you said you are being honest with yourself in that you lack a belief in god, but to say their is no god is no different than one saying there is one.
athiestism is no different from any other religion to me, b/c you're betting on no god while christians are betting on god.
if you want to be honest with yourself, shouldn't you admit that you do not know.
you can say you believe there is no god, but no one can truely say there is or isn't one, can they??
Being honnest with myself is saying I have not run into any convincing evidence that would allow me to entertain the idea of a god truly existing any more then a small child entertains the idea that santa clause exists. I'm not betting on anything. I'm just being honnest.
Now its possible that there could be a god and I haven't run into the evidence yet. but until I do I'm not going to pretend its out there, especially seeing that if this god does exist he can bring this evidence to me, if he is really interested in wanting me to believe in him. To me, believing "just in case" is synonimous to believing in santa clause just in case I don't get presents on christmas.
I think you are missing the point and beginning to beg the question here. The point is deep down inside you know Rape, Child abuse, atrocities like the holocaust are Objectively wrong
do you expect a small child who has never been told rape is wrong that it is wrong? This deep down inside thing, only works for those who have thought about it or have been told about it. There are several countries in this world where they don't think rape is wrong and treat women like animals.
I can say torturing babies, the Holocaust, Rape ect. are ABSOLUTELY WRONG NO MATTER WHAT ANYONE THINKS, WHETHER THEY AGREE OR NOT but you cant say the same. If you were there in Germany, you could have watched the slaughter and say MY OPINION says thats wrong and the German would reply MY OPINION says its right.
even if I did say it was absolutely wrong, there is nothing I could do to change the situation. I mean lets say for your god for instance says you should murder homosexuals. Now even if it is your opinion that that is wrong, that does not matter, because your god thinks its right.
What i say is you simply cannot say that the Holocaust was OBJECTIVELY WRONG, you would have no basis and colapse under the 3 point premise i just posted before.
so what if its not objectively wrong? The majority of people can easily see for themselves its subjectively wrong. and those people know why its subjectively wrong which makes it much stronger then "its wrong because god says its wrong"
It is pleasant to get along with people. It is not nice to be raped, therefor, it is good for a culture to disaprove of this behavior. The "God says it's wrong" aproach, seems to be just another example of social control. "God says kill" is another one.
By the way, what interest does God have with my foreskin? Just kinda want to know.
1. doesn't really follow because this goes under the presupposition that this god made people and then cares about what these people do. There is no reason for him to do this because as a god he is not effected by anything humans do
what you call objective morals seems more to be the subjective morals that the majority decides on. There are those who say the holocaust is a good thing (I personally don't think so) but the point is its not completly objective.
3. sorry but this hasn't proven anything at all, and is based on a number of presuppositions, saying that an all powerful being must be connected to morality, which easily may not be the case.
which god? Prove that this god exists? and prove that this god is love. I should ask you to define love itself first as well, but seeing as you like to avoid giving definitions, I'm pretty sure you won't.
Numbers 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Actually, even if the Bible was a friendly book that tried to unite people, it wouldn't prove anything. The idea of a personal God is so reaching. The idea that he has chosen people is over the top. It smells so much like the myths that have existed in all cultures before during, and after the Bible was written.
To use the Bible to disprove the Bible, may be giving it more respect than it deserves. I don't think that anyone needs to use the Greek myths to disprove them. It is just too obvious.
"Nazi?" Never said such a thing. Im saying that with subjective morals you cant say the Nazi were TRULLY WRONG but merely subjectively wrong... Read it again, my claim is that no matter how the outcome, the holocaust was ABSOLUTELY OBJECTIVELY WRONG! You however cannot say the same from the athiestic approach!
Yes they did. Read Mein Kampf. its all in there. So are you saying that a majority of atheists don't find the holocaust to be a big tragedy and something that is wrong? I think its pretty obvious why its wrong morally. Almost whipping out an entire race of people is not good to encourage passing on genes to future generations. Your right. atheists are not a unified group that can tell you absolutely what is right and what is wrong. We don't need that because we can figure it out on our own.
I never said just because one is or claims to be a theist will live up to the Objective bar of Morals that are set. You cannot judge a philosophy by its abuse. The Crusades for example were a complete abusal of the theistic philosophy. Jesus never taught violence but rather love, and doing good to those that harm you, blessing those that curse you...
However what if there is an very serrious flaw in that morality. How would you fix it? You can't if you believe its objective and its by god. Therefore if god commanded you to do something attrocious (such as kill homosexuals) then you couldn't question it, otherwise it wouldn't be objective.
What if the Nazi's won WW2 and now as a society we are persuaded to believe that genocide is right? Since the society agrees on something does that make it right? NO. Even if the Nazi's won and convinced the world genocide were the way to go...it wouldnt make it moraly correct. IT WILL ALWAYS REMAIN OBJECTIVELY WRONG.
besides hitler believed that what he was doing was commanded to him by god. He mentions favorably of this in Mein Kampf several times. So in that situation I could see that subjective morality would be necissary to bring about a change if thats what happened. Hitler was acting as if his morality was objective, and thats why nobody would be allowed to question it.
I would definately have to say that God is no fool and He knows a man heart, if it is true or not. If we can sift out the obsurdity of the killing spree repentence im sure God can too.
thats not what god said in the bible. Remember the repentent thief crucified next to jesus? His repentence was genuine but that didn't mean he wasn't the criminal that he is. So it doesn't really help make people more moral at all.
Your point is that you and i have morals. Yes. The theist has an objective basis for those morals though, the atheist does not. K9 it is important we have objective morals rather than subjective otherwise we could never say that the Holocaust was objectively WRONG, nor RAPE, TORTURING HELPLESS BABIES, ECT.
well you have to question what is right or wrong. You can find perfectly logical and rational reasons why rape, torturing babies is wrong, etc. We can decide as a society what is write or wrong. and if someone disagrees then we can ask why and try to figure it out and find whats best for society.
besides if the christian god existed, I could literally go on a killing spree, then turn myself into the police, an hour before I am scheduled to be executed ask jesus for forgiveness and accept him and I'll go to heaven. How is that conductive to morality and a better society?
Honestly before you throw a blind comment back out...Think it through, look up William Lane Craig "Objective Morals" give it an honest look and consideration. Give it some reflection and let me know if you find his argument c
I don't really see the problem here at all. To me if you just said "god told us not to do this and therefore we arn't going to do it" a part of me is always going to be curious about it. However giving me an explanation at leasts gives me a reason to follow it.
Now dont mistake what i am saying as: Atheist cant or dont have morals, i know many that do. What I am saying however and this is important: Atheist have no basis for Objective Morals.
But if we can show why things are immoral do we really need objective morals? We have both come to the exact same conclusion that raping a woman is wrong, but its obvious that god is not needed to reach this conclusion.
I mean what does it matter if the morality is subjective or objective? the desired result is that we don't have people raping women. So far I'm not raping any women and you arn't either. So obviously its working on some level.
Heres the problem buddy. If we are merely random by-products of evolution then there is no basis for morality. It is just mere opinions and though raping a women may not be socially adventageous or taboo it does nothing to prove that it is actually wrong. On the atheistic view there is nothing REALLY wrong with raping someone
how does being a product of evolution take away the need for morality? and raping a woman is more then just social taboo, its detrimental to the continuance of the human race, and thats what makes it immoral. Atheisism does not comment on morality because atheism is a lack of belief in a god and thats it. Morals, personal philosophy, and stuff like that are all up for grabs. Being an atheist says nothing about ones personal morality.
keep in mind that theism and evolution are not exclusive to one another. There are a good number of christians who accept the theory of evolution as a scientific theory and fact and still believe in their god. It seems to me that those people still have a very good basis for morality.
It is detrimental to society because if you rape a woman, she probably will have a phobia of men, which could have a lasting effect. If she has this phobia then it will be impossible for her to become intimate with another male, which would mean she would never reproduce. Which means her genetic information will not be passed on to the next generation, thus halting any possible evolutionary advantage.
and if she does get pregnant through the rape, the child will not have the love of a normal mother, since she did not choose to have that child, which is also a disadvantage to the child as well. These are reasons why rape is immoral and you don't need to invoke a god to understand that.
This is a good exapmle of what I have been trying to tell people. Some people who have been raised christian need to stay a christian! When you believe that we get our morals from the bible or god... then you remove god from your reality... you remove your morals because you have fused them into the same file in your brain. This is dangerous.
This does not prove a god exists. All it proves is that morality comes from people who want what is best for our society, for the survival of the human race.
raping a woman is immoral because it causes psychological, physical, and emotional problems for women. Not to mention it may make her pregnant which would be burden she might not be ready for, or her husband might not be prepared for. In other words, its not beneficial for the survival of the human race.
now I can't tell you if that is binding for all cultures or all people, because some people may feel that women are nothing but tools that are infererior to men. However I can tell you that I think raping a woman is wrong for the reasons I mentioned above. Now unless they can back up their views as to why women are inferior I wouldn't take much heed to their view of morality.
They wouldnt have to back up their view of raping a woman or torturing babies to you because you just said it's RELATIVE!!!! Thats sad K9. You can give your point of view all day long and say you personally THINK its wrong. You cant tell a person that they are ABSOLUTELY wrong. Its not a matter of the rapist convincing you to make it ok, its ok because you cant say that it's absolutely wrong!!!!
me thinking its wrong is keeping me from raping women and torturing babies isn't it? I can't make everyone think the same way I do and nor do I want to. I'm only accountable for what I do, just as nobody is accountable for what you do but yourself. I think its better to have reasons for it being wrong other then "god said its wrong so don't do it" anyone can take advantage of that system.
Seems like you are just circling around the question. It is a very simple question that does not need much explanation. DO YOU BELIEVE RAPING A WOMAN IS EVIL? YES OR NO. You can give your own defintion
I am not circling the question. the problem is you are using very subjective terms. If you ask 50 different people what evil is you will get about 50 different answers. If I don't know what your talking about in regards to good or evil then how can I answer the question?
but since you don't want to define what good or evil is. I will say that I think raping women is morally wrong. Because it does harm to the woman and others who may be associated to that woman.
I believe raping women and torturing children to be morally wrong, but that isn't a definition for evil. Thats simply examples. I need a definition please
yes but because both of them are making unprovable statements there is no way for me to determine which one is right and which one is wrong, which turns this idea of finding out who god is into a guessing game.
He does give evidence for His existence,but not so overwhelming of evidence that it is 100 percent undeniable, that would force you to love rather than choose to love.
its not even 90 or even 70 percent undeniable. When I hear the christian idea of a god it generally all falls apart under the most minute skeptical inquiry
It is good that you are searching for evidence, i commend you on that. I once did not believe and tried to disprove the existence of God as best i could and became a believer out of the evidence I uncovered. Your right about the contradiction between Islam and Christianity. They both claim exclusivity, either they are both wrong or they are both right..Your tremendesly WRONG however by saying "they both have the same evidence"
As you can not disprove God and leave the possibility for Him to be real open then why would you bet your eternity on Him not being real? Are you that sure??? Is it really that worth it??? Or is it more attractive possibly to believe that there is no God and no consquences for what you do?
if this god of yours is real and he really does love me and cares about my eternity, then he will prove himself to me. If he refuses to do this then even if he does exist and there is an afterlife he does not care about me. Why would I want to spend eternity next to someone who doesn't care about me?
Except that I do have very real consequences for what I do on earth that affect my life that I already know exists. I am not trying to "escape consequences" mearly I am being honnest with myself. If I wanted to escape consequences, I would believe there is no hell but there is a heaven and that I am going to that heaven. By being honnest with myself there is no everlasting consequence and by the same token there is no everlasting reward either.
Also by your logic I would also be avoiding consequences by just believing in a god. if a god exists then he isn't dumb, he would know I am just believing so I can go to heaven and nothing else. That is why evidence and proof are so important to me on this matter.
Lastly the Christian religion holds that I must accept Jesus as my lord and savior and worship him as god. However, Islam clearly states that "there is no god but allah and muhammad is his prophet." Meaning that by the christian religion I am to worship jesus or go to hell, or by the Islam religion if I worship Jesus I go to hell. both have the same evidence for both religions.
which means that I can't tell which one is correct and which one is false and if I get the wrong one I am still suffering for consequences no matter what kind of person I am. I would be suffering simply because I made the wrong guess.
you said you are being honest with yourself in that you lack a belief in god, but to say their is no god is no different than one saying there is one.
athiestism is no different from any other religion to me, b/c you're betting on no god while christians are betting on god.
if you want to be honest with yourself, shouldn't you admit that you do not know.
you can say you believe there is no god, but no one can truely say there is or isn't one, can they??
stardaisy23 3 years ago
Being honnest with myself is saying I have not run into any convincing evidence that would allow me to entertain the idea of a god truly existing any more then a small child entertains the idea that santa clause exists. I'm not betting on anything. I'm just being honnest.
k9lionheart 3 years ago
Now its possible that there could be a god and I haven't run into the evidence yet. but until I do I'm not going to pretend its out there, especially seeing that if this god does exist he can bring this evidence to me, if he is really interested in wanting me to believe in him. To me, believing "just in case" is synonimous to believing in santa clause just in case I don't get presents on christmas.
k9lionheart 3 years ago
I think you are missing the point and beginning to beg the question here. The point is deep down inside you know Rape, Child abuse, atrocities like the holocaust are Objectively wrong
rationalresponder 4 years ago
do you expect a small child who has never been told rape is wrong that it is wrong? This deep down inside thing, only works for those who have thought about it or have been told about it. There are several countries in this world where they don't think rape is wrong and treat women like animals.
k9lionheart 4 years ago
I can say torturing babies, the Holocaust, Rape ect. are ABSOLUTELY WRONG NO MATTER WHAT ANYONE THINKS, WHETHER THEY AGREE OR NOT but you cant say the same. If you were there in Germany, you could have watched the slaughter and say MY OPINION says thats wrong and the German would reply MY OPINION says its right.
rationalresponder 4 years ago
even if I did say it was absolutely wrong, there is nothing I could do to change the situation. I mean lets say for your god for instance says you should murder homosexuals. Now even if it is your opinion that that is wrong, that does not matter, because your god thinks its right.
k9lionheart 4 years ago
What i say is you simply cannot say that the Holocaust was OBJECTIVELY WRONG, you would have no basis and colapse under the 3 point premise i just posted before.
rationalresponder 4 years ago
so what if its not objectively wrong? The majority of people can easily see for themselves its subjectively wrong. and those people know why its subjectively wrong which makes it much stronger then "its wrong because god says its wrong"
k9lionheart 4 years ago
The Bible is morally offensive to me.
It is pleasant to get along with people. It is not nice to be raped, therefor, it is good for a culture to disaprove of this behavior. The "God says it's wrong" aproach, seems to be just another example of social control. "God says kill" is another one.
By the way, what interest does God have with my foreskin? Just kinda want to know.
carloz1 4 years ago
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2. Objective moral values do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.
rationalresponder 4 years ago
1. doesn't really follow because this goes under the presupposition that this god made people and then cares about what these people do. There is no reason for him to do this because as a god he is not effected by anything humans do
k9lionheart 4 years ago
what you call objective morals seems more to be the subjective morals that the majority decides on. There are those who say the holocaust is a good thing (I personally don't think so) but the point is its not completly objective.
k9lionheart 4 years ago
3. sorry but this hasn't proven anything at all, and is based on a number of presuppositions, saying that an all powerful being must be connected to morality, which easily may not be the case.
k9lionheart 4 years ago
God is love.
rationalresponder 4 years ago
which god? Prove that this god exists? and prove that this god is love. I should ask you to define love itself first as well, but seeing as you like to avoid giving definitions, I'm pretty sure you won't.
k9lionheart 4 years ago
Numbers 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
carloz1 4 years ago
Actually, even if the Bible was a friendly book that tried to unite people, it wouldn't prove anything. The idea of a personal God is so reaching. The idea that he has chosen people is over the top. It smells so much like the myths that have existed in all cultures before during, and after the Bible was written.
carloz1 4 years ago
To use the Bible to disprove the Bible, may be giving it more respect than it deserves. I don't think that anyone needs to use the Greek myths to disprove them. It is just too obvious.
carloz1 4 years ago
"Nazi?" Never said such a thing. Im saying that with subjective morals you cant say the Nazi were TRULLY WRONG but merely subjectively wrong... Read it again, my claim is that no matter how the outcome, the holocaust was ABSOLUTELY OBJECTIVELY WRONG! You however cannot say the same from the athiestic approach!
rationalresponder 4 years ago
Yes they did. Read Mein Kampf. its all in there. So are you saying that a majority of atheists don't find the holocaust to be a big tragedy and something that is wrong? I think its pretty obvious why its wrong morally. Almost whipping out an entire race of people is not good to encourage passing on genes to future generations. Your right. atheists are not a unified group that can tell you absolutely what is right and what is wrong. We don't need that because we can figure it out on our own.
k9lionheart 4 years ago
I never said just because one is or claims to be a theist will live up to the Objective bar of Morals that are set. You cannot judge a philosophy by its abuse. The Crusades for example were a complete abusal of the theistic philosophy. Jesus never taught violence but rather love, and doing good to those that harm you, blessing those that curse you...
rationalresponder 4 years ago
However what if there is an very serrious flaw in that morality. How would you fix it? You can't if you believe its objective and its by god. Therefore if god commanded you to do something attrocious (such as kill homosexuals) then you couldn't question it, otherwise it wouldn't be objective.
k9lionheart 4 years ago
What if the Nazi's won WW2 and now as a society we are persuaded to believe that genocide is right? Since the society agrees on something does that make it right? NO. Even if the Nazi's won and convinced the world genocide were the way to go...it wouldnt make it moraly correct. IT WILL ALWAYS REMAIN OBJECTIVELY WRONG.
rationalresponder 4 years ago
you honnestly think everyone in the world thinks like a nazi?
k9lionheart 4 years ago
besides hitler believed that what he was doing was commanded to him by god. He mentions favorably of this in Mein Kampf several times. So in that situation I could see that subjective morality would be necissary to bring about a change if thats what happened. Hitler was acting as if his morality was objective, and thats why nobody would be allowed to question it.
k9lionheart 4 years ago
I would definately have to say that God is no fool and He knows a man heart, if it is true or not. If we can sift out the obsurdity of the killing spree repentence im sure God can too.
rationalresponder 4 years ago
thats not what god said in the bible. Remember the repentent thief crucified next to jesus? His repentence was genuine but that didn't mean he wasn't the criminal that he is. So it doesn't really help make people more moral at all.
k9lionheart 4 years ago
Your point is that you and i have morals. Yes. The theist has an objective basis for those morals though, the atheist does not. K9 it is important we have objective morals rather than subjective otherwise we could never say that the Holocaust was objectively WRONG, nor RAPE, TORTURING HELPLESS BABIES, ECT.
rationalresponder 4 years ago
well you have to question what is right or wrong. You can find perfectly logical and rational reasons why rape, torturing babies is wrong, etc. We can decide as a society what is write or wrong. and if someone disagrees then we can ask why and try to figure it out and find whats best for society.
k9lionheart 4 years ago
which is completly irrelevant because you havne't even defined morals or what evil is.
k9lionheart 4 years ago
compeling
rationalresponder 4 years ago
thank you
k9lionheart 4 years ago
besides if the christian god existed, I could literally go on a killing spree, then turn myself into the police, an hour before I am scheduled to be executed ask jesus for forgiveness and accept him and I'll go to heaven. How is that conductive to morality and a better society?
k9lionheart 4 years ago
Honestly before you throw a blind comment back out...Think it through, look up William Lane Craig "Objective Morals" give it an honest look and consideration. Give it some reflection and let me know if you find his argument c
rationalresponder 4 years ago
I don't really see the problem here at all. To me if you just said "god told us not to do this and therefore we arn't going to do it" a part of me is always going to be curious about it. However giving me an explanation at leasts gives me a reason to follow it.
k9lionheart 4 years ago
Now dont mistake what i am saying as: Atheist cant or dont have morals, i know many that do. What I am saying however and this is important: Atheist have no basis for Objective Morals.
rationalresponder 4 years ago
But if we can show why things are immoral do we really need objective morals? We have both come to the exact same conclusion that raping a woman is wrong, but its obvious that god is not needed to reach this conclusion.
k9lionheart 4 years ago
I mean what does it matter if the morality is subjective or objective? the desired result is that we don't have people raping women. So far I'm not raping any women and you arn't either. So obviously its working on some level.
k9lionheart 4 years ago
Heres the problem buddy. If we are merely random by-products of evolution then there is no basis for morality. It is just mere opinions and though raping a women may not be socially adventageous or taboo it does nothing to prove that it is actually wrong. On the atheistic view there is nothing REALLY wrong with raping someone
rationalresponder 4 years ago
how does being a product of evolution take away the need for morality? and raping a woman is more then just social taboo, its detrimental to the continuance of the human race, and thats what makes it immoral. Atheisism does not comment on morality because atheism is a lack of belief in a god and thats it. Morals, personal philosophy, and stuff like that are all up for grabs. Being an atheist says nothing about ones personal morality.
k9lionheart 4 years ago
keep in mind that theism and evolution are not exclusive to one another. There are a good number of christians who accept the theory of evolution as a scientific theory and fact and still believe in their god. It seems to me that those people still have a very good basis for morality.
k9lionheart 4 years ago
It is detrimental to society because if you rape a woman, she probably will have a phobia of men, which could have a lasting effect. If she has this phobia then it will be impossible for her to become intimate with another male, which would mean she would never reproduce. Which means her genetic information will not be passed on to the next generation, thus halting any possible evolutionary advantage.
k9lionheart 4 years ago
and if she does get pregnant through the rape, the child will not have the love of a normal mother, since she did not choose to have that child, which is also a disadvantage to the child as well. These are reasons why rape is immoral and you don't need to invoke a god to understand that.
k9lionheart 4 years ago
and I am not your buddy
k9lionheart 4 years ago
This is a good exapmle of what I have been trying to tell people. Some people who have been raised christian need to stay a christian! When you believe that we get our morals from the bible or god... then you remove god from your reality... you remove your morals because you have fused them into the same file in your brain. This is dangerous.
Djcandymann 4 years ago
such as raping a women is morally wrong
rationalresponder 4 years ago
Ok, well are you suggesting that there are certain morals that are valid and binding whether people believe them or not such as raping a women?
rationalresponder 4 years ago
This does not prove a god exists. All it proves is that morality comes from people who want what is best for our society, for the survival of the human race.
k9lionheart 4 years ago
and I am still waiting for your definition of evil.
k9lionheart 4 years ago
I may consider it immoral to do such things as far as I'm concerned, however that does not follow that everyone believes in the same thing.
k9lionheart 4 years ago
raping a woman is immoral because it causes psychological, physical, and emotional problems for women. Not to mention it may make her pregnant which would be burden she might not be ready for, or her husband might not be prepared for. In other words, its not beneficial for the survival of the human race.
k9lionheart 4 years ago
now I can't tell you if that is binding for all cultures or all people, because some people may feel that women are nothing but tools that are infererior to men. However I can tell you that I think raping a woman is wrong for the reasons I mentioned above. Now unless they can back up their views as to why women are inferior I wouldn't take much heed to their view of morality.
k9lionheart 4 years ago
They wouldnt have to back up their view of raping a woman or torturing babies to you because you just said it's RELATIVE!!!! Thats sad K9. You can give your point of view all day long and say you personally THINK its wrong. You cant tell a person that they are ABSOLUTELY wrong. Its not a matter of the rapist convincing you to make it ok, its ok because you cant say that it's absolutely wrong!!!!
rationalresponder 4 years ago
me thinking its wrong is keeping me from raping women and torturing babies isn't it? I can't make everyone think the same way I do and nor do I want to. I'm only accountable for what I do, just as nobody is accountable for what you do but yourself. I think its better to have reasons for it being wrong other then "god said its wrong so don't do it" anyone can take advantage of that system.
k9lionheart 4 years ago
However that does not mean that their morality is absolutely wrong. All it means is that it has no rational or logical basis.
k9lionheart 4 years ago
Seems like you are just circling around the question. It is a very simple question that does not need much explanation. DO YOU BELIEVE RAPING A WOMAN IS EVIL? YES OR NO. You can give your own defintion
rationalresponder 4 years ago
I am not circling the question. the problem is you are using very subjective terms. If you ask 50 different people what evil is you will get about 50 different answers. If I don't know what your talking about in regards to good or evil then how can I answer the question?
k9lionheart 4 years ago
but since you don't want to define what good or evil is. I will say that I think raping women is morally wrong. Because it does harm to the woman and others who may be associated to that woman.
k9lionheart 4 years ago
however until you define what evil is, then my answer to this question is irrelevant
k9lionheart 4 years ago
Ok, my definition of evil would be just as you put it "something that is morally wrong"
So i guess im asking now do you believe that there are things that are morally right and morally wrong?
rationalresponder 4 years ago
but now we have to define morals, or morality. I want you to give me your definition and not mine.
k9lionheart 4 years ago
replacing "evil" with "moraly wrong" does not constitute as a definition, because both terms are completly subjective.
k9lionheart 4 years ago
you may determine something is morally wrong in a completly different way then I would determine if something is morally wrong.
k9lionheart 4 years ago
do believe raping women, and torturing children would be evil?
rationalresponder 4 years ago
I believe raping women and torturing children to be morally wrong, but that isn't a definition for evil. Thats simply examples. I need a definition please
k9lionheart 4 years ago
"Islam and Christianity" I meant to put they are either:
BOTH WRONG,
ONE IS RIGHT
OR NEITHER ARE RIGHT
Just because they contradict each other doesnt make both of them wrong...one of them might have it right.
rationalresponder 4 years ago
yes but because both of them are making unprovable statements there is no way for me to determine which one is right and which one is wrong, which turns this idea of finding out who god is into a guessing game.
k9lionheart 4 years ago
He does give evidence for His existence,but not so overwhelming of evidence that it is 100 percent undeniable, that would force you to love rather than choose to love.
rationalresponder 4 years ago
its not even 90 or even 70 percent undeniable. When I hear the christian idea of a god it generally all falls apart under the most minute skeptical inquiry
k9lionheart 4 years ago
do you believe in good or evil?
rationalresponder 4 years ago
define good or evil please
k9lionheart 4 years ago
It is good that you are searching for evidence, i commend you on that. I once did not believe and tried to disprove the existence of God as best i could and became a believer out of the evidence I uncovered. Your right about the contradiction between Islam and Christianity. They both claim exclusivity, either they are both wrong or they are both right..Your tremendesly WRONG however by saying "they both have the same evidence"
rationalresponder 4 years ago
they both use the same amount of faith to confirm their beliefs.
k9lionheart 4 years ago
and since you can't prove god exists, then faith is really all either religion has.
k9lionheart 4 years ago
As you can not disprove God and leave the possibility for Him to be real open then why would you bet your eternity on Him not being real? Are you that sure??? Is it really that worth it??? Or is it more attractive possibly to believe that there is no God and no consquences for what you do?
rationalresponder 4 years ago
if this god of yours is real and he really does love me and cares about my eternity, then he will prove himself to me. If he refuses to do this then even if he does exist and there is an afterlife he does not care about me. Why would I want to spend eternity next to someone who doesn't care about me?
k9lionheart 4 years ago
Except that I do have very real consequences for what I do on earth that affect my life that I already know exists. I am not trying to "escape consequences" mearly I am being honnest with myself. If I wanted to escape consequences, I would believe there is no hell but there is a heaven and that I am going to that heaven. By being honnest with myself there is no everlasting consequence and by the same token there is no everlasting reward either.
k9lionheart 4 years ago
Also by your logic I would also be avoiding consequences by just believing in a god. if a god exists then he isn't dumb, he would know I am just believing so I can go to heaven and nothing else. That is why evidence and proof are so important to me on this matter.
k9lionheart 4 years ago
Lastly the Christian religion holds that I must accept Jesus as my lord and savior and worship him as god. However, Islam clearly states that "there is no god but allah and muhammad is his prophet." Meaning that by the christian religion I am to worship jesus or go to hell, or by the Islam religion if I worship Jesus I go to hell. both have the same evidence for both religions.
k9lionheart 4 years ago
which means that I can't tell which one is correct and which one is false and if I get the wrong one I am still suffering for consequences no matter what kind of person I am. I would be suffering simply because I made the wrong guess.
k9lionheart 4 years ago