Will God accept you if you renounce religion?

No I don't believe that they are unknowable. Where did I say that?

OK, how can objective moral values be known? (Please don't say "EPISTEMOLOGY LOL" again...) I understand the idea of using harm objectively but I see no way that the outcome wouldn't be to at least some extent, subjective. I think all of us would agree that rape and murder cause harm and are therefore morally wrong, but what about the arguable harm of raising a child to have strong religious views?

You are talking about moral epistemology like so many of your friends. Objective moral values can exist regardless of whether I understand them or not.

But what practical use is that? I could say that I believe that there exists an absolute truth that a certain piece of music or art form is objectively better than others, but how could that be determined? It's impossible, and yes, I could still say I believe this absolute truth exists but if I don't know it and can't determine it, what's the point?

This is moral epistemology again. Everyone obviously doesn't adhere to the same thing. That doesn't affect in any way the ontological question of what is the foundation for objective moral values and duties.

I'm glad you agree that everyone doesn't adhere to the same thing. With that in mind, assuming your objective moral values exist, what good are they? What's the point of them? What purpose do they serve if they're not adhered to?

If you want to find out about moral epistemology then Google is your friend. It's a completely different topic.

It's intrinsically linked. If you want to believe objective moral values exist even though you don't understand them and they have no practical use to you or anyone else, that's up to you I suppose but it seems very strange.
 
OK, how can objective moral values be known? (Please don't say "EPISTEMOLOGY LOL" again...) I understand the idea of using harm objectively but I see no way that the outcome wouldn't be to at least some extent, subjective. I think all of us would agree that rape and murder cause harm and are therefore morally wrong, but what about the arguable harm of raising a child to have strong religious views?



But what practical use is that? I could say that I believe that there exists an absolute truth that a certain piece of music or art form is objectively better than others, but how could that be determined? It's impossible, and yes, I could still say I believe this absolute truth exists but if I don't know it and can't determine it, what's the point?



I'm glad you agree that everyone doesn't adhere to the same thing. With that in mind, assuming your objective moral values exist, what good are they? What's the point of them? What purpose do they serve if they're not adhered to?



It's intrinsically linked. If you want to believe objective moral values exist even though you don't understand them and they have no practical use to you or anyone else, that's up to you I suppose but it seems very strange.

I have one word for you. Unfortunately it begins with e.
 
Atheism says we are nothing but a by-product of evolution and we are no different from any other animal.

No it doesn't. Atheism says there is no God. Thats all. Stop ascribing attributes to atheism that it doesn't actually have.

Evolution is morally neutral.

Irrelevant to what I posted.

Well I do believe that I have am obligated not to murder, rape etc. Don't you? If we are ought to do certain things that there must be some sort of authority surely.

Why?

Moral epistemology again. How we come to understand morality has no bearing on whether objective moral values and duties exist.

As you keep avoiding answering I think we are probably done now. I have no desire to be continually quizzed on my thoughts on morality with no input from the other side.
 
No it doesn't. Atheism says there is no God. Thats all. Stop ascribing attributes to atheism that it doesn't actually have.

So you don't believe we are a by-product of evolution? What is the alternatives? I'd love to be educated about the other beliefs.

Irrelevant to what I posted.

Not so. You asked me to try to convince you that evolution of humans and evolution of morality are not connected. I simply stated that evolution is morally neutral and therefore morality couldn't have came about this way.



You really don't understand that an obligation requires an issuer?

As you keep avoiding answering I think we are probably done now. I have no desire to be continually quizzed on my thoughts on morality with no input from the other side.

I haven't responded to questions about moral epistemology as I don't know much about it.

I guess your reason for not responding to some of my last points was that the self defeating suggestion of basing morality on harm done v flourishing raised too many problems.
 
I'm glad you agree that everyone doesn't adhere to the same thing. With that in mind, assuming your objective moral values exist, what good are they? What's the point of them? What purpose do they serve if they're not adhered to?

I fail to see how people not adhering to strict objective moral values means they're false. Free will has made it possible to go against the moral law that God has set. You keep missing that. Root it and ground it.
 
I would always ask, which god?

And then continue by asking why you believe the god of chritianity over the god of islam, or the god of judaism.

If you believe they are one god, then how can you know which of the stories is true, or which is the most up to date final word? Givent hat they all have different rule sets and different beliefs, what sets apart one from the other in terms of evidence that we should subscribe to one as opposed to another?

Afterall, each account is not just a second hand account. There were no witnesses who wrote these stories who are alive today. There were no witnesses who saw the acts of say, jesus, or Moses, or Mohammed and wrote these down in their texts right away. What then, would give you faith to support any or all or none of them.

The lack of; evidence, consistency, eye account witnesses, independant historical references from impartial parties, what could breed anyone to have faith in any one of the three, but not the other two?
 
And then continue by asking why you believe the god of chritianity over the god of islam, or the god of judaism.

Not a good example, technically they are all the same God.

Better to say why believe the Abrahamic God (i.e the God of Christianity, Islam & Judaism) and not the God of Sikhism.

The best way of thinking of Judaism, Christianity and Islam is three different brands of **** from the same factory :D
 
I believe that you generally inherit your belief structure from your parents and surroundings, i.e if you are born into a christain family in a largely christian country you will believe that christianity is defacto. Same with islam.

rarely do people actively investigate all of them to see which could have the most sound basis or underpinning.
 
I believe that you generally inherit your belief structure from your parents and surroundings, i.e if you are born into a christain family in a largely christian country you will believe that christianity is defacto. Same with islam.

rarely do people actively investigate all of them to see which could have the most sound basis or underpinning.

No need to believe that though because you're exactly right, that is how it is. Nobody is born knowing what any faith is, they are raised to them and depending on where and how depends what kind of life that child will lead in years to come.
 
So you don't believe we are a by-product of evolution? What is the alternatives? I'd love to be educated about the other beliefs.

I do believe we are but that belief is seperate from atheism. Atheism is a lack of belief in god. It does not have a few on the importance or otherwise of humanity. It seems you don't even understand what atheism is.

Not so. You asked me to try to convince you that evolution of humans and evolution of morality are not connected. I simply stated that evolution is morally neutral and therefore morality couldn't have came about this way.

Yes, evolution is morally neutral but it does not follow that therefore morality could not have come about this way. Our sense of morality could be an evolved trait.

You really don't understand that an obligation requires an issuer?

That person could be yourself.

I haven't responded to questions about moral epistemology as I don't know much about it.

So your moral objection to homosexuality is based on what then? Something someone else told you?

I guess your reason for not responding to some of my last points was that the self defeating suggestion of basing morality on harm done v flourishing raised too many problems.

No, I just got bored of answering the same questions in different ways whilst having my own questions ignored.
 
I would always ask, which god?

And then continue by asking why you believe the god of chritianity over the god of islam, or the god of judaism.

If you believe they are one god, then how can you know which of the stories is true, or which is the most up to date final word? Givent hat they all have different rule sets and different beliefs, what sets apart one from the other in terms of evidence that we should subscribe to one as opposed to another?

Afterall, each account is not just a second hand account. There were no witnesses who wrote these stories who are alive today. There were no witnesses who saw the acts of say, jesus, or Moses, or Mohammed and wrote these down in their texts right away. What then, would give you faith to support any or all or none of them.

The lack of; evidence, consistency, eye account witnesses, independant historical references from impartial parties, what could breed anyone to have faith in any one of the three, but not the other two?

I don't think that's true. Many people saw the resurrected Jesus, including many of his enemies. Not only that, archaeological discoveries continue to support the Bible's historical accuracy.

So, lets look at the evidence:

1. Jesus' tomb found empty

Now many stories have been spread such as "his disciples stole the body". But such stories have been universally discredited by virtually all new testament scholars. For his apostles to steal the body they would have had to overcome the Roman Guards, a feat I would think would be far too great for them to accomplish considering how strong the Roman empire was at the time.

2. Women Eyewitnesses


This one I find particularly fascinating. Women in biblical times were treated as second class citizens, yet Jesus Christ chose to reveal himself first to a woman in order to show that God does not show favourtism. That woman was Mary Magdalene. Women would not have been used if this was some made up fairytale.

3. The rise of Christianity

The actual explosion of growth of Christianity is staggering. Simply put, the Jews had no reason to believe in a dying saviour let alone a rising one. What is it that made the apostles to come to believe so strongly that God had raised Jesus from the dead? The only explanation is that he did indeed rise from the grave.

4. Over 500 people saw the risen Christ

More than 500 eyewitnesses saw the risen Jesus Christ at the same time (1 Corinthians 15:6). He states that many were still alive when he wrote the gospel (around 55 A.D). There were no objections when he wrote the gospel. And to discredit this story atheists say 'well they must have been hallucinating'. But again, such nonsense has been discredited. If it was or two people, maybe, but over 500 people? I think not.

5. Conversion of Paul

Before converting to Christianity, Paul was an aggressive persecutor of the early church. When Christ revealed himself on the Damascus Road, Paul became one of Christs most influential followers. He suffered greatly, enduring years of persecution and ridicule. Finally the Roman emperor Nero had Paul beheaded because the apostle refused to deny his faith in Jesus. Tell me, what kind of man would give up a life of ease to suffer such hardships? Man may be foolish, but none as foolish as that. Many more people also gave up their lives for Christ. No delusion is that strong. The fact is Paul encountered the risen Christ and helped the message of God to go out to all the world.
 
Last edited:
I don't think that's true. Many people saw the resurrected Jesus, including many of his enemies. Not only that, archaeological discoveries continue to support the Bible's historical accuracy.

So, lets look at the evidence:

1. Jesus' tomb found empty

Now many stories have been spread such as "his disciples stole the body". But such stories have been universally discredited by virtually all new testament scholars. For his apostles to steal the body they would have had to overcome the Roman Guards, a feat I would think would be far too great for them to accomplish considering how strong the Roman empire was at the time.

2. Women Eyewitnesses


This one I find particularly fascinating. Women in biblical times were treated as second class citizens, yet Jesus Christ chose to reveal himself first to a woman in order to show that God does not show favourtism. That woman was Mary Magdalene. Women would not have been used if this was some made up fairytale.

3. The rise of Christianity

The actual explosion of growth of Christianity is staggering. Simply put, the Jews had no reason to believe in a dying saviour let alone a rising one. What is it that made the apostles to come to believe so strongly that God had raised Jesus from the dead? The only explanation is that he did indeed rise from the grave.

4. Over 500 people saw the risen Christ

More than 500 eyewitnesses saw the risen Jesus Christ at the same time (1 Corinthians 15:6). He states that many were still alive when he wrote the gospel (around 55 A.D). There were no objections when he wrote the gospel. And to discredit this story atheists say 'well they must have been hallucinating'. But again, such nonsense has been discredited. If it was or two people, maybe, but over 500 people? I think not.

5. Conversion of Paul

Before converting to Christianity, Paul was an aggressive persecutor of the early church. When Christ revealed himself on the Damascus Road, Paul became one of Christs influential followers. He suffered greatly, enduring years of persecution and ridicule. Finally the Roman emperor Nero had Paul beheaded because the apostle refused to deny his faith in Jesus. Tell me, what kind of man would give up a life of ease to suffer such hardships? Man may be foolish, but none as foolish as that. Many more people also gave up their lives for Christ. No delusion is that strong. The fact is Paul encountered the risen Christ and helped the message of God to go out to all the world.

None of this is evidence. Full stop.
 
I don't think that's true. Many people saw the resurrected Jesus, including many of his enemies. Not only that, archaeological discoveries continue to support the Bible's historical accuracy.

So, lets look at the evidence:

1. Jesus' tomb found empty

Now many stories have been spread such as "his disciples stole the body". But such stories have been universally discredited by virtually all new testament scholars. For his apostles to steal the body they would have had to overcome the Roman Guards, a feat I would think would be far too great for them to accomplish considering how strong the Roman empire was at the time.

2. Women Eyewitnesses


This one I find particularly fascinating. Women in biblical times were treated as second class citizens, yet Jesus Christ chose to reveal himself first to a woman in order to show that God does not show favourtism. That woman was Mary Magdalene. Women would not have been used if this was some made up fairytale.

3. The rise of Christianity

The actual explosion of growth of Christianity is staggering. Simply put, the Jews had no reason to believe in a dying saviour let alone a rising one. What is it that made the apostles to come to believe so strongly that God had raised Jesus from the dead? The only explanation is that he did indeed rise from the grave.

4. Over 500 people saw the risen Christ

More than 500 eyewitnesses saw the risen Jesus Christ at the same time (1 Corinthians 15:6). He states that many were still alive when he wrote the gospel (around 55 A.D). There were no objections when he wrote the gospel. And to discredit this story atheists say 'well they must have been hallucinating'. But again, such nonsense has been discredited. If it was or two people, maybe, but over 500 people? I think not.

5. Conversion of Paul

Before converting to Christianity, Paul was an aggressive persecutor of the early church. When Christ revealed himself on the Damascus Road, Paul became one of Christs influential followers. He suffered greatly, enduring years of persecution and ridicule. Finally the Roman emperor Nero had Paul beheaded because the apostle refused to deny his faith in Jesus. Tell me, what kind of man would give up a life of ease to suffer such hardships? Man may be foolish, but none as foolish as that. Many more people also gave up their lives for Christ. No delusion is that strong. The fact is Paul encountered the risen Christ and helped the message of God to go out to all the world.

Thousands witnessed Prince Isildur slay Sauron.

Reading this thread is hilarious :D
 
I do believe we are but that belief is seperate from atheism. Atheism is a lack of belief in god. It does not have a few on the importance or otherwise of humanity. It seems you don't even understand what atheism is.

Depends how you define atheism. Given your description of atheism as a lack of belief in a god then atheism isn't even a position or view at all. It is a description of psychological state at best. My grans dog must be an atheist given that definition also despite never considering the question.

Yes, evolution is morally neutral but it does not follow that therefore morality could not have come about this way. Our sense of morality could be an evolved trait.

It does follow that morality couldn't come about that way. Your sense of morality and morality itself are two different things.

That person could be yourself.

So your latest idea of morality is really a free for all. It gets worse.

So your moral objection to homosexuality is based on what then? Something someone else told you?

Why are you so obsessed with homos? There are many theories on moral epistemology and how we come to understand what is moral. Go google it.

No, I just got bored of answering the same questions in different ways whilst having my own questions ignored.

I didn't get a single answer to the problems of your self defeating view.
 
None of this is evidence. Full stop.

Can you tell us a bit more about your indepth investigation into the historicity of the resurrection which lead you to doubt its credibility?

On what basis do you reject every single piece of evidence that Jason listed? You may not the accept the evidence but to say it isn't evidence doesn't make sense.
 
I don't think that's true. Many people saw the resurrected Jesus, including many of his enemies. Not only that, archaeological discoveries continue to support the Bible's historical accuracy.

So, lets look at the evidence:

1. Jesus' tomb found empty

Now many stories have been spread such as "his disciples stole the body". But such stories have been universally discredited by virtually all new testament scholars. For his apostles to steal the body they would have had to overcome the Roman Guards, a feat I would think would be far too great for them to accomplish considering how strong the Roman empire was at the time.

2. Women Eyewitnesses


This one I find particularly fascinating. Women in biblical times were treated as second class citizens, yet Jesus Christ chose to reveal himself first to a woman in order to show that God does not show favourtism. That woman was Mary Magdalene. Women would not have been used if this was some made up fairytale.

3. The rise of Christianity

The actual explosion of growth of Christianity is staggering. Simply put, the Jews had no reason to believe in a dying saviour let alone a rising one. What is it that made the apostles to come to believe so strongly that God had raised Jesus from the dead? The only explanation is that he did indeed rise from the grave.

4. Over 500 people saw the risen Christ

More than 500 eyewitnesses saw the risen Jesus Christ at the same time (1 Corinthians 15:6). He states that many were still alive when he wrote the gospel (around 55 A.D). There were no objections when he wrote the gospel. And to discredit this story atheists say 'well they must have been hallucinating'. But again, such nonsense has been discredited. If it was or two people, maybe, but over 500 people? I think not.

5. Conversion of Paul

Before converting to Christianity, Paul was an aggressive persecutor of the early church. When Christ revealed himself on the Damascus Road, Paul became one of Christs influential followers. He suffered greatly, enduring years of persecution and ridicule. Finally the Roman emperor Nero had Paul beheaded because the apostle refused to deny his faith in Jesus. Tell me, what kind of man would give up a life of ease to suffer such hardships? Man may be foolish, but none as foolish as that. Many more people also gave up their lives for Christ. No delusion is that strong. The fact is Paul encountered the risen Christ and helped the message of God to go out to all the world.

Putting to one side for a minute that the bible also told us that Jesus fed thousands of people with 2 loafs of bread. You know, because we all know how plausible that is too.

Can you not see another reason for them to think he was dead and regain consciousness? Considering their limited medical knowledge at that point.
 
Can you tell us a bit more about your indepth investigation into the historicity of the resurrection which lead you to doubt its credibility?

On what basis do you reject every single piece of evidence that Jason listed? You may not the accept the evidence but to say it isn't evidence doesn't make sense.

I reject it because it is not evidence.

Actually, I jest... It's evidence of stupidity. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
Back
Top Bottom