one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
Welcome to Islam!
The concepts of God introduced by Islam and the Protestants (and their Sola Scriptura) are so awful that atheism is the only logical conclusion to them.
Catholicism is the only system that have logical internal consistency.
Interesting almost every (neo) atheist arguments always deals with the Sola Scriptura approach. Atheists quote Bible just like the Protestants.
one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
Evil is a human construct.
Evil is subjective? A social construct?
Why we build prisons then? Or why we have judges?
How is possible to create a civilization with this idea of "evil is just an opinion"?
Do you accept you and your family being killed just because some random guy thinks is OK in his mind to do some killing?
one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
LoveUniHateExams3 minutes agoBTW no other species have consciousness at all - are you sure?
Please explain how you know this.
Are you saying to me that you lunch every day a conscious being just like you?
I think humans in your menu is just fine.
one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
The secular definition you're using.
Explain to me in a scientific way why humans are the only specie to perceive evil.
Tell me about the evolutionary mechanisms involved in this unique feature in humans.
What exactly is the evolutionary advantage of perceiving evil?
If possible show me "fossils" or traces in the minds of other species of animals that evolved to our consciousness.
one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
Cofty
Why humans evolved to perceive evil at all?
We are the only specie to perceive evil, justice, mortality, etc.
BTW no other species have consciousness at all...
one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
fukitol3 hours agoHowever, if the source of all morality is from God and is not something outside and independent of God then objective morality does not exist, since it is only a reflection of Gods divine commands. It would mean morality is arbitrary and that might is right after all, as Satan claimed.
It's an intractable dilemma
What's the problem to a Christian if morality comes from directly from God's nature (as opposed from His will or intellect as you put as "divine command"). I don't see any dilemma in this.
To understand Christianity you must understand at least the concepts of nature, intellect and will in Christianity.
not all beliefs are worthy of respect, but when we read a book of fiction in my mind it's easier to travel outside ourselves and our absolute moral standards.
fiction allows our imagination to be free.
i haven't read " fifty shades of grey" but i read " romeo and juliet" at school,and juliet was 13, romeo i believe was supposedly around 18 or 19.
Good point. If there's no absolute moral standards our standards are just random mental constructs and we could be able to create any standard.
This is not the case even in fiction.
okay i was thinking about it.
and it is a transhumanist argument and nothing new, i do realise that before anyone points it out.
but it struck me afresh today that the resurrection must happen.. firstly, to state the obvious, a rational materialist conception of reality seems to exclude resurrection.
okay i was thinking about it.
and it is a transhumanist argument and nothing new, i do realise that before anyone points it out.
but it struck me afresh today that the resurrection must happen.. firstly, to state the obvious, a rational materialist conception of reality seems to exclude resurrection.
Things like laminar flow makes me think about the possibilities of past scanning.
okay i was thinking about it.
and it is a transhumanist argument and nothing new, i do realise that before anyone points it out.
but it struck me afresh today that the resurrection must happen.. firstly, to state the obvious, a rational materialist conception of reality seems to exclude resurrection.
If we are purely ordinary matter so it's possible to scan the spacetime through quantum entanglement and reconstruct anything from past or future, including human bodies and brains in an atomic level.
This could be done by a super artificial intelligence.
What we know today makes resurrection something not physically impossible.
It's a matter of technology not theoretical possibility (based on current physical models).
I don't think time travel is possible but spacetime scanning is. So that's why we don't see time travelers around.
