Christian values

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Bullshit. Most people are born with an innate sense of right and wrong.

That's because every person is born with a soul, which is the conduit to God. It is only later in life that people turn from God and in so doing reap the unenviable consequences of 'taking the phone off the hook', in effect losing com with their soul.

One of my best friends is an atheist and he's one of the most decent, hard working, ethical people I've ever known in my life.

Then either you know no one who is hard-working and ethical; thus you have nothing by which to accurately compare them to... OR your friend is not an atheist, but feels that claiming such somehow provides him seome unstated gain.

Absent God, what would be the value of ethics? On what would such be based? What would be the measure by which a person would be held to account?

Take your time and do what you can to THINK about this, before you return in response.

You might actually come away from this having learned something and, wouldn't that be nice for all of us?

Only in your fantasies.

Ok... so we have yet another individual who comes to claim that morality can exist in the absence of God, and who when challenged to do so cannot explain who such is even possible.

... Noted and Accepted.

What are you talking about, dumb ass? You need to have it explained to you that you and 7 billion other people on the planet are alive? That's pretty much indisputable.

And every BIT as irrelevant.

What isn't proven is the existence of your magical sky fairy, and the 2000 other ones that people worship around the world, for which is there is zero evidence. The challenge is for you to prove your mythology, which you can't. It's not up to me prove a negative.

Again... that's all standard Atheist boilerplate, thus such is wholly irrelevant.

Now... the challenge which you've now failed twice to rise toward, is for you to explain how morality and the ethics derived from such, are possible in the absence of God.

In the absence of God:

What are morals?
What purpose do morals serve?
On what authority do they rest?
From where do they come?
On what basis are such enforced?
What serves to enforce such?

(That's why I asked ya to at least TRY and THINk it through before ya responded. I was trying to help ya avoid the humiliation you chronically suffer when you fail to think.)

Now... once again. THINK it through and bring to the Board some sense of cogency for your 'feelings'.

There is nothing to think about. These things exist and yet there is no God. It's so simple a two year old can understand it.

 

[Skylar]

In the absence of God, there is no potential for happiness, as there is no means for human rights... .

Bullshit. Most people are born with an innate sense of right and wrong.

That's because every person is born with a soul, which is the conduit to God. It is only later in life that people turn from God and in so doing reap the unenviable consequences of 'taking the phone off the hook', in effect losing com with their soul.

Says you. But you can't even factually establish the nature of God. Let alone anything you claim to know about God. You merely assume you do. Based on your subjective belief. Which is fine. But it doesn't objectively define anything. Nor is it objective evidence of anything save the existence of your belief.

Then either you know no one who is hard-working and ethical; thus you have nothing by which to accurately compare them to... OR your friend is not an atheist, but feels that claiming such somehow provides him seome unstated gain.

Or.....you have no idea what you're talking about. And are projecting your baseless assumptions onto people you don't know nor have ever met. You're just offering a 'no true Scotsman' fallacy. A classic fallacy of logic.

If your argument had merit, you wouldn't have to use such fallacy.

Absent God, what would be the value of ethics?

Depends on the ethics. Most ethical systems are based on practical issues around social organization and harmony. Which would need no god. Answering your question.

On what would such be based?

Obviously, the same as religion: the beliefs of the people that establish it. Remember, religion is hopelessly subjective and relativistic. Mother Teresa and Grand Inquisitor Torquemada both used the same Bible, followed the same faith. But based on how they interpreted their holy books, what they prioritize, what they ignore......their faith reflects what they already believe.

Even when you're dealing with the same faith in the same general cultural tradition using the same territory and the same language.....you get wildly different interpretations over time. The Puritans for example executed both adulterers and gays. The Founders, just gays. But not adulterers. And modern Christians, neither.

Did God change his mind? Or did the people simply interpret their faith in a manner that matched what they already believed? Its obviously the latter.

What would be the measure by which a person would be held to account?

See above: The beliefs of the people that establish the ethical system. Just like religion.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Understand Reader... The Left will tell you that one doesn't need to believe in God to be a moral person.

Which is not only false, it is laughably false.

Not only are morals found exclusively in God; in the absence of God, there is no potential for human rights.

Enjoy as you see the Godless flock to this thread to fail time and again... as they riot into a series of patented distractions and obfuscations. It is always a blast.

 

[Skylar]

Bullshit. Most people are born with an innate sense of right and wrong.

That's because every person is born with a soul, which is the conduit to God. It is only later in life that people turn from God and in so doing reap the unenviable consequences of 'taking the phone off the hook', in effect losing com with their soul.

One of my best friends is an atheist and he's one of the most decent, hard working, ethical people I've ever known in my life.

Then either you know no one who is hard-working and ethical; thus you have nothing by which to accurately compare them to... OR your friend is not an atheist, but feels that claiming such somehow provides him seome unstated gain.

Absent God, what would be the value of ethics? On what would such be based? What would be the measure by which a person would be held to account?

Take your time and do what you can to THINK about this, before you return in response.

You might actually come away from this having learned something and, wouldn't that be nice for all of us?

Only in your fantasies.

Ok... so we have yet another individual who comes to claim that morality can exist in the absence of God, and who when challenged to do so cannot explain who such is even possible.

... Noted and Accepted.

What are you talking about, dumb ass? You need to have it explained to you that you and 7 billion other people on the planet are alive? That's pretty much indisputable.

And every BIT as irrelevant.

What isn't proven is the existence of your magical sky fairy, and the 2000 other ones that people worship around the world, for which is there is zero evidence. The challenge is for you to prove your mythology, which you can't. It's not up to me prove a negative.

Again... that's all standard Atheist boilerplate, thus such is wholly irrelevant.

Nonsense. Its immediately relevant. You're beginning with the assumption that you must be right. That's the Begging the Question fallacy. Taz is rightly challenging your assumption on a factual basis, which you don't have. Your argument isn't factual and it isn't particularly rational. Its subjective and emotional. Where you feel you are right, so you assume you are.

But your subjective beliefs and emotions are objectively meaningless. And your conception of God is based in your subjective beliefs. You're still stuck at square one. And Taz called you on it.

Now... the challenge which you've now failed twice to rise toward, is for you to explain how morality and the ethics derived from such, are possible in the absence of God.

Already explained. You merely ignored the answer. And your willful ignorance like your subjective beliefs is objective meaningless.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Understand Reader... The Left will tell you that one doesn't need to believe in God to be a moral person.

My atheist friend I told you about earlier is a Republican and a successful business owner.

Which is not only false, it is laughably false.

What is laughable is that people like you still cling to the beliefs held by primitive people thousands of years ago and actually believe that a book written by a bunch of primitive men 1500 years that's been translated hundreds of times over the years, including languages that are no longer spoken today, is somehow literal.

 

[Skylar]

Understand Reader... The Left will tell you that one doesn't need to believe in God to be a moral person.

With your 'reader' being you talking to yourself. As you cite yourself. And assume you are a moral authority.

The obvious problem being....you're not a moral authority. And your subjective opinion defines nothing objectively.

Which is not only false, it is laughably false.

Begging the question. You can't factually establish the need for God, or even the factually establish your conception of God. Let alone establish God as the sole basis of morality. You assume all of it with no factual or rational basis. That's a classic fallacy of logic.

No objectively valid system of morality would require fallacies to operate. Yet yours is hopeless dependent on them.

You're still stuck at square one, unable to rationally, logically, or factually establish your conception of God. Let alone the need for your conception of God to be moral. Let alone your conception of god to be the singular method of morality.

And your baseless assumptions are objectively meaningless.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Understand Reader... The Left will tell you that one doesn't need to believe in God to be a moral person.

My atheist friend I told you about earlier is a Republican and a successful business owner.

Which is not only false, it is laughably false.

What is laughable is that people like you still cling to the beliefs held by primitive people thousands of years ago and actually believe that a book written by a bunch of primitive men 1500 years that's been translated hundreds of times over the years, including languages that are no longer spoken today, is somehow literal.

Yes, yes... Your atheist Friend is a wealthy Republican Business man. You bet...

Just alike all the chronic pot smokers are all well centered, captains of industry. I get it. Sadly, it's all irrelevant. But thank you for trying.

I want you to know that I feel strongly that you've truly done the very best you can! (And while I know in my heart it will not, I hope that it helps.)

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

That's because every person is born with a soul, which is the conduit to God. It is only later in life that people turn from God and in so doing reap the unenviable consequences of 'taking the phone off the hook', in effect losing com with their soul.

One of my best friends is an atheist and he's one of the most decent, hard working, ethical people I've ever known in my life.

Then either you know no one who is hard-working and ethical; thus you have nothing by which to accurately compare them to... OR your friend is not an atheist, but feels that claiming such somehow provides him seome unstated gain.

Absent God, what would be the value of ethics? On what would such be based? What would be the measure by which a person would be held to account?

Take your time and do what you can to THINK about this, before you return in response.

You might actually come away from this having learned something and, wouldn't that be nice for all of us?

Only in your fantasies.

Ok... so we have yet another individual who comes to claim that morality can exist in the absence of God, and who when challenged to do so cannot explain who such is even possible.

... Noted and Accepted.

What are you talking about, dumb ass? You need to have it explained to you that you and 7 billion other people on the planet are alive? That's pretty much indisputable.

And every BIT as irrelevant.

What isn't proven is the existence of your magical sky fairy, and the 2000 other ones that people worship around the world, for which is there is zero evidence. The challenge is for you to prove your mythology, which you can't. It's not up to me prove a negative.

Again... that's all standard Atheist boilerplate, thus such is wholly irrelevant.

Now... the challenge which you've now failed twice to rise toward, is for you to explain how morality and the ethics derived from such, are possible in the absence of God.

In the absence of God:

What are morals?
What purpose do morals serve?
On what authority do they rest?
From where do they come?
On what basis are such enforced?
What serves to enforce such?

(That's why I asked ya to at least TRY and THINk it through before ya responded. I was trying to help ya avoid the humiliation you chronically suffer when you fail to think.)

Now... once again. THINK it through and bring to the Board some sense of cogency for your 'feelings'.

There is nothing to think about. These things exist and yet there is no God. It's so simple a two year old can understand it.

Well... there ya have it. "These Things" exist... and in stating such, the would-be 'contributor' establishes that God exists... as God is the Creator of that which exists. It then charges on to claim that which is impossible, that the Creator does not exist, despite the existence of the Creation.

Do you see how easy this is?

Again... the key to defeating Leftists and the lowly moderator/centrists groupies... rests in two key elements:

1- Find a Leftist

2- Get them to speak.

OH! Almost forgot:

Your concession is: Duly Noted and Summarily accepted.

.

.

.

SO... Now LET'S Return to the Relevant Discussion:

The challenge which you've now failed twice to rise toward, is for you to explain how morality and the ethics derived from such, are possible in the absence of God.

In the absence of God:

What are morals?
What purpose do morals serve?
On what authority do they rest?
From where do they come?
On what basis are such enforced?
What serves to enforce such?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Well... there ya have it. "These Things" exist... and in stating such, the would-be 'contributor' establishes that God exists... as God is the Creator of that which exists. It then charges on to claim that which is impossible, that the Creator does not exist, despite the existence of the Creator.

Do you see how easy this is?

I do. It's incredibly easy for you to ignore reality than provide proof of your magical sky fairy. You simply saying God is real proves nothing. You simply claiming that morals only exist because of your god, again, proves nothing. It's just you saying it.

That's the kind of thing a child does, not a rational adult.

 

[Skylar]

Then either you know no one who is hard-working and ethical; thus you have nothing by which to accurately compare them to... OR your friend is not an atheist, but feels that claiming such somehow provides him seome unstated gain.

Absent God, what would be the value of ethics? On what would such be based? What would be the measure by which a person would be held to account?

Take your time and do what you can to THINK about this, before you return in response.

You might actually come away from this having learned something and, wouldn't that be nice for all of us?

Only in your fantasies.

Ok... so we have yet another individual who comes to claim that morality can exist in the absence of God, and who when challenged to do so cannot explain who such is even possible.

... Noted and Accepted.

What are you talking about, dumb ass? You need to have it explained to you that you and 7 billion other people on the planet are alive? That's pretty much indisputable.

And every BIT as irrelevant.

What isn't proven is the existence of your magical sky fairy, and the 2000 other ones that people worship around the world, for which is there is zero evidence. The challenge is for you to prove your mythology, which you can't. It's not up to me prove a negative.

Again... that's all standard Atheist boilerplate, thus such is wholly irrelevant.

Now... the challenge which you've now failed twice to rise toward, is for you to explain how morality and the ethics derived from such, are possible in the absence of God.

In the absence of God:

What are morals?
What purpose do morals serve?
On what authority do they rest?
From where do they come?
On what basis are such enforced?
What serves to enforce such?

(That's why I asked ya to at least TRY and THINk it through before ya responded. I was trying to help ya avoid the humiliation you chronically suffer when you fail to think.)

Now... once again. THINK it through and bring to the Board some sense of cogency for your 'feelings'.

There is nothing to think about. These things exist and yet there is no God. It's so simple a two year old can understand it.

Well... there ya have it. "These Things" exist... and in stating such, the would-be 'contributor' establishes that God exists...
as God is the Creator of that which exists. It then charges on to claim that which is impossible, that the Creator does not exist, despite the existence of the Creator.

More Begging the Question. More circular nonsense. Where there must be a creator because the creator created everything.

Your 'first mover' argument doesn't establish any of your conception of God. There's nothing that requires a first mover be moral, or good, or conscious or sentient or even exist after moving first. You assume all of it, backed by nothing.

Your baseless assumptions and useless circular reasoning establish nothing objectively.

Try again.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Well... there ya have it. "These Things" exist... and in stating such, the would-be 'contributor' establishes that God exists... as God is the Creator of that which exists. It then charges on to claim that which is impossible, that the Creator does not exist, despite the existence of the Creation.

Do you see how easy this is?

Again... the key to defeating Leftists and the lowly moderator/centrists groupies... rests in two key elements:

1- Find a Leftist

2- Get them to speak.

OH! Almost forgot:

Your concession is: Duly Noted and Summarily accepted.

.

.

.

SO... Now LET'S Return to the Relevant Discussion:

The challenge which you've now failed twice to rise toward, is for you to explain how morality and the ethics derived from such, are possible in the absence of God.

In the absence of God:

What are morals?
What purpose do morals serve?
On what authority do they rest?
From where do they come?
On what basis are such enforced?
What serves to enforce such?

I do. It's incredibly easy for you to ignore reality than provide proof of your magical sky fairy. You simply saying God is real proves nothing. You simply claiming that morals only exist because of your god, again, proves nothing. It's just you saying it.

That's the kind of thing a child does, not a rational adult.

Your third concession to the same standing points is: Duly Noted and Summarily Accepted.

Thank you, again.

You may want to try and re-focus your efforts back over at the "FIRE HOT!" thread. You were doin' GREAT over there.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Understand Reader... The Left will tell you that one doesn't need to believe in God to be a moral person.

My atheist friend I told you about earlier is a Republican and a successful business owner.

Which is not only false, it is laughably false.

What is laughable is that people like you still cling to the beliefs held by primitive people thousands of years ago and actually believe that a book written by a bunch of primitive men 1500 years that's been translated hundreds of times over the years, including languages that are no longer spoken today, is somehow literal.

Yes, yes... Your atheist Friend is a wealthy Republican Business man. You bet...

That is correct. He is a highly successful insurance agent with his own branch and is one of the top three agents in the country for his company. He just went to Hawaii a few months ago and won an award for the success of his branch. He has a house down the street from Wayne Newton.

Just alike all the chronic pot smokers are all well centered, captains of industry. I get it. Sadly, it's all irrelevant. But thank you for trying.

I want you to know that I feel strongly that you've truly done the very best you can! (And while I know in my heart it will not, I hope that it helps.)

I don't care whether you believe me or not. As has already been pointed out, the onus isn't on me to prove anything. You are the one who can't prove the existence of your mythological sky being.

I assure you, it's not I who looks foolish here.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

More Begging the Question. More circular nonsense. Where there must be a creator because the creator created everything.

Your 'first mover' argument doesn't establish any of your conception of God. There's nothing that requires a first mover be moral, or good, or conscious or sentient or even exist after moving first. You assume all of it, backed by nothing.

Your baseless assumptions and useless circular reasoning establish nothing objectively.

Try again.

Yep. Trying to reason with these people is like trying to reason with a six year old.

This is why religion can be so dangerous at times.

 

[HUGGY]

Some people just don't understand the value of loyalty to a simple religious concept. If you think you can write a better bible and PROVE god has spoken to you have at it. If not STFU and accept god as described by the ancient people. They saw god and you didn't. Moses received hand written statements of god's demands on mankind. If you do not know that then you are not paying attention. Jesus said god is his mamma's baby's daddy. Are you calling Jesus a liar? Prove it! If you can't prove it then obviously what he said is the truth. Is there any other possible explanation? Case closed.

 

[Skylar]

More Begging the Question. More circular nonsense. Where there must be a creator because the creator created everything.

Your 'first mover' argument doesn't establish any of your conception of God. There's nothing that requires a first mover be moral, or good, or conscious or sentient or even exist after moving first. You assume all of it, backed by nothing.

Your baseless assumptions and useless circular reasoning establish nothing objectively.

Try again.

Yep. Trying to reason with these people is like trying to reason with a six year old.

This is why religion can be so dangerous at times.

They don't actually reason. They assume.

But using their own standards and processes, they're almost certainly wrong. Virtually all religions are mutually exclusive. It can't be Jesus AND a Greek pantheon of gods. It has to be one or the other. And with the vast number of mutually exclusive religions there can be, at most, one that got it right.

At most. With it being entirely possible that none of them got it right.

Which means that using the processes and standards of theism, virtually every theist that ever lived believes in a fallacy and is self deluded. Again, that's the best case scenario. With the worst case being that they are all deluded. Again, using the standards of theism.

Those aren't good odds.

 

[Skylar]

SO... Now LET'S Return to the Relevant Discussion:

The challenge which you've now failed twice to rise toward, is for you to explain how morality and the ethics derived from such, are possible in the absence of God.

In the absence of God:

What are morals?
What purpose do morals serve?
On what authority do they rest? (Which is to ask: From where do these would-be morals come?)
On what basis are such enforced?
What serves to enforce such?

Already answered repeatedly. You ignored the answer. And assume your conception of god, its existence, and its singular necessity for morality.

None of which has any factual or rational basis. Which is why you ran.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Reader, if ya need something to do, go back over the last few pages and count up the number of times that the challenge above has been offered... and note the ZERO count in the posts from the advocates of turning from God, who have even tried to so much as answer it.

THAT will be a solid foundation of evidence toward establishing the deceptive nature of the advocacy to turn you from God. (It's a LIE... advanced by those who are animated by EVIL, who come here to 'inform' you {deceive you} in the lie that morality is possible in the absence of God.)

See how that works?

The self evident truth is that In the Absence of God, there are no morals... nor human rights.

 

[Skylar]

Some people just don't understand the value of loyalty to a simple religious concept. If you think you can write a better bible and PROVE god has spoken to you have at it. If not STFU and accept god as described by the ancient people. They saw god and you didn't. Moses received hand written statements of god's demands on mankind. If you do not know that then you are not paying attention. Jesus said god is his mamma's baby's daddy. Are you calling Jesus a liar? Prove it! If you can't prove it then obviously what he said is the truth. Is there any other possible explanation? Case closed.

Faulty reasoning. I don't have to 'disprove' anything. Its religion that has to prove its assertions. And it can't. Not factually, logically, rationally, or by any standard but the subjective feeling of faith.

Which is unique to each person and objectively unverifiable.

 

[Skylar]

Reader, if ya need something to do, go back over the last few pages and count up the number of times that they challenge above has been offered... and note the ZERO count in the posts from the advocates of turning from God, which have even tried to answer it.

And again, you're 'reader' is just you talking to you. With your questions asked and answered. And you merely ignoring the answers. And then bizarrely insisting that if you ignore the answer, it ceases to exist.

If only reality worked that way.

You're still stuck on square one....unable to factually establish any of your claims, any of your conceptions, any of your assumptions. Robbing your assumptions of any objective meaning.

See how that works?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Don't you think that we should go back to our Christian values? Liberalism is a road to nowhere, it's just impossible to become absolutely 'free'. Christian way of life is the perfect way to reach happiness and protestant ethics help people to work better and earn more. It's not like we need to become religious. There are just too many good things in the Christian way of life which are almost completely forgotten nowadays.

Fail.

The vast majority of liberals are Christian, following Christian values.