
I’ll end with I appreciate the fact you are actually engaging in this conversation Percepi. I’ve noticed here some tend to ignore the harder questions and stick with things they are comfortable with.
I think this site is incredibly tolerant of atheists, muslims, and other falsehoods that infiltrate this CHRISTIAN site posting all kinds of threads.
Wonder how tolerant and how long an atheist chat cite would allow if I took the time to make an account, then started a thread titled. "Ask A Christian how you can be saved through the perfect sacrifice of God's only Son Jesus Christ"
I think 5 seconds would be optimistic.
Wonder how tolerant and how long an atheist chat cite would allow if I took the time to make an account, then started a thread titled. "Ask A Christian how you can be saved through the perfect sacrifice of God's only Son Jesus Christ"
I think 5 seconds would be optimistic.
O
well. i'm a christian and i welcome a dialogue with atheists. i will not argue the existence of god on a basis of empirical reasoning. it doesn't apply. i believe there is a god, a "prime mover." i will not go beyond that. i believe the hebrew and christian scriptures to be inspired. both in their origins and in what we have today but i do not believe they are authoritative in the areas of history and science. they are religious documents from a far different culture and time. i see the new testament and the cross as a window into the nature of that infinite god.
tease it out? you can read it and see it. There are things in revelations that have not happened yet. God's wrath,coming on the clouds, gathering of the church. Clearly never happened in Johns time. He was "taken in the spirit" No man can discern the Word of God without the Holy Spirit to guide. The rest of the bible shows with clarity things that must be before "the great day of the Lord." Its truly amazing Cycel.
- Status