Moral argument for God's existence

[tommyjones]

The quote is commonly attributed to Dostoevski. Apparently a very few don't know who said it. You say it's Sarte.....can you prove it?? You made a definitive statement that it was Sarte.

An to think that this is really a pet peave?? Have you been laboring over this point for years with people? Waking up every day dreading the darn Dostoevski quote...ohhhhh the outrage

Here is a quote from me:
"If God does not exist everything is permissible" Foodcritic..yes I said....I have proof.

everything is permissable even if there is a god, remember that pesky 'free will' thing?

people can do what ever they want. the only penalties in this lfe are social, and the alleged ones in the after life are unproven.

 

[This_person]

You and This_Person have both ignored that Religion hasnt always been around. Yet Morals themselves, in order for any type of society to function, have.

You clearly did not read my post.

 

[tommyjones]

Right, because the below quote from you is disambigous

he just can't accept that religion was based on peoples feelings and morals, not the other way around.

it is a chicken and an egg thing, only in this case the people were obviously here before religion.

 

[This_person]

If I'm understanding your theory correctly, you're saying all people are influenced by religion, just because they've been exposed to it or to someone else who was. If that is the case, couldn't it also be said that all people are influenced by cartoons, just because they've been exposed to it, or to someone else who was? Cartoon's could be swapped out for any ther cultural influence, i.e. parents, grandparents, bankers.

Insofar as everyone has been exposed to the color yellow, so they've been influenced by the color yellow, yes, what you're saying is the extreme extrapolation.

But, I'm talking about morals - principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct. While it's been argued that cartoons (with their violence without consequence, etc.) have influenced people's morals, I was thinking more directly by one's parents and the society around them. Cartoons, movies, who's married to whom, etc., all influence people (ergo, "the society around them") to a certain degree. One's parents influence them (usually, hopefully, to a greater degree). In the 21st century United States, the vast majority of people claim to be a member of a religion (remember, not just Christianity, but some religion). Certainly, societies have evolved through time, so what is true for one society in the 16th century, or 16th century BC cannot be really seen fully today except through our eyes, tinted by our current perceptions of religion.

The effect can be seen (as I've said before) with our laws. In the Middle East, with a different religion being the dominant force of society, a raped woman can be violently punished for putting herself in the position of being raped - and that's the moral fiber they all see as "right". We see it far differently here in the USA, because we have a different view of right and wrong. They have morals, to be sure. And we have morals. What they're based on is different, so what is "right and wrong" is different, but they're both morals. Everyone has morals. An atheist has morals. But, what the atheist views as right and wrong has been strongly influenced by a predominantly Christian society, so their morals will naturally be strongly influenced by that society. That's not to say that atheists don't have morals, or no morals ever existed without Christianity - it just says what the standard is by which the 20th and 21st century atheists choose their morals.

 

[This_person]

Right, because the below quote from you is disambigous

I hope my answer above to Merlin clears up your misunderstanding of what I was saying.

 

[This_person]

Your changing your argument, your now stating that 20/21st century American atheists morals are influenced by the Deist/Christian society that the founding fathers created. Which is true.

But not ALL societies were religous, yet they were Moral. To state that Morals come from religious belief, which you have stated before and what foodcritic attempted to state, is wrong

I'm not changing my argument, I'm refining what I'm saying to be better understood (I could work for Barrack! )

Seriously, though, I'm stating that everyone has morals. In the past, I've argued that morals must come from a standard (because that's one of the many definitions of morals), but I'm trying to broaden my understanding, thanks to the influence of people on this forum, among others. What I argued then was that a moral needed a standard of what was right and what was wrong, so anything else was a value, not a moral. What I've refined my position to be is that everyone can have morals, just from different standards.

I did not, however, mention anything about the founding fathers or deism. I refuse to be drawn into that argument, because all sides are true at different points in time.

I'm just saying that what an atheist calls their own morals today really aren't their own, they come from what we currently accept as the Christian influence on American society.

 

[Merlin99]

Insofar as everyone has been exposed to the color yellow, so they've been influenced by the color yellow, yes, what you're saying is the extreme extrapolation.

But, I'm talking about morals - principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct. While it's been argued that cartoons (with their violence without consequence, etc.) have influenced people's morals, I was thinking more directly by one's parents and the society around them. Cartoons, movies, who's married to whom, etc., all influence people (ergo, "the society around them") to a certain degree. One's parents influence them (usually, hopefully, to a greater degree). In the 21st century United States, the vast majority of people claim to be a member of a religion (remember, not just Christianity, but some religion). Certainly, societies have evolved through time, so what is true for one society in the 16th century, or 16th century BC cannot be really seen fully today except through our eyes, tinted by our current perceptions of religion.

The effect can be seen (as I've said before) with our laws. In the Middle East, with a different religion being the dominant force of society, a raped woman can be violently punished for putting herself in the position of being raped - and that's the moral fiber they all see as "right". We see it far differently here in the USA, because we have a different view of right and wrong. They have morals, to be sure. And we have morals. What they're based on is different, so what is "right and wrong" is different, but they're both morals. Everyone has morals. An atheist has morals. But, what the atheist views as right and wrong has been strongly influenced by a predominantly Christian society, so their morals will naturally be strongly influenced by that society. That's not to say that atheists don't have morals, or no morals ever existed without Christianity - it just says what the standard is by which the 20th and 21st century atheists choose their morals.

Yes I'll agree that religion has some influence. Whether it is strongly or weakly influenced is debatable. I personally find my particular belief system draws from books I've read, movies I've seen, and people I've known. Has their view been colored by some religious experience, possibly, but in most cases I couldn't tell you what flavor of religion they subscribed to. If my beliefs had been strongly influenced by traditional religious backgrounds, would I be able to justify as moral what they traditionally classify as immoral? I don't think I would.

 

[This_person]

Ok and we arent in total disagreement, my only caveat would be that it's not JUST Christian influences on our society. They just maybe the Dominant factor.

I fully agree with you on that. If it were JUST the Christian factor, we wouldn't have to worry about people killing their babies being allowed by law, about whether we need to change the definition of "marriage" to something it's not just to make 2% of the population feel better about themselves, etc., etc......

 

[This_person]

Yes I'll agree that religion has some influence. Whether it is strongly or weakly influenced is debatable. I personally find my particular belief system draws from books I've read, movies I've seen, and people I've known. Has their view been colored by some religious experience, possibly, but in most cases I couldn't tell you what flavor of religion they subscribed to. If my beliefs had been strongly influenced by traditional religious backgrounds, would I be able to justify as moral what they traditionally classify as immoral? I don't think I would.

I think you would, for a couple of reasons.

• As Nuck and I restated to each other, Christianity is not the ONLY factor (though it is the dominant one). So, anything else within dilutes Christian moral's effects on society.

• You have free will

• Moral relativism is slowly becoming the predominant factor in society, making the standard for morals shift based on how one feels about a particular person, subject, etc. "Right and wrong" become effectively meaninless, except for in-the-moment decisions. In other words, the standards are not standards, just guidelines that people feel entitled to change. Joy Behar is walking example of this on a daily basis.

 

[foodcritic]

he just can't accept that religion was based on peoples feelings and morals, not the other way around.

it is a chicken and an egg thing, only in this case the people were obviously here before religion.

Let's see what kncklehead had to say in his summary by quoting...:
Terry Goodkind.

Quote:
"Faith is a device of self-delusion, a slight of hand done with words and emotions founded on any irrational notion that can be dreamed up. Faith is the attempt to coerce truth to surrender to whim. In simple terms, it is trying to breath life into a lie by trying to outshine reality with the beauty of wishes. Faith is the refuge of fools, the ignorant, and the deluded, not of thinking, rational men."

Here is what Merlin had to say:

just because it is made up doesn't mean its a lie. in this case i mean 'created' when i say people made up god and morals. people created morals through their collective experiences. You can see in the animal kingdom that animals feel emotions towards members of their families, and feel loss when those close to them die. A good exampl would be a female dog who's puppies were taken from her too soon. you see them many times fixate on a stuff animal or other stand in. its not a far strecth of the imagination to think that early morals and 'rules of society' came from the colective experiences of the group. eventually these EVOLVED into the morals were see as common to most societies today.

not really all that hard to understand


Apparently Merlin and knuck are on two diffrent pages. They are both self-defeating CONTRADICTING arguments yet they want everyone to believe how united they are????

Apparently, it is that hard to understand........

 

[foodcritic]

Seems correct

I think you summarized quite well Knuck and Merlin...


This is quite an astoot observation....

 

[mAlice]

I think you summarized quite well Knuck and Merlin...


This is quite an astoot observation....

:snort: :asstoot:

 

[foodcritic]

this is why i use head

Apparantly comprehension isnt something your familiar with. Its equally apprant that it really was hard for you to understand.

• Foodcritic claimed a quote attributed to the wrong person, and an atheist, was proof of God's existance.
  
  I never said it proved anything
  
  You claim the quote was not his(FD) and attribute it to Sarte (provide no evidence). Most attribute it to (FD). Not from the book but FD.
  
• Nucklesack states if quoting someone makes it true, then Goodkinds quote is equally valid.
  
  Your parsing your words. You implied that Goodkinds quote was more valid becasue it was directly quoted...
  
  "Its only moot because your incorrectly attributing it to someone, and your using it as a basis for an argument. If you think that incorrect quote is valid, this one is more so. Especially since it is a direct quote from Terry Goodkind.
  
  Quote:
  "Faith is a device of self-delusion, a slight of hand done with words and emotions founded on any irrational notion that can be dreamed up. Faith is the attempt to coerce truth to surrender to whim. In simple terms, it is trying to breath life into a lie by trying to outshine reality with the beauty of wishes. Faith is the refuge of fools, the ignorant, and the deluded, not of thinking, rational men."
  
  
  
• Goodkind was describing Religion, Merlin was describing how Morals were in existance without Religion. There isnt any contradiction to those statements. The only contradiction is your complete inability to understand the 2 concepts in 2 posts.

Here your proven wrong...read what he(merlin) said.

just because it is made up doesn't mean its a lie. in this case i mean 'created' when i say people made up god and morals. people created morals through their collective experiences. You can see in the animal kingdom that animals feel emotions towards members of their families, and feel loss when those close to them die. A good exampl would be a female dog who's puppies were taken from her too soon. you see them many times fixate on a stuff animal or other stand in. its not a far strecth of the imagination to think that early morals and 'rules of society' came from the colective experiences of the group. eventually these EVOLVED into the morals were see as common to most societies today.

Tommyjones clearly says morals and God.

As to contradictions and unification, are you attempting to say Christians are United in their beliefs? Now thats funny!

I never attempted say anything about Christian...why do you keep side-stepping. This is about moral and God existence. Let's stay focused.

 

[tommyjones]

Let's see what kncklehead had to say in his summary by quoting...:
Terry Goodkind.

Quote:
"Faith is a device of self-delusion, a slight of hand done with words and emotions founded on any irrational notion that can be dreamed up. Faith is the attempt to coerce truth to surrender to whim. In simple terms, it is trying to breath life into a lie by trying to outshine reality with the beauty of wishes. Faith is the refuge of fools, the ignorant, and the deluded, not of thinking, rational men."

Here is what Merlin had to say:

just because it is made up doesn't mean its a lie. in this case i mean 'created' when i say people made up god and morals. people created morals through their collective experiences. You can see in the animal kingdom that animals feel emotions towards members of their families, and feel loss when those close to them die. A good exampl would be a female dog who's puppies were taken from her too soon. you see them many times fixate on a stuff animal or other stand in. its not a far strecth of the imagination to think that early morals and 'rules of society' came from the colective experiences of the group. eventually these EVOLVED into the morals were see as common to most societies today.

not really all that hard to understand


Apparently Merlin and knuck are on two diffrent pages. They are both self-defeating CONTRADICTING arguments yet they want everyone to believe how united they are????

Apparently, it is that hard to understand........

i'll tell you what isn't hard to understand, you have no ability to comprehend what you read, or to at least understand who wrote it. you have sucessfully attributed what i said to merlin, and then tried to agree with me, about what i cant tell.

additionally, my thoughts are my own, and i dont care if Knuckle or anyone else agrees with me or not.

 

[foodcritic]

U right

i'll tell you what isn't hard to understand, you have no ability to comprehend what you read, or to at least understand who wrote it. you have sucessfully attributed what i said to merlin, and then tried to agree with me, about what i cant tell.

additionally, my thoughts are my own, and i dont care if Knuckle or anyone else agrees with me or not.

Apparently your name and merlin were confused by momsinsmc. I used it and the KNUCKLEAD also copied it.

Thanks for pointing it out. Clearly we don't agree. If you can't see your own contradictions in your atheism with knucklhead don't blame me. I was just pointing out your conflicting "theories" on morality.

 

[foodcritic]

i'll tell you what isn't hard to understand, you have no ability to comprehend what you read, or to at least understand who wrote it. you have sucessfully attributed what i said to merlin, and then tried to agree with me, about what i cant tell.

additionally, my thoughts are my own, and i dont care if Knuckle or anyone else agrees with me or not.

Knucklehead ...."Goodkind was describing Religion, Merlin was describing how Morals were in existance without Religion. There isnt any contradiction to those statements. The only contradiction is your complete inability to understand the 2 concepts in 2 posts. "

Apparently knuck was not doing his own verification/homework in the forum.
He misquoted a misquote...

 

[tommyjones]

Apparently your name and merlin were confused by momsinsmc. I used it and the KNUCKLEAD also copied it.

Thanks for pointing it out. Clearly we don't agree. If you can't see your own contradictions in your atheism with knucklhead don't blame me. I was just pointing out your conflicting "theories" on morality.

see, i'm not even an aethist, and i dont know if Knucle is or not.


and as for conflicting theories on morality. we both agree that people are responsible for religion and that any morals that fall out of the resulting religions are man made. (at least as far as i have come to understand his opinion)

 

[tommyjones]

Knucklehead ...."Goodkind was describing Religion, Merlin was describing how Morals were in existance without Religion. There isnt any contradiction to those statements. The only contradiction is your complete inability to understand the 2 concepts in 2 posts. "

Apparently knuck was not doing his own verification/homework in the forum.
He misquoted a misqote...

its a little different to misquote something usign the "quote" feature that was INCORRECTLY TYPED by another person on the thread. the only reason i caught it was because the mominsmc quoted me and atributed it to someone else

 

[foodcritic]

see, i'm not even an aethist, and i dont know if Knucle is or not.


and as for conflicting theories on morality. we both agree that people are responsible for religion and that any morals that fall out of the resulting religions are man made. (at least as far as i have come to understand his opinion)

That is more reasonable. Please in full disclosure share with us......your belief system.

 

[foodcritic]

its a little different to misquote something usign the "quote" feature that was INCORRECTLY TYPED by another person on the thread. the only reason i caught it was because the mominsmc quoted me and atributed it to someone else

What...don't make excuses. OH the IRONY