[KasanDude]

(Original post by Jason2)
And what do you wish to prove with that statement? He obviously contradicts his own belief. His faith is therefore futile. I should mention it's written quite clearly in the bible that many would think they are acting for Christ but in the end find out they were just following their own evil desires.

I'm trying to prove that just because you say something the will of god doesn't make it so. You say that Hitler misinterpreted Christian teachings, but how can you decisively prove that someone like the pope or the man who wrote the bible claiming god spoke to him did not equally misinterpret the same teachings.

Given that Jesus Christ supposedly walked the earth nearly two millenia ago, how can you prove to us that what he taught has not somehow been warped by those who passed it down?

Also by that logic, when you or someone else state that gay relationships and gay marriage are not the will of christ, how is anyone to know that you or that person are not "following your own evil desires" even though you think you are acting for christ?

The advantage of atheism is that the lack of concrete doctrine allows things to be constantly re-evaluated, so that society can better adapt itself to changes.

[ufo2012]

(Original post by KasanDude)
I'm trying to prove that just because you say something the will of god doesn't make it so.

With a statement like this:

"As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice."

I would barely call this interpretation of Christian teachings at all, where in the bible does it suggest any of these things even indirectly?

It just sounds like Hitler speaking his own mind, which if he really believed this (starting with "As a Christian I..."), it obviously shows either his delusion or cunning (to try and con people) since we know the that Third Reich were deeply involved in occult practices.

[KasanDude]

(Original post by ufo2012)
With a statement like this:

"As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice."

I would barely call this interpretation of Christian teachings at all, where in the bible does it suggest any of these things even indirectly?

It just sounds like Hitler speaking his own mind, which if he really believed this (starting with "As a Christian I..."), it obviously shows either his delusion or cunning (to try and con people) since we know the that Third Reich were deeply involved in occult practices.

I'm not saying Hitler even remotely followed Christian teachings. I'm trying to show that you can't prove he was going against Christian teachings any more than you can prove homosexual marriage is going against Christian teachings, given that Christian teachings are actualy an interpretation of an interpretation of an interpretation of what someone said Jesus Christ supposedly once said about 2000 years ago.

Thus, I'm saying any argument using Christian teachings as a guideline for what should or shouldn't be is invalid.

[NYU2012]

(Original post by Jason2)
Because that's like cutting the branch your sitting on. But as I've already explained, if God set fixed moral values into all human beings, then it doesn't matter if you create your own because you'd still be wrong. Just like the Nazis were.

You apparently do not understand what is means for morality to be subjective.

If God made morality, then morality would be his subjective rules.

I wouldn't be objectively acting wrongly or immorally. I would be acting wrongly accord to some entity, person, etc. Namely, in this case, God.

But, if morality is subjective, then I can have my own morality (I can make it myself). Which means that if my morality somehow permits mass murder, then I would be right in committing mass murder regardless of what some other person or God said.

Welcome to moral subjectivity and meta-ethics.

A final, very important point to make is that if we claim morality is universal (i.e. applies to everyone and is 'objective'), then your God doesn't even follow his own moral principles! See the argument from suffering. Basically, there is death, murder, illness, starvation, etc. all of the world all the time; all of which are easily preventable by an all-powerful being. Since he doesn't prevent them (and thereby does not follow his own moral standards), your God is immoral and acting wrongly.

Before you come back and try to refuse this argument, no Christian apologist has ever come close to being to refute this argument; the one debate I went to see on the topic was between John Lennox, professor of Christian Apologetics at Oxford and Professor of Philosophy Gideon Rosen of Princeton. Needless to say, the apologist ended the debate having to admit that horrible suffering does exist on Earth, thereby having to concede that God is immoral.

[Inverse]

There aren't any reasons.

[Jason2]

(Original post by NYU2012)
You apparently do not understand what is means for morality to be subjective.

If God made morality, then morality would be his subjective rules.

I wouldn't be objectively acting wrongly or immorally. I would be acting wrongly accord to some entity, person, etc. Namely, in this case, God.

But, if morality is subjective, then I can have my own morality (I can make it myself). Which means that if my morality somehow permits mass murder, then I would be right in committing mass murder regardless of what some other person or God said.

Welcome to moral subjectivity and meta-ethics.

A final, very important point to make is that if we claim morality is universal (i.e. applies to everyone and is 'objective'), then your God doesn't even follow his own moral principles! See the argument from suffering. Basically, there is death, murder, illness, starvation, etc. all of the world all the time; all of which are easily preventable by an all-powerful being. Since he doesn't prevent them (and thereby does not follow his own moral standards), your God is immoral and acting wrongly.

Before you come back and try to refuse this argument, no Christian apologist has ever come close to being to refute this argument; the one debate I went to see on the topic was between John Lennox, professor of Christian Apologetics at Oxford and Professor of Philosophy Gideon Rosen of Princeton. Needless to say, the apologist ended the debate having to admit that horrible suffering does exist on Earth, thereby having to concede that God is immoral.

In what way is God acting immoral? CS Lewis argued this point finely by saying that something can be within someones will and yet against it at the same time. God doesn't commit evil. Mankind, with their freewill commits evil. I'm just failing to see the point you're trying to make.

The funny thing is, you keep talking about 'good' and 'evil', and yet at the same time don't believe in God. If there is no god, then goodness and evil do not exist, either. You really need to be clearer on what you mean by 'good' and 'evil'. The common man often finds it is good that a murder is locked up, even though he "suffers" the loss of his freedom. Yet I doubt I would hear you complaining about this kind of suffering. You say, well he killed he deserves to be locked up. But then you are defining what is right and wrong behavior. This is why I asked, 'from whom do you get your authority?'. From the atheistic POV, I see no reason why you would even question right and wrong behavior. For there is simply nothing to go by. Everything goes to the ground and rots. There is no judgement. So nothing matters. It's all insignificant. Heck, why are you even here debating moral accountability? Just go live your life, commit every sin under the sun, for you don't believe there's any judgement.

[NYU2012]

(Original post by Jason2)
In what way is God acting immoral? CS Lewis argued this point finely by saying that something can be within someones will and yet against it at the same time. God doesn't commit evil. Mankind, with their freewill commits evil. I'm just failing to see the point you're trying to make.

The funny thing is, you keep talking about 'good' and 'evil', and yet at the same time don't believe in God. If there is no god, then goodness and evil do not exist, either. You really need to be clearer on what you mean by 'good' and 'evil'. The common man often finds it is good that a murder is locked up, even though he "suffers" the loss of his freedom. Yet I doubt I would hear you complaining about this kind of suffering. You say, well he killed he deserves to be locked up. But then you are defining what is right and wrong behavior. This is why I asked, 'from whom do you get your authority?'. From the atheistic POV, I see no reason why you would even question right and wrong behavior. For there is simply nothing to go by. Everything goes to the ground and rots. There is no judgement. So nothing matters. It's all insignificant. Heck, why are you even here debating moral accountability? Just go live your life, commit every sin under the sun, for you don't believe there's any judgement.

(1) 'Good' and 'evil' can exist without a God. Please go back to philosophy of language 101. They are signifiers which pick out a concept; the existence of the concept is not dependent on some higher being.

(2) you obviously have no understanding of how meta-ethics work. Do everyone a favor, go take an intro to meta-ethics course. Objective morality can exist, in fact it's existence would only be possible if God did not create morality. Subjective morality is also, according to a number of contemporary ethicists, not as subjective as is commonly believed. If we start at a very basic point, such as "killing is morally wrong", we can arrive a large number of conclusions using logical entailment arguments. (I.e. most people share a similar morality). As far as punishment for crime by the State, that is a question for political theory and justice theory, which is an entirely different area of study and theory.

(3) Just because an atheist is an atheist and doesn't believe in a 'jugement' or 'afterlife' does not mean that there are no moral principles by which we ought to abide.

(4) If you took the time to actually read the argument from suffering, you would understand why the 'free will response' is entirely insufficient. If your god is all knowing and all powerful, he knew that humans would use their free will to commit horrible acts - yet he came them free will anyway, which would make him worse than any human, as he intentionally gave and allowed humans the faculty required to committ all of the worst human atrocities we know of today. Secondly, being an all powerful being who knows all, he intentionally created or allowed for the creation of illness, death, etc. all of which are clearly bad and easily preventable by an all powerful being. Go actually read the literature on the argument from suffering.

[Jason2]

You're so wrong. You're making the assumption that evil is some individual thing. It isn't. God did not create evil; he allowed it. Big difference. And as I'm sure you know, an omnipotent Being cannot do the impossible. That is why God doesn't stop evil right at this very moment, for it would make it impossible to accomplish other goals which are important to Him. And if he did stop evil at this very moment, free will is lost and well, I see no reason in creating such beings, for we would just be like the animals. Going back, I said God allowed evil, and didn't create it. CS Lewis summed this up perfectly. He said:

But anyone who has been in authority knows how a thing can be in accordance with your will in one way and not in another. It may be quite sensible for a mother to say to the children, 'I'm not going to go and make you tidy the schoolroom every night. You've got to learn to keep it tidy on your own.' Then she goes up one night and finds the Teddy Bear and the ink and the French Grammar all lying in the grate. That's against her will. She would prefer the children to be tidy. But on the other hand, it is her will which has left the children free to be untidy. The same thing arises in any regiment, or trades union, or school. You make a thing voluntary and then half the people don't do it. That isn't what you willed, but your will has made it possible.

So know that evil was brought about by humans, not God. For evil is simply misuse of the good power.

[Hewitt]

I don't know where this quote came from but It represents my thoughts pretty well:

'If you don't like gay marriage - don't marry a gay.'

[NYU2012]

(Original post by Jason2)
You're so wrong. You're making the assumption that evil is some individual thing. It isn't. God did not create evil; he allowed it. Big difference. And as I'm sure you know, an omnipotent Being cannot do the impossible. That is why God doesn't stop evil right at this very moment, for it would make it impossible to accomplish other goals which are important to Him. And if he did stop evil at this very moment, free will is lost and well, I see no reason in creating such beings, for we would just be like the animals. Going back, I said God allowed evil, and didn't create it. CS Lewis summed this up perfectly. He said:

So know that evil was brought about by humans, not God. For evil is simply misuse of the good power.

I assure you, considering I actually study philosophy and have specialized in ethics, I know far more about this subject than you.

If God created everything in the world, then he also created 'evil' - as nothing can simply come into being without a cause. We'll skip the metaphysics behind this, because (1) I don't feel like getting into it and (2) I doubt you're even familiar with the metaphysics of this problem.

The best you can do is say that God made free will, and I've already indicated you that this is not an adequate response to the argument from suffering. A truly good God would not have created free will, as creating free will is creating the faculty by which humans commit horrible actions upon other humans - it would make God a facilitator, which goes against God's being 'all good' or being a moral entity.

Also, your statement "an omnipotent being cannot do the impossible" is contradictory. For, by definition, an omnipotent being can do anything (within the set limits of logic I.e. they cannot violate or change the rules of logic or meta-logic). If God wanted to, he could remove disease, evil, sickness, suffering, etc. Alas, he does not. An omnipotent being who is all-good and all-knowing would not, by definition, be constrained by your silly statement. Such a being could "accomplish their other goals" in way which causes no suffering.

Please, stop wasting my time as so far you've merely managed to successfully show you know absolutely nothing about the metaphysics behind this topic or the argument from suffering.

[Jason2]

(Original post by NYU2012)
I assure you, considering I actually study philosophy and have specialized in ethics, I know far more about this subject than you.

If God created everything in the world, then he also created 'evil' - as nothing can simply come into being without a cause. We'll skip the metaphysics behind this, because (1) I don't feel like getting into it and (2) I doubt you're even familiar with the metaphysics of this problem.

The best you can do is say that God made free will, and I've already indicated you that this is not an adequate response to the argument from suffering. A truly good God would not have created free will, as creating free will is creating the faculty by which humans commit horrible actions upon other humans - it would make God a facilitator, which goes against God's being 'all good' or being a moral entity.

Also, your statement "an omnipotent being cannot do the impossible" is contradictory. For, by definition, an omnipotent being can do anything (within the set limits of logic I.e. they cannot violate or change the rules of logic or meta-logic). If God wanted to, he could remove disease, evil, sickness, suffering, etc. Alas, he does not. An omnipotent being who is all-good and all-knowing would not, by definition, be constrained by your silly statement. Such a being could "accomplish their other goals" in way which causes no suffering.

Please, stop wasting my time as so far you've merely managed to successfully show you know absolutely nothing about the metaphysics behind this topic or the argument from suffering.

I've already explained - God did not create evil. Evil is simply the misuse of the good power. If you believe Evil exists as an individual thing, then show me where any one has ever been evil for evils sake. You can't!

[NYU2012]

(Original post by Jason2)
I've already explained - God did not create evil. Evil is simply the misuse of the good power. If you believe Evil exists as an individual thing, then show me where any one has ever been evil for evils sake. You can't!

You don't understand metaphysics, do you? I'm not here to teach you metaphysics, go take a metaphysics course, I have no interest in trying to teach you.,

Yet again, you've completely missed the argument given. Even if God did not directly create or cause the existence of evil, God DID create free will - the faculty by which humans commit 'evil' actions against other humans.

Thereby, God not only facilitated every 'evil' action ever committed by allowing it to happen, he also CAUSED the ability for such actions to even take place - he created free will, which is the cause of all 'evil' actions committed by humans.

A truly good God would allow for no suffering and, as I said previously, not have created free will, as the creation of free will is WORSE than every action ever done by an individual human. Why? Because free will (a creation of this supposed God) is responsible for every horrible, immoral action to have ever occurred - and, since god is supposedly also all know, he would have known, before he created free will, that such a faculty would be used to for such horrible, immoral actions.

Ex. I create a horrible WMD (read: free will) knowing it is going to be used to murder thousands of people (read: every bad action in history) and yet do it anyway. You're obviously going to say that I am accountable for all of the deaths (read: every bad action in history) and that my creation of the WMD (read: free will) was immoral, since I knew it would be used to kill thousands of people (read: every bad action in history)

Again, stop wasting my time and actually go read the literature available on the argument from suffering.

[Jason2]

(Original post by NYU2012)
You don't understand metaphysics, do you? I'm not here to teach you metaphysics, go take a metaphysics course, I have no interest in trying to teach you.,

Yet again, you've completely missed the argument given. Even if God did not directly create or cause the existence of evil, God DID create free will - the faculty by which humans commit 'evil' actions against other humans.

Thereby, God not only facilitated every 'evil' action ever committed by allowing it to happen, he also CAUSED the ability for such actions to even take place - he created free will, which is the cause of all 'evil' actions committed by humans.

A truly good God would allow for no suffering and, as I said previously, not have created free will, as the creation of free will is WORSE than every action ever done by an individual human. Why? Because free will (a creation of this supposed God) is responsible for every horrible, immoral action to have ever occurred - and, since god is supposedly also all know, he would have known, before he created free will, that such a faculty would be used to for such horrible, immoral actions.

Ex. I create a horrible WMD (read: free will) knowing it is going to be used to murder thousands of people (read: every bad action in history) and yet do it anyway. You're obviously going to say that I am accountable for all of the deaths (read: every bad action in history) and that my creation of the WMD (read: free will) was immoral, since I knew it would be used to kill thousands of people (read: every bad action in history)

Again, stop wasting my time and actually go read the literature available on the argument from suffering.

How many let their children suffer? Sometimes it does good. I have no time for you anymore. Adios!

[NYU2012]

(Original post by Jason2)
How many letter their children suffer? Sometimes it does good. I have no time for you anymore. Adios!

That's using bad actions as means to a result and goes against the principle of being 'all-good'. Being all-good is a deontological principle, not a utilitarian one.

So I'm glad you've admitted that there IS suffering, which is conceding to the argument from suffering.

Surprise, surprise, another religious individual who cannot defeat the argument from suffering - as I told you before you tried to refute this argument, no religious individual has ever successfully done so.

[ufo2012]

(Original post by Jason2)
How many let their children suffer? Sometimes it does good. I have no time for you anymore. Adios!

Total shame, this was making for some interesting reading

[Indiee]

(Original post by Nav_Mallhi)
It's not natural! Nature has designed a male and a female to be together, hence only a man and a woman can have children. Not men and men or women and women. Sorry gay people but I find this whole concept rather disgusting. However I know some really friendly gay men, they are really nice people, but I just can't seem to understand why they choose a man instead of a woman to be with *shivers*

just like to say that your views are sickening and the reason that a lot of gay people are scared to step outside of their houses and the whole argument of natural and unnatural is disgraceful. My 7 year old brother is very clear that gay people are a part of society and should be accepted. You dont have to be gay if you dont want to but discriminating those who are is a bad judgement on your part totally. Using the word 'disguisting' is a very childish comment refering to the gay as you would to baby food for example. Im sorry but I dont remember 'god' putting that massive skyscraper there and the computer in front of you isnt exactly the gift of god so your argument relating to naturalism isn't relevant and if thats so then you should consider taking up nudism as the clothes on you weren't born ON YOU!!! In a fast developing society those views are like being extremely racist.

[ufo2012]

(Original post by Nav_Mallhi)
It's not natural! Nature has designed a male and a female to be together, hence only a man and a woman can have children. Not men and men or women and women. Sorry gay people but I find this whole concept rather disgusting. However I know some really friendly gay men, they are really nice people, but I just can't seem to understand why they choose a man instead of a woman to be with *shivers*

(Original post by Indiee)
just like to say that your views are sickening and the reason that a lot of gay people are scared to step outside of their houses and the whole argument of natural and unnatural is disgraceful. My 7 year old brother is very clear that gay people are a part of society and should be accepted. You dont have to be gay if you dont want to but discriminating those who are is a bad judgement on your part totally.

Little silly really, don't think that gay people would be afraid to step outside their house just because one or a number of people may hold to this view.

And it is not discriminating, as it is just a viewpoint, technically you are not preventing the gay person from doing anything - just sharing your views.

I think I shared the viewpoint with the poster earlier in this thread or someone else - if it is his personal opinion that he thinks it is 'disgusting' I don't see what is wrong with that.

[Indiee]

(Original post by ufo2012)
Little silly really, don't think that gay people would be afraid to step outside their house just because one or a number of people may hold to this view.

And it is not discriminating, as it is just a viewpoint, technically you are not preventing the gay person from doing anything - just sharing your views.

I think I shared the viewpoint with the poster earlier in this thread or someone else - if it is his personal opinion that he thinks it is 'disgusting' I don't see what is wrong with that.

hey im not saying that theres anything wrong with sharing opinions but im was sharing my opinion on that opinion because at the end of the day everyone has the right to be whoever they want to be and sharing those type of opinions as i said before is the equivalent of being racist and would you accept that????

[ufo2012]

(Original post by Indiee)
hey im not saying that theres anything wrong with sharing opinions but im was sharing my opinion on that opinion because at the end of the day everyone has the right to be whoever they want to be and sharing those type of opinions as i said before is the equivalent of being racist and would you accept that?

Sure, everyone can share their opinion otherwise we would have no debate!

I didn't post the comments you are referring to so can't comment for the poster, but personally I wouldn't equate the like/dislike of homosexuality to being 'racist'.

I think this very comparison has also been discussed at length in one of the other threads by others too.

[Indiee]

(Original post by ufo2012)
Sure, everyone can share their opinion otherwise we would have no debate!

I didn't post the comments you are referring to so can't comment for the poster, but personally I wouldn't equate the like/dislike of homosexuality to being 'racist'.

I think this very comparison has also been discussed at length in one of the other threads by others too.

so what would you equate the like/dislike of homosexuality to????