What Christianity Really Says

Originally posted by divegeester
For some and in some exponents, yes.

Either you believe atheism is a philosophy or you do not.
If you do believe it is a philosophy (as you previously stated) then surely an
atheist must (according to you) be a follower of that philosphy.

But then you say atheists do not have a shared philosophy. 🙄

And if we (atheists) do not share a philosophy, atheism cannot be a philosophy.

Do you now understand how you have contradicted yourself?

Originally posted by twhitehead
You clearly have a very different definition of the word 'immoral' than I do. What is your definition? It appears that to you, morality is doing whatever you have to to avoid getting punished by God.

If a thing is immoral to you, and completely moral to another person. What makes your morality superior? What guidelines do you use, and again, what makes your guidelines superior to anyone else's?

And you might want to study up on Christianity a little bit because then you might understand... we don't believe there is any way possible to get away with anything. However, it stands to reason, does it not, that if one were to believe in God, then one would strive to avoid evoking His punishment. Behaving well in order to avoid negative outcomes isn't dishonest or immoral, is it? You seem to think it is. You seem to think Christians are shifty, dishonest frauds who seek nothing but to play the system. It's so ironic that Atheists like you don't want to be Christian, mainly for the reason that you have a negative, ignorant, false view of what it IS to be a Christian. I wouldn't want to be a Christian either, if it meant I had to be like what you evidently think Christians are like.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Either you believe atheism is a philosophy or you do not.
If you do believe it is a philosophy (as you previously stated) then surely an
atheist must (according to you) be a follower of that philosphy.

But then you say atheists do not have a shared philosophy. 🙄

And if we (atheists) do not share a philosophy, atheism cannot be a philosophy.

Do you now understand how you have contradicted yourself?

Atheism isn't a philosophy. It's nothing but a cowardly copout based on a fairly simple system of excuses.

"I refuse to believe in anything unless someone makes the effort to prove it to me beyond the shadow of a doubt."

If that's not cowardly, then it's lazy at the very least.

Originally posted by sumydid
Atheism isn't a philosophy. It's nothing but a cowardly copout based on a fairly simple system of excuses.

"I refuse to believe in anything unless someone makes the effort to prove it to me beyond the shadow of a doubt."

If that's not cowardly, then it's lazy at the very least.

Cowardly? Not heard that one before!
That surely implies that you think atheists will not face something frightening
or dangerous. What is that do you think?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Cowardly? Not heard that one before!

sumydid made this same claim of "cowardice" two or three weeks ago and he was picked up on it but he did not respond however. I'll see if I can find it.

edit: Yes, here it is:

If you place your belief ONLY in things that can be absolutely and empirically proven, then you should rightfully believe nothing--other than the fact that you exist. Nothing else can be proven. Nothing. Grow a pair, and take a chance. Try believing in something that can't be absolutely proven. See where that takes you. Only a coward would sit in his foxhole and not believe anything unless another person makes the exhaustive effort to prove it to him beyond doubt.

Thread 152113

Originally posted by sumydid
If a thing is immoral to you, and completely moral to another person. What makes your morality superior? What guidelines do you use, and again, what makes your guidelines superior to anyone else's?

And you might want to study up on Christianity a little bit because then you might understand... we don't believe there is any way possible to get away with ...[text shortened]... ristian either, if it meant I had to be like what you evidently think Christians are like.

Speaking for myself, it's a bit difficult to take anything you say on these and related moral matters seriously. After all, you're the one who stated that if God came down and gouged out the eyes of all living babies, it would absolutely be for the best.

Originally posted by sumydid
If a thing is immoral to you, and completely moral to another person. What makes your morality superior? What guidelines do you use, and again, what makes your guidelines superior to anyone else's?

Thats a tricky one, but I would say that the superior morality is the one that is actually morality, not a dictation of Gods opinion or some other system. However, we may disagree on what is moral even when neither system is superior to the other. We would have to go into the details of what morality is to get to why that is.

And you might want to study up on Christianity a little bit because then you might understand... we don't believe there is any way possible to get away with anything.
Who is this 'we'? My comment was addressed to divegeester and was with regards to his apparent beliefs/definition. He has, as far as I recall, not responded.

However, it stands to reason, does it not, that if one were to believe in God, then one would strive to avoid evoking His punishment. Behaving well in order to avoid negative outcomes isn't dishonest or immoral, is it? You seem to think it is.
No, I never said any such thing. But I wouldn't describe it as moral behaviour either, and most certainly not the definition of morality.

You seem to think Christians are shifty, dishonest frauds who seek nothing but to play the system.
Some clearly are, but not all.

It's so ironic that Atheists like you don't want to be Christian,
Thats false. Who said I 'don't want to be Christian'? Where do you get that idea? Does one choose to be a Christian? That simply doesn't make sense to me. Did you decide to be a Christian?

Originally posted by sumydid
Atheism isn't a philosophy. It's nothing but a cowardly copout based on a fairly simple system of excuses.

"I refuse to believe in anything unless someone makes the effort to prove it to me beyond the shadow of a doubt."

If that's not cowardly, then it's lazy at the very least.

So you presumably are a cowardly copout for every God except the Christian one? But how does that even work, they can't all be real can they?

Originally posted by FMF
sumydid made this same claim of "cowardice" two or three weeks ago

thanks for that - gave up on that thread early!

I'm really interested in his reasoning here - is he suggesting that atheists are afraid of god?
That would mean being afraid of something you don't believe exists.

It seems to me that many theists are cowards - their intellect tells them that
whatever religion they have been brought up in is wrong - yet through fear
they continue to go through the motions.

My gran was a Catholic such as this. Never went to church, said it was silly
to believe in god, but terrified when the priest came round. .. Shame. :'(

Originally posted by sumydid
Atheism isn't a philosophy. It's nothing but a cowardly copout based on a fairly simple system of excuses.

"I refuse to believe in anything unless someone makes the effort to prove it to me beyond the shadow of a doubt."

If that's not cowardly, then it's lazy at the very least.

I love this guy. Week after week, month after month he manages to churn out gems like this post.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Either you believe atheism is a philosophy or you do not.

None of you philosophers in this thread have been able to address the example I've given (several times now) of certain atheists here who have openly stated that the main reason they are in this forum is to turn theists from their belief structure to atheist and that some have proudly proclaimed that they have done so. This is proselytism, it is a mind-set and belief structure among these atheists that is a philosophy for them. Instead of rolling your eyes why don't you look up the meaning of philosophy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

Originally posted by LemonJello
I must have missed your actual argument for the idea that morality can only originate from God. On which page can I find that?

I stated several times in this thread that the evidence that morality stems from God is that the basic ingredients for construct of morality is laid out in scriptures such as don't steal, don't kill etc. I accept this because I'm Christian and regard these ancient writings as historical records. I don't care that you don't accept this (really, I don't), I also don't care what you believe based on your reading other atheists academic writing as though having read it and quoted it, that it in some way makes your belief structure and your philosophy more valid than mine. I also don't see the dilemma you pose as being a dilemma because for me morality as more than what is in theism it of course a complex construct built over time and to which atheists have contributed.

Originally posted by sumydid
Atheism isn't a philosophy. It's nothing but a cowardly copout based on a fairly simple system of excuses. "I refuse to believe in anything unless someone makes the effort to prove it to me beyond the shadow of a doubt." If that's not cowardly, then it's lazy at the very least.

How do you account for the atheists who openly state that they come here to turn theists from their "foolish beliefs"?

To call someone a coward because they don't agree with you is an interesting approach to say the least.

Originally posted by divegeester
I stated several times in this thread that the evidence that morality stems from God is that the basic ingredients for construct of morality is laid out in scriptures such as don't steal, don't kill etc. I accept this because I'm Christian and regard these ancient writings as historical records. I don't care that you don't accept this (really, I don't) it of course a complex construct built over time and to which atheists have contributed.

Sorry, I'm not getting it. How is that an argument for the idea that morality can only originate from God? An argument is supposed to offer some set of premises that supports some conclusion (in this case, the conclusion would be that morality can only originate from God). What exactly in there are you claiming is the set of premises that supports this?

Originally posted by divegeester
None of you philosophers in this thread have been able to address the example I've given (several times now)

In what way have I not addressed it (several times now)?