Why follow God and what makes it moral?

Did you ever consider determinism with a touch of freewill ?

A narrow view,imo.

 

What does 'endowed by their Creator' mean to you then? Please provide an ID for this 'Creator' person. Sadly, you miss the whole point.

 

And just who are YOU to tell them there is no God? Got any proof?

 

Well thought out post. However, let me provide an example....go to the top of your roof. Flap your arms like a bird and jump off. Natural laws dictate you will fall to Earth like a rock. (Just an example)

Now...As the Wright Brothers discovered we CAN fly but, we have to adhere to strict aeronautical guidelines in order to do so. Our arms are never going to become the wings of birds.

In this case, are we not 'slaves' to natural laws in that we must fabricate contraptions to get us in the air? And, those contraptions have to abide by strict natural laws or they just won't work.

 

And this is why people dislike atheists.

The comportment of 'logic' here to call people slaves, the doltish assumptions about our faith to justfy calling us slaves .... its just unacceptable - at least for educated people.

Its quite simple, the message of the Bible is true. People are convinced by it, they open their hearts and minds to God and they accept it. It is fundamentally choice - a fundamentally positive thing.

But randomness means its invalid?

I think that is just looking for poor excuses to deny the simply reality of other people's faith.

 

Doubts to what?

When did I refuse? I already stated my case. If you feel it is flawed, go ahead and point out the flaw. Make sure you actually read it rather than assume I simply ignored your comment - which I didnt.

Again, I have actually agreed with people on their reasoning a number of times so far. Clearly you are the obstinate one. Even if I converted to Catholicism again you would still make these aggressive, ad hominem comments.

If I am wrong in my rebuttals you cna quite easily show me where., You have yet to do so, so a charge of being obstinate is unjustified.

See the OP, or ANY of my other comments.

To be honest I wouldn't mind if you called me abstinent - as long as you substantiated the claim. All you did here was launch directly into ad hominem after reading my reply. How can I know where you find me obstinate if all you do is avoid all I have written and attack me directly - leaving the rest for me to try and figure out myself? If you think my comments are unreasonable, or unjustified, analyze and thoroughly point where and how using examples - dont attack me because that leaves me further in the dark of your objection and more annoyed.

 

Um.. I dont assume that - there DOES need to be a justification for sovereignty, else its just mindless slavery as I describe.

Its not the relationship I have a problem with - its the expansion of the relationship into a reason for those who have no relationship to believe why God is moral or why they should follow him.

You are conflating reality with social concepts. What you are incorrectly attributing to god is, well let me explain with your examples:
I am me, and I am what I am. But is my name mine or was it given to me? Was it created and bestowed or was I created with it? This is the same analysis I apply to God. Just because he is God, this doesn't explain why he is moral. You need to explain why he is moral. In the OP I already analyzed the fallacy of the reasoning you describe.

Sure, but I dont want him in my box, I want him in the box of reality.

LOL

I agree.

By saying this you are saying there is no reason to follow God and their is nothing that makes God moral - only the individual's perception/belief and blinding faith.

 

YAWN.

Thanks for more sactimony.

#1 - I am not going to question your sex life, if you want me to call you abstinant .... well, good luck.

#2 - I am questioning your entire schtick and utter inability to defend your nature crusade and constant inability to maintain standard to have an objective disagreement.

LIke a petulant child, rather than an informed and armed debator, you simply deny doing it by claiming you have agreed on a few points - well, three posters, myself, Prospect, and Fellicity, all took issue with you deriding us as slaves, and a warped intellectual display of what you think our position is.

To be blunt MDF, I read your arguementation on this one, and, this is not a joke, I think you were smoking maraijuana when you arrived at this 'truth'. Its rambling, incoherent, and utterly devoid of what I have repeatedly asked you for:

OBJECTIVE STANDARDS. There has to be a measure of comparison, but you are not comparing at all - you are telling Christians that they are wrong and rejecting every explanation they give you.

Why should you be treated with respect when you show none? (A few kind words do not make up for calling people slaves and running roughshod over explanations with pretncious BS). Why should you be treated as an expert on anything? What validity do you opinions have?

Why are you always the questioner? Never the answerer, and certainly not the defender of a position.

Its a baseball game to you - and its about your pride. You are not listening to anyone talk about their faith - you are looking only to justify your own.

Unlike you MDF - I work with kids your age everyday. If you treat people like this, its going to cause you a lot of problems. Its really that simple.

 

I tried to temper your rage. Obviously this is impossible, whatever method I try.

LOL I spell checked obstinate to abstinent.

Where have I not defended my own position? Which post?

And none of your showed where my flaw was. LOL You didnt even try!

No, I am rejecting the reasoning of ALL religions - not just Christianity. Also you have yet to give ONE example of "rambling, incoherent" non-objective argumentation. Fact is you cant handle my questions - everything that questions your conception of reality is 'angry atheists attacking the poor, good old Christians' Why is it I can have these conversations with Christians friends and Christians on this forum and none of them ever get as emotionally hyped as you?

You came here and your first post was an ad hominem. Any points about respect you make were from that point on were totally hypcoritical.

If someone called me a slave (which they have) I dont call them 'pernicious' I call them wrong and challenge their view. This is the difference between us - you take everything personally.

Never said I had to be.

I already stated it. You have yet to refute it.

Got a question? Ask me. But dont ask me a leading question like 'Mega are you an idiot or a bastard'? I wont answer those kind of questions, which are seem quite attached to.

I cna assure you I have a very limited pride these days.

If this were the case, I would simply use ad hominem as you have.

God help them.

Hasn't so far. Actually amongst all the people I know, I'm called the 'the quite, polite one' As far as problems with aggression go, your s are readily apparent as we speak.

 

MDF - the only one in a rage is you, pentualent as ever that someone would challenge you.

Let's keep this simple:

#1 - Yoru nature bviews have been repeatedly challenged, you are not defending them - while claiming you are. Either you are btuse beyond imagination or simply dishonest.

#2 - three people challenged your contention that we are slaves (you know doing what you claim you would do - only now it makes other people enraged to do what you would do). You have no addressed ANY of their points.

Instead you have gone full Montey Python:



Its quite simple MDF, you are not being treated any differently by me than you are doing to several people on this thread.

Unlike you, I am actually doing what you say you would do, and confronting you about it.

LIke always, you whine a cry when confronted - defend your poistion like you claim? Hardly.

This is why I put you on the ignore list in the first place. It won't be long before you are back on it, but .... I figured other people should be afforded a warning prior to being exposed to these antics.

Your standards shift on a dime and you have no objectice basis: Five times I have asked for that. Five times you have failed.

 

Where have they been challenged and not defended? Which page or number of the post?

Where have I not addressed their points? Again tell which page and which post, I'll gladly go back.

What did you ask me? Please again give me the post number or page so I can reply. I may have not understood or saw your question.

 

faith to unfounded belief to a book, is slavery to a theology.

ie.... you have no choice, except to accept what another believed, not what god said.

proof: the compilation of the variety of books (different opinions) to create the bible.

Torah, to bible, to quran; an evolution of the same theology. The conservative of each layer just shares the submission to which version as rendered by which belief, yet all from the same 'god' (per se)

 

So is your slavery to insult. You and MDF are prisoners of your own anger.

 

Are you going to answer my simply questions for post numbers etc above or are you going to skip town at the apex of our talks - again?

 

The previous one. The one before that? The one before that? The one before that? My very first post in this thread?

Amaizing, you missed that, right since the beginning - but, if I point out as far back as .... the previous post, NOW you'll read it.

Just like you failed to read at least three sepearet posters taking issue with your assumptions (pointedly disagreeing with them actually) as well?

We got it super victim, no matter what you'll be right, and everyone else will be wrong. At some point they will be so wrong you will run to the mods and them them what a victim you are.

We got MDF, I for one and just wondering how why you think this behavior is a display of intellect?



Once again, see if you can spell it out: WHAT IS THE BASIS OF COMPARISON, THE STANDARDS, YOU ARE USING TO JUDGE THESE THINGS?

Otherwise its ust atheist baseball - but you've never seen that before? Short term memory problems? Now I wonder what causes that?

 

When you start answering questions, maybe.



Didn't I just say you have a problem answering questions - six times now? But demand everyone else answer whatever your percieved question is?

When are you going to apply some OBJECTIVE standards? Seven times now.

 

Given I did reply to all these, perhaps you should select some specific points for me to address.

Perhaps you should write out the point, by itself, here. I probably missed it, what with all the ad hominem and what not.

Where are they?

Haven't seen this one.

Oh that's an easy question - because ALL ethics must be based on some objective and reasonable basis that is open to all for inspection, analysis and logically, adoption. Surely you dont disagree?

Correct.

No I find it hard to answer questions when they are surrounded by personal attacks. If you could simply state your questions like this I could answer them far more efficiently.

 

Well I did, so could you give it a crack now?

Lame.

Here's one that is funnier, and best describes you at this point:

Again I attempt to answer every question. If you come here you should address the OP before anything else - some you seem incapable of.

...?...Um the answer to this was provided in response to your first comment - I have always had objective and EQUAL standards. Now go and put me on ignore list and have a cry LOL.

 

So you objective standards the allow a equal comparison are .... the claim that you have used objective standards .... ALWAYS!

That has got to be one of the dumbest things I have ever seen.

So, something that reduces violence? Increases cooperation? Some basis of comparison that would allow us to say objectively whether something is good or bad in a side by side comparison? Is now just a vapid claim to hand waived standards?

Well, this thread's dead, can't even get a straight answer out of Mr. Obtuse.

 

In a sense this appears to be what we have. The illusion of cause-and-effect is apparently a product of the cancelling out of non-deterministic wave interactions.

If you understand the answer I just gave you, then you should see how your initial impression that my comments are narrow is not correct.

 

Again, do you even know what you're quoting? The one being oppressed in this scene is objecting to the divine right of kings and by extension divine fiat itself. No one voted for the king and no one voted for God, thus no king nor God has a right to claim rulership of anyone.

 

Defining good and bad is a real problem. But appealing to divine fiat doens't solve the problem. It merely ignores the problem.

 

your posting is what insults you (and your whole lineage)

the only thing that makes me angry is that as a life, you waste oxygen

 

i wanted to keep your post and my post close so anyone can see how you react when in dialogue

 

funny isnt it?