Does God exist? (1 Viewer)

[brent012]

Worst image ever made - extremely biased and contains incorrect information to an extremely extent.

I'm leaning towards it being made by a troll. Besides what you have pointed out there are a few other odd descriptions. Richard Dawkins being the "founder of atheism" for one lol.

 

[iBibah]

"If you don't know what he's done you should kill yourself" lol

 

[iBibah]

Perhaps fickle was the wrong word to use. But you agree that morality does differ on all scales, I.E. person to person, region to region, across space and time. The moral consensus on many issues in the western world has without a doubt changed dramatically over the past 100 years. Leads me to wonder what the mindset will be in the next 50 years, when our generation are considered as old conservative dinosaurs holding back ‘progress’.

It's still a matter of opinion in terms of morality. Religious people such as Catholics believe (according to catholic teachings) that morality doesn't change and their is an absolute truth, whereas people such as yourself are moral relativists.

 

[Absolutezero]

List needs update; Hitchens is burning in hell

 

[lochnessmonsta]

It's still a matter of opinion in terms of morality. Religious people such as Catholics believe (according to catholic teachings) that morality doesn't change and their is an absolute truth, whereas people such as yourself are moral relativists.

Damn thats my extension 1 crime thesis, in our increasingly secular world people are finding it harder to figure out what is morally correct (or at least this trend is relevant to my selected texts)

 

[scuba_steve2121]

It's still a matter of opinion in terms of morality. Religious people such as Catholics believe (according to catholic teachings) that morality doesn't change and their is an absolute truth, whereas people such as yourself are moral relativists.

Wrong. The morals of Catholics and that of the Catholic Church HAS changed, they may say to the contrary but they would be kidding themselves. Slavery was permitted and endorsed by the Catholic Church for most of its existence; it was morally ok to own another person. It may not have been till everybody else (meaning the average person and western governments) changed their mind that they too realised it was morally wrong and condemned it to be so, BUT THEY DID.

Case closed.

 

[iBibah]

Wrong. The morals of Catholics and that of the Catholic Church HAS changed, they may say to the contrary but they would be kidding themselves. Slavery was permitted and endorsed by the Catholic Church for most of its existence; it was morally ok to own another person. It may not have been till everybody else (meaning the average person and western governments) changed their mind that they too realised it was morally wrong and condemned it to be so, BUT THEY DID.

Case closed.

Yeh I have read about the inconsistencies of the Catholic Church on slavery; but in principle, morals are not changed according to the social context.

Christians or not, religious or not (though usually religious), there are people who believe in absolute truth and reject moral relativism.

It seems kind of naive to claim that morality is constantly changing for everyone.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

Yeh I have read about the inconsistencies of the Catholic Church on slavery; but in principle, morals are not changed according to the social context.

Christians or not, religious or not (though usually religious), there are people who believe in absolute truth and reject moral relativism.

It seems kind of naive to claim that morality is constantly changing for everyone.

You evaded the point made, their morals have changed that was the point, and whether they claim otherwise is irrelevant.

They may believe they know what is absolutely moral and right and that it is unchangeable, but the fact of the matter, is that they have changed their minds, and that in doing so have contradicted themselves.

And of course there are people who believe there is only a one true set of morals, which has nothing to do with what we were talking about.

What we are talking about is that in spite of this they have changed overtime, as we as a society have become somewhat enlightened and less barbaric.

Basically the Catholic Church and many other religious institutions in the word are lying hypocrites on the matter. End of that argument

Now you have opened up a whole new can of worms, can there be such a thing as a 'one true set of morals'

As a believer in objective truth (something is either true or it's not e.g. it is impossible for God to exist and not exit at the same time) I would suggest that it's impossible.

Morality does not fall into the category of truth because it is a human construct. It would be like suggesting that there is a one true best movie ever made, or book ever written. Who decides this? How do you measure this? The idea is ludicrous as it is completely subjective. Everybody is an individual with different experiences colouring their perspective on everything. Thus there is no way to form a consensus.

Therefore there is no such thing as a true morality. For of course morality is constantly changing as everybody has their own view on what that morality is. Thus going back to my previous post and point, morality changes from person to person, community to community, region to region across space and time. On a side note it is well observed that individual morality changes as one ages from childhood to adulthood. I don't have the same set of morals that I did when I was 10 or 15 and would not wish to.

Now obviously this argument excludes the possibility that there is a divine set of morals that is the 'true set' of morals. If you believe that this is true then the whole argument above is irrelevant, as it would be far more prudent to debate whether this divine entity exists in the first place to create this one 'true set' of morals.

However if you believe that there is no God but still believe that there is a one true set of morals, then do please enlighten us as to what these morals are, OR perhaps write them down and create another cult to add to the very long list of cults that believe that they too, have discovered the 'one true set' of morals that we should all follow.

Now perhaps you believe that these morals exist but we just don't know them yet. If so I would refer back to my previous point that morality is a human construct.

 

[iBibah]

You evaded the point made, their morals have changed that was the point, and whether they claim otherwise is irrelevant.

They may believe they know what is absolutely moral and right and that it is unchangeable, but the fact of the matter, is that they have changed their minds, and that in doing so have contradicted themselves.

And of course there are people who believe there is only a one true set of morals, which has nothing to do with what we were talking about.

What we are talking about is that in spite of this they have changed overtime, as we as a society have become somewhat enlightened and less barbaric.

Basically the Catholic Church and many other religious institutions in the word are lying hypocrites on the matter. End of that argument

Now you have opened up a whole new can of worms, can there be such a thing as a 'one true set of morals'

As a believer in objective truth (something is either true or it's not e.g. it is impossible for God to exist and not exit at the same time) I would suggest that it's impossible.

Morality does not fall into the category of truth because it is a human construct. It would be like suggesting that there is a one true best movie ever made, or book ever written. Who decides this? How do you measure this? The idea is ludicrous as it is completely subjective. Everybody is an individual with different experiences colouring their perspective on everything. Thus there is no way to form a consensus.

Therefore there is no such thing as a true morality. For of course morality is constantly changing as everybody has their own view on what that morality is. Thus going back to my previous post and point, morality changes from person to person, community to community, region to region across space and time. On a side note it is well observed that individual morality changes as one ages from childhood to adulthood. I don't have the same set of morals that I did when I was 10 or 15 and would not wish to.

Now obviously this argument excludes the possibility that there is a divine set of morals that is the 'true set' of morals. If you believe that this is true then the whole argument above is irrelevant, as it would be far more prudent to debate whether this divine entity exists in the first place to create this one 'true set' of morals.

However if you believe that there is no God but still believe that there is a one true set of morals, then do please enlighten us as to what these morals are, OR perhaps write them down and create another cult to add to the very long list of cults that believe that they too, have discovered the 'one true set' of morals that we should all follow.

Now perhaps you believe that these morals exist but we just don't know them yet. If so I would refer back to my previous point that morality is a human construct.

The bold part is why I suggested religion, not because of the man made institution, but because of the divine set of morals that exist for people. If there are some people who believe in this set of morals, then the original statement:

Morality is a fickle thing.

this is very much a matter of opinion

...holds true. All I'm saying is that some people believe it is fickle, while others believe it's not. Hence, it's a matter of opinion.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

The bold part is why I suggested religion, not because of the man made institution, but because of the divine set of morals that exist for people. If there are some people who believe in this set of morals, then the original statement:

Ok well as stated I have at no point denied that people believe that, everbody knows that there are people who believe in such a thing, soooooooo the question is why did you bring it up if not to argue whether it was true or not?

...holds true. All I'm saying is that some people believe it is fickle, while others believe it's not. Hence, it's a matter of opinion.

Well that's stupid. What's the point in arguing anything if anybody can just say "well that's your opinion" or "well such and such believes in X and some say Y, it's their opinion, thus the argument is over". I have argued that morality is not only changing, but is different for every single person whether they believe in a divine set of morals or not.

It is not a matter of opinion, because whether you like a movie or not doesn't affect the lives of billions of people. However subscribing to all or certain parts of a ‘divine’ set of morals written down by a bunch of sand monkeys 2000 years ago, that make it clear that gay people should be killed and are eternally dammed, and that women are inferior and should have little to no say in their own lives is a big fucking concern.

That is why it is not a matter of opinion, because it can if followed effect dramatically the lives of others.

 

[iBibah]

Ok well as stated I have at no point denied that people believe that, everbody knows that there are people who believe in such a thing, soooooooo the question is why did you bring it up if not to argue whether it was true or not?



Well that's stupid. What's the point in arguing anything if anybody can just say "well that's your opinion" or "well such and such believes in X and some say Y, it's their opinion, thus the argument is over". I have argued that morality is not only changing, but is different for every single person whether they believe in a divine set of morals or not.

It is not a matter of opinion, because whether you like a movie or not doesn't affect the lives of billions of people. However subscribing to all or certain parts of a ‘divine’ set of morals written down by a bunch of sand monkeys 2000 years ago, that make it clear that gay people should be killed and are eternally dammed, and that women are inferior and should have little to no say in their own lives is a big fucking concern.

That is why it is not a matter of opinion, because it can if followed effect dramatically the lives of others.

I think I misunderstood what you were trying to say before. I thought you were saying, for any given person, morality is constantly changing.
So, back to where we started:

Perhaps fickle was the wrong word to use. But you agree that morality does differ on all scales, I.E. person to person, region to region, across space and time. The moral consensus on many issues in the western world has without a doubt changed dramatically over the past 100 years. Leads me to wonder what the mindset will be in the next 50 years, when our generation are considered as old conservative dinosaurs holding back ‘progress’.

Yes I agree that morality is different from person to person. My bad for misunderstanding before.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

I think I misunderstood what you were trying to say before. I thought you were saying, for any given person, morality is constantly changing.
So, back to where we started:

Yes I agree that morality is different from person to person. My bad for misunderstanding before.

 

[Frostbitten]

Catholicism or Islam, I'm trying to decide which one to believe in. However I could pick Judaism, or a religious belief originating from one of the many isolated tribes in the Amazon. I guess I should ask; which one ensures that I can fuck bitches and get money whilst still getting a ticket to heaven or heaven equivalent afterlife?

 

[scuba_steve2121]

Catholicism or Islam, I'm trying to decide which one to believe in. However I could pick Judaism, or a religious belief originating from one of the many isolated tribes in the Amazon. I guess I should ask; which one ensures that I can fuck bitches and get money whilst still getting a ticket to heaven or heaven equivalent afterlife?

Christianity. Just say you love Jebus and you can do anything apparently

 

[someth1ng]

Catholicism or Islam, I'm trying to decide which one to believe in. However I could pick Judaism, or a religious belief originating from one of the many isolated tribes in the Amazon. I guess I should ask; which one ensures that I can fuck bitches and get money whilst still getting a ticket to heaven or heaven equivalent afterlife?

They're basically the same.

 

[Lolsmith]

Worst image ever made - extremely biased and contains incorrect information to an extremely extent.

1. Einstein wasn't a theist - he described himself as agnostic. In fact, Einstein thought that the idea of a personal god was childish.
2. Hitler was never an atheist - there's no proper evidence that even hints at him being atheist. In fact, he was a theist for most of his life.
3. It is true that Stalin was an atheist but trying to link what he did to atheism simply provides evidence for your scientific illiteracy - correlation does NOT imply causation. Enough said.
4. Napoleon Bonaparte is considered as one of the best military leaders of all time.
5. Ronald Reagan is the best US president? What about Abraham Lincoln?

I don't understand why you keep saying "best" for so many things for theists but none of that for atheists.

so you're saying that Richard Dawkins *is* the founder of atheism

and Abraham Lincoln is a monster

 

[someth1ng]

so you're saying that Richard Dawkins *is* the founder of atheism

and Abraham Lincoln is a monster

wut.

 

[Jimmy2064]

I think it all comes down to the fact that humans created faith, religion and god, to either control or have power over others or give them morals and a way of life. Also it irritates me when Catholics or Christians tell you to not take the bible literary, isn't that the whole outline of their religion? Also the bible has some very sexist, unmoral and just simply wrong teachings in it, and Christians keep contradicting themselves so much. For example "we are all equal", but "men were created first....".


I can't really speak for other religions, since i grew up in a christian family and attend a Catholic School I know quite A LOT about the Bible. (and have a lot of frustration and negative feeling towards it) lol

Anyway, i have not heard a single valid argument or a reason why people believe there's God. (maybe i'm missing the point of life)

I don't believe in a God until I see one, but without religion our ethics and morals would be up shit creek to say the least. You think Christianity's bad? Imagine if there wasn't.. It wouldn't be all sunshine and daises, it would be North Korea.

 

[Jimmy2064]

Defeats the entire purpose of a forum where you discuss things

There's a difference between discussion and imposing beliefs on others, friend

 

[Lolsmith]

wut.

First one was a point you didn't point out (who cares really)

And the second was my personal opinion