Can Atheists be Moral?

[cnm]

Man, your [hobelim] psychobabble is not really any more coherent than a literalist.

Seems contradictory to me.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

you explained what ff - there is no physical connection from one generation to the next.

I explained exactly the opposite. Peddle your parlor tricks to someone else.

 

[MedfordMan]

Your argument misrepresents God, but it perfectly sums up the underlying argument of everyone who doesn't believe in God.

God is not human. God does not have feelings. Human feelings are one of the ways we experience the world of which God is the creator.

God does not change.

God does not need free will, as he operates outside the space time continuum. He sees the past, present and future simultaneously, so his will and plan is perfect.The

Still, it's your post modernist argument that each person's subjective experience is more valid than that of an entity so powerful it created the universe and everything in it.

You see unbelief comes down to a very simple choice. Do I submit to something greater than myself or do I seek to elevate myself, so I don't have to submit to anything and I can act in accordance with my selfish and base desires.

It's the latter choice which is the source of all human suffering.

You didnt answer the objection succinctly - the bible uses specific adjectives to describe God's emotions, and you just denied it based on you said so.

Second, I didnt apply subjectivism based on any 1 human individual, so that wasn't pertinent but was a strawman. I appealed to measured human suffering, something concrete as opposed to God who is 1 subject that has emotions, whose morals at least described in the Bible DID change and his adjective of being "un changing" is just another Biblical contradiction ~ and it also causes more logical issues than it resolves.

Well there is a long history of biblical scholarship that addresses these issues, but since I doubt that you want to educate yourself on it, I thought I'd provide the cliffs notes version for you.

I believe the use of Human emotions to explain God's behavior represents a challenge in translating God to us. The use of emotions is less about God's state of mind and more about we as limited beings understand how and why God moves.

Your whole argument was subjective although you artfully tried to dress it up as something else.

Human suffering is far from concrete (as the 21st century has proven), but it is easier to understand than a super natural entity powerful enough to create the universe and everything in it.

Ironically, that is why Jesus is such an important part of the Bible story. Through Jesus, God became a man, to show us that he fully understands us though we continue to struggle to understand God.

Now you're just special pleading. You want to explain away God's described emotions by saying they were simple place-holders, and a function of a misunderstanding ~ but you did not establish that as fact it's just a claim. Decoder ring fallacy.

The problem is scale.

you're still thinking of God as a super powerful humanoid with a white beard sitting on a cloud.

Like Bible translators, science and philosophy are limited by human understanding.

Imagine that God is the proton, the neutron, the electrons and the nuclear glue holding them together. Imagine God is both energy and matter.

Thats just more special pleading.

The Bible says what it says - if you believe it is in error on ascribing adjectives to God, then it seems you have a bit of a problem on your hands.

I don't see it as a problem. As an intelligent and ever questioning Christian, I see studying scripture and thinking through how the written word is consistent with the nature of God, as expressed through the life of the person of Jesus Christ, as a challenge that strengthens my faith.

But, I understand you argument. If you can't fully understand God in human terms, then you don't believe in God.

With our disagreement clarified, I leave the thread with a questiob: Would a God you could fully understand in human terms be God or would he just be a super powerful humanoid?

The bottom line is that you refuse to submit to a entity more powerful than yourself and plan to rely on your own intellect as you function as your own god (the small g is on purpose here)

Of course you could have said this directly and succinctly in your first post, but then you wouldn't have had a chance to show everyone here how smart you think you are...

 

[Moonglow]

Well there is a long history of biblical scholarship that addresses these issues, but since I doubt that you want to educate yourself on it, I thought I'd provide the cliffs notes version for you.

I believe the use of Human emotions to explain God's behavior represents a challenge in translating God to us. The use of emotions is less about God's state of mind and more about we as limited beings understand how and why God moves.

Your whole argument was subjective although you artfully tried to dress it up as something else.

Human suffering is far from concrete (as the 21st century has proven), but it is easier to understand than a super natural entity powerful enough to create the universe and everything in it.

Ironically, that is why Jesus is such an important part of the Bible story. Through Jesus, God became a man, to show us that he fully understands us though we continue to struggle to understand God.

Now you're just special pleading. You want to explain away God's described emotions by saying they were simple place-holders, and a function of a misunderstanding ~ but you did not establish that as fact it's just a claim. Decoder ring fallacy.

The problem is scale.

you're still thinking of God as a super powerful humanoid with a white beard sitting on a cloud.

Like Bible translators, science and philosophy are limited by human understanding.

Imagine that God is the proton, the neutron, the electrons and the nuclear glue holding them together. Imagine God is both energy and matter.

Thats just more special pleading.

The Bible says what it says - if you believe it is in error on ascribing adjectives to God, then it seems you have a bit of a problem on your hands.

I don't see it as a problem. As an intelligent and ever questioning Christian, I see studying scripture and thinking through how the written word is consistent with the nature of God, as expressed through the life of the person of Jesus Christ, as a challenge that strengthens my faith.

But, I understand you argument. If you can't fully understand God in human terms, then you don't believe in God.

With our disagreement clarified, I leave the thread with a questiob: Would a God you could fully understand in human terms be God or would he just be a super powerful humanoid?

The bottom line is that you refuse to submit to a entity more powerful than yourself and plan to rely on your own intellect as you function as your own god (the small g is on purpose here)

Of course you could have said this directly and succinctly in your first post, but then you wouldn't have had a chance to show everyone here how smart you think you are...

A god that has the predisposed desire for folks have faith to worship him, attempting to make him/itself apparent via scriptures, would be doing a pathetic job in the sense youve just described.

Hey! He has chicks to impregnate which is time consuming..

 

[MedfordMan]

Well there is a long history of biblical scholarship that addresses these issues, but since I doubt that you want to educate yourself on it, I thought I'd provide the cliffs notes version for you.

I believe the use of Human emotions to explain God's behavior represents a challenge in translating God to us. The use of emotions is less about God's state of mind and more about we as limited beings understand how and why God moves.

Your whole argument was subjective although you artfully tried to dress it up as something else.

Human suffering is far from concrete (as the 21st century has proven), but it is easier to understand than a super natural entity powerful enough to create the universe and everything in it.

Ironically, that is why Jesus is such an important part of the Bible story. Through Jesus, God became a man, to show us that he fully understands us though we continue to struggle to understand God.

Now you're just special pleading. You want to explain away God's described emotions by saying they were simple place-holders, and a function of a misunderstanding ~ but you did not establish that as fact it's just a claim. Decoder ring fallacy.

The problem is scale.

you're still thinking of God as a super powerful humanoid with a white beard sitting on a cloud.

Like Bible translators, science and philosophy are limited by human understanding.

Imagine that God is the proton, the neutron, the electrons and the nuclear glue holding them together. Imagine God is both energy and matter.

Thats just more special pleading.

The Bible says what it says - if you believe it is in error on ascribing adjectives to God, then it seems you have a bit of a problem on your hands.

I don't see it as a problem. As an intelligent and ever questioning Christian, I see studying scripture and thinking through how the written word is consistent with the nature of God, as expressed through the life of the person of Jesus Christ, as a challenge that strengthens my faith.

But, I understand you argument. If you can't fully understand God in human terms, then you don't believe in God.

With our disagreement clarified, I leave the thread with a questiob: Would a God you could fully understand in human terms be God or would he just be a super powerful humanoid?

The bottom line is that you refuse to submit to a entity more powerful than yourself and plan to rely on your own intellect as you function as your own god (the small g is on purpose here)

Of course you could have said this directly and succinctly in your first post, but then you wouldn't have had a chance to show everyone here how smart you think you are...

A god that has the predisposed desire for folks have faith to worship him, attempting to make him/itself apparent via scriptures, would be doing a pathetic job in the sense youve just described.

Once again you are ascribing human traits to God who is not some super powerful humanoid.

 

[MedfordMan]

The problem is scale.

you're still thinking of God as a super powerful humanoid with a white beard sitting on a cloud.

Like Bible translators, science and philosophy are limited by human understanding.

Imagine that God is the proton, the neutron, the electrons and the nuclear glue holding them together. Imagine God is both energy and matter.

Thats just more special pleading.

The Bible says what it says - if you believe it is in error on ascribing adjectives to God, then it seems you have a bit of a problem on your hands.

I don't see it as a problem. As an intelligent and ever questioning Christian, I see studying scripture and thinking through how the written word is consistent with the nature of God, as expressed through the life of the person of Jesus Christ, as a challenge that strengthens my faith.

But, I understand you argument. If you can't fully understand God in human terms, then you don't believe in God.

With our disagreement clarified, I leave the thread with a questiob: Would a God you could fully understand in human terms be God or would he just be a super powerful humanoid?

The bottom line is that you refuse to submit to a entity more powerful than yourself and plan to rely on your own intellect as you function as your own god (the small g is on purpose here)

Of course you could have said this directly and succinctly in your first post, but then you wouldn't have had a chance to show everyone here how smart you think you are...

A god that has the predisposed desire for folks have faith to worship him, attempting to make him/itself apparent via scriptures, would be doing a pathetic job in the sense youve just described.

Once again you are ascribing human traits to God who is not some super powerful humanoid.

To the god that described him/itself this way, allegedly, to humans.

Jesus put off his Godhood and became a man, because it was the only way to redeem mankind, but the portion of the triune being that is God remained God.

Billy Graham once said that a little bit of Christianity can be like a vaccine that prevents you from getting the while thing. I'm starting to believe you know\understand much less about Christianity than you let on.

 

[Meriweather]

A god that has the predisposed desire for folks have faith to worship him, attempting to make him/itself apparent via scriptures, would be doing a pathetic job in the sense youve just described.

Which is why no one believes in "that god". Making up such a god and claiming that is the God people of faith worship is simple gibberish. I also assert that it is not God doing a pathetic job, it is the individual doing a pathetic job of studying and understanding thousands of year old scriptures. Today it appears popular (among some who haven't a clue as to scripture's original intent and meaning of Biblical stories) to blame God. What deserves a good a good look is the approach currently being taken by atheists towards God (i.e., claiming scripture means something other than the original authors intended).

 

[hobelim]

At the end of the day, lol, whether you like it or not, our entire society, perceptions of good and evil, crime and punishment, who lives and who dies, who is admired and who is hated, is based on the ideas of perverse and irrational people who claim to believe it all yet have not thought any more deeply about scripture than you have.

How do you intend to deal with that fact if you really don't care and can't be bothered to take a stand about what is the right or wrong way to understand what was written?

Haven't you just implied a position entered irrationally cannot be changed rationally?

I am really not interested in changing anyones deliberately chosen irrational beliefs.

I just suspect that they are the least qualified people on the planet to lead, the least qualified to think deeply about any given problem, the least qualified to establish law, dictate national policy, tell the truth, invest in the future, or make peace.

They should be banned from public office and every position of authority because they are demonstrably insane, , banned from owning guns because they are demonstrably insane, and banned from working with children because they are demonstrably insane...


Then they can dance with snakes, celebrate the death of Jesus , eat cookies, drink wine, , and pray for God to smite everyone but themselves for the rest of their lives for ever and ever amen, without the power to persecute the innocent, perpetuate their delusions like a plague, profit from corruption, and destroy the planet in the process.

 

[hobelim]

Jesus put off his Godhood and became a man, because it was the only way to redeem mankind, but the portion of the triune being that is God remained God.

Thats terrific!

Let us show our love for God and celebrate the torture and death of Jesus. Let us solemnly condemn gays, and democrats, build more prisons, go to war with our allies and take over the world in the name of an almighty yet edible triune mangod who really really really loves us.

Then we can eat him.

Yay! Jesus died! We are saved! Lets kill some unbelievers! we're not crazy!

 

[MedfordMan]

A god that has the predisposed desire for folks have faith to worship him, attempting to make him/itself apparent via scriptures, would be doing a pathetic job in the sense youve just described.

Which is why no one believes in "that god". Making up such a god and claiming that is the God people of faith worship is simple gibberish. I also assert that it is not God doing a pathetic job, it is the individual doing a pathetic job of studying and understanding thousands of year old scriptures. Today it appears popular (among some who haven't a clue as to scripture's original intent and meaning of Biblical stories) to blame God. What deserves a good a good look is the approach currently being taken by atheists towards God (i.e., claiming scripture means something other than the original authors intended).

The problem here is, the scriptures do not stand up to scrutiny on the bullshit meter when taking a deep-dive. From degreed biblical scholars with a minor in ancient Hebrew writing full dissertations as to the genesis of Biblical propaganda, to any 1st world thinker with an agnostic approach free of dogma, it does not pass the pragmatic smell test at all.

If there was any syllogism in philosophy or falsifiable experiment in science that proved a creator God, these conversations would be many shades different. Until that's the case, it's simple faith and special pleading. Pretty much by definition.

"Until that's the case, it's ... faith..."

On this we agree.

 

[Meriweather]

The problem here is, the scriptures do not stand up to scrutiny on the bullshit meter when taking a deep-dive. From degreed biblical scholars with a minor in ancient Hebrew writing full dissertations as to the genesis of Biblical propaganda, to any 1st world thinker with an agnostic approach free of dogma, it does not pass the pragmatic smell test at all.

If there was any syllogism in philosophy or falsifiable experiment in science that proved a creator God, these conversations would be many shades different. Until that's the case, it's simple faith and special pleading. Pretty much by definition.

Actually scriptures do stand up--especially when taking that deep dive.

I believe this: I don't tell people what they believe or what a science book "really" says. I let them tell me their beliefs and how they interpret the books they do believe. The same would be appreciated in return. Don't tell people of theology what their books "really" say.

 

[Meriweather]

That's fair that you're not open to the cross examining of ideas - no worries.

What is taking place here is not the cross examining of my ideas, but the cross examining of me based on your own ideas of what your wrongly conclude are my beliefs.

 

[danielpalos]

Can Theists be moral.

Ten simple Commandments from a God or,

women get to go around nude, proclaiming;

to bad you guys could not be moral enough to stay out of it in Modern Times.