by looter 251 Replies latest jw friends
All I will say is that a lot of you guys have misunderstood my original post
It's 1,384 words long. Many of the sentences are impossible to decipher due to your grammar.
I'm sure with a bit of effort you could have made your point in 100 words.
Are you saying that atheists have no basis for morality? If not what are you saying?
No, not at all. Please read the last paraphrase of my original post because I'm not sure that you understand my general idea. You seem to confuse it with me believing atheists have "no basis for morality". That's not what I'm saying at all. Matter of fact, what I'm trying to say doesn't really involve atheists so much as it does the fundamentals of decency.
Please read the last paraphrase of my original post
What paraphrase?
Why not sum up your main point in a few words? If not then I have lost interest. It's a pity because I would enjoy a conversation about godless morality.
Are you saying that conscience is evidence for god?
Like the last few portions of my comments. Preferably where it says 'Furthermore, the argument assumes...' "Why not sum up your main point in a few words?" Here's where the real difficult part comes. It's really tough to explain what I really mean in just a few words without someone confusing it. That was the sole reason why my original post was so long because I wanted to explain it in detail instead of just coming out to say just my statement. That would make it look worse. And haha to your last question. No absolutely not. I'm saying that conscience and morals can be correlated to a God within ourselves.
looter - It's possible to believe in God and still own up to everything you do as a person. Matter of fact, that's what you could argue Jesus taught his disciples.
Please don't go into an area you have no idea about. Jesus did not teach his disciples that you can be a good person without belief in God. He taught that if you don't believe in God, you will die in some sort of imminent apocalypse. And, no, this is not what I'm just saying; this is a dominant scholarly view about the historical Jesus.
By the way, I'm also having difficulties with understanding your points, especially because you keep contradicting yourself. Please write one thesis statement as you have probably been taught to do in high school, and build your body paragraph(s) accordingly.
looter - Here's where the real difficult part comes. It's really tough to explain what I really mean in just a few words without someone confusing it.
This means that you don't understand yourself either.
looter - That was the sole reason why my original post was so long because I wanted to explain it in detail instead of just coming out to say just my statement.
That was a bad idea. Just think of a thesis statement and build your paragraphs accordingly. High-school method of writing essays might make you sound more intelligible.
looter - And haha to your [cofty's] last question. No absolutely not. I'm saying that conscience and morals can be correlated to a God within ourselves.
Well, you do sound as if you were trying to say that conscience is evidence for God. You did say that God is some sort of inner value of a person...
That was the sole reason why my original post was so long because I wanted to explain it in detail
Then you have failed and I am finished.
Unless you explain your point succinctly your efforts so far will be in vain.
If you understood what your point is you would have no problem explaining it.
You have completely misread what I said, Saename. That statement from me was not about a disbelief in God, it was about belief in God. Someone was inherently conveying that you cannot be a high-minded individual with an ideology in a supreme being and I was saying you can and that Jesus attested to that as well. So not sure how you misunderstood that but if it was my fault, then I take the blame. I'm not necessarily "contradicting" myself so much as I'm trying to repel what people have mistaken about what I originally said.
looter, I reread that post, and yes, I misunderstood you. By the way, that "someone" was not "inherently conveying that you cannot be a high-minded individual with an ideology in a supreme being." That "someone" was simply saying that if you don't believe in god, then you are left with judging morality and ethics by consequences. He wasn't saying that people who believe in god don't do it; he was saying that people who don't believe in god do it.
By the way, you're being redundant. Too redundant. If I were grading you, I would admit that you are intelligent and wise as for your age, but exactly because of that, you are being too wordy. Possibly, you subconsciously want to show that you are more mature than most people in your age. (I've been there; it's rather natural...) For instance, you said,
Someone was inherently conveying that you cannot be a high-minded individual with an ideology in a supreme being and I was saying you can and that Jesus attested to that as well.
It's better to say this:
Someone wasinherently conveyingimplying that you cannot be a high-minded individualwith an ideology in a supreme beingif you believe in a supreme being . . .
