Does God exist? Part 2 (1 Viewer)

[Atheist/agnostic slayer]

okay, sure, contemporary ethical models are fine. but you don't need religion to teach them in the slightest. you don't need the threat of hell from birth to motivate someone to not be a psychopath; humans are social creatures.
"as you see all these horrible, degenerate, heinous and morally reprehensible things occurring in actuality." and yet, haven't these things often been done in the name of god, e.g the crusades?

It's quite oxymoronic that you oppose the idea of religious preachings of ethical frameworks yet in the next line you attempt to make an argument from silence claiming that we have some sort of moral realism negating the idea of societal conditioning. Have you forgotten all of the attrocities within humanity that don't rely on religious ethics. If a society has arbitrary statutes that murder is a great thing on one day of the year then all people subsequently become conditioned to this state transitively. It's the most basic premise of relativistic morals. I answered already the actions of those individuals with should be indifferent to Christianity altogether. The actions of fallible individuals have no bearing upon what the doctrine of Christianity preaches. You don't project hate onto the religion, you detest the perpetrators of such heinous actions. Someone who does not practice Christianity is not a Christian. To practice Christianity means to believe and to follow what the bible teaches. If it does teach not to kill people and another persons murders someone, they are not Christian. Clearly if the literature is explicitly prohibiting the actions then those people are not true followers of Christianity or have you now redefined what it means to be a Christian.

overall: you can have all of these morals and ethics and think you're a good person because of your devotion to god. but do you truly make society/ the world a better place by doing so? the most you are doing, is not becoming a murderer. i'd like to think that's the bare minimum in a society.

I judge based upon the criteria of the most flawless ethical criterium to exist. I do not exhibit arrogance over others because we are all made equal. I could care less about your arbitrary predictions upon the plausibility of what religious and irreligious people do, your epistemology is quite seriously flawed. It's evident in the greater amount of crime and terrible things happening subsequently devolving into the degrading of society.

 

[Cathode_RT]

It's quite oxymoronic that you oppose the idea of religious preachings of ethical frameworks yet in the next line you attempt to make an argument from silence claiming that we have some sort of moral realism negating the idea of societal conditioning. Have you forgotten all of the attrocities within humanity that don't rely on religious ethics. If a society has arbitrary statutes that murder is a great thing on one day of the year then all people subsequently become conditioned to this state transitively. It's the most basic premise of relativistic morals. I answered already the actions of those individuals with should be indifferent to Christianity altogether. The actions of fallible individuals have no bearing upon what the doctrine of Christianity preaches. You don't project hate onto the religion, you detest the perpetrators of such heinous actions. Someone who does not practice Christianity is not a Christian. To practice Christianity means to believe and to follow what the bible teaches. If it does teach not to kill people and another persons murders someone, they are not Christian. Clearly if the literature is explicitly prohibiting the actions then those people are not true followers of Christianity or have you now redefined what it means to be a Christian.




I judge based upon the criteria of the most flawless ethical criterium to exist. I do not exhibit arrogance over others because we are all made equal. I could care less about your arbitrary predictions upon the plausibility of what religious and irreligious people do, your epistemology is quite seriously flawed. It's evident in the greater amount of crime and terrible things happening subsequently devolving into the degrading of society.

 

[Masaken]

It's quite oxymoronic that you oppose the idea of religious preachings of ethical frameworks yet in the next line you attempt to make an argument from silence claiming that we have some sort of moral realism negating the idea of societal conditioning. Have you forgotten all of the attrocities within humanity that don't rely on religious ethics. If a society has arbitrary statutes that murder is a great thing on one day of the year then all people subsequently become conditioned to this state transitively. It's the most basic premise of relativistic morals. I answered already the actions of those individuals with should be indifferent to Christianity altogether. The actions of fallible individuals have no bearing upon what the doctrine of Christianity preaches. You don't project hate onto the religion, you detest the perpetrators of such heinous actions. Someone who does not practice Christianity is not a Christian. To practice Christianity means to believe and to follow what the bible teaches. If it does teach not to kill people and another persons murders someone, they are not Christian. Clearly if the literature is explicitly prohibiting the actions then those people are not true followers of Christianity or have you now redefined what it means to be a Christian.




I judge based upon the criteria of the most flawless ethical criterium to exist. I do not exhibit arrogance over others because we are all made equal. I could care less about your arbitrary predictions upon the plausibility of what religious and irreligious people do, your epistemology is quite seriously flawed. It's evident in the greater amount of crime and terrible things happening subsequently devolving into the degrading of society.

as a catholic myself you need to stop your yapping you just woke up a thread that died ages ago, you're not going to persuade anyone here go back to reddit lad

 

[nsw..wollongong]

girl if someone responded like this to a Muslim then ppl would flip what makes it okay to respond like this to a Christian

as a catholic myself you need to stop your yapping you just woke up a thread that died ages ago, you're not going to persuade anyone here go back to reddit lad

i agree myself , no ones reading all that

 

[totally_screwed]

girl if someone responded like this to a Muslim then ppl would flip what makes it okay to respond like this to a Christian

i agree myself , no ones reading all that

it was more a reaction to the "" he speaks but I agree it wasn't a respectful react on my part

 

[nsw..wollongong]

it was more a reaction to the "" he speaks but I agree it wasn't a respectful react on my part

I kinda agree with u tho this is exactly what puts a negative view on religion, when ppl force their views onto others

 

[liamkk112]

imo just believe in whatever u want, who cares if someone else disagrees in ur belief, at the end of the day it's their choice. if u value religion, and it makes u feel at peace with urself or happy or whatever, then go for it, but slamming ur belief down someone else's throat who clearly doesn't want it doesn't give u any value.

 

[Atheist/agnostic slayer]

okay I vaguely understand your unnecessarily conflated language but not really, you're saying one being subsists within three persons? what's the "being" - God? and the three persons would be also God? and also Jesus and the spirit

doesn't God only need one set of qualities - the divine ones

The being is God yes, simply the divine or as I put it, essential properties. To say a multiplicity of beings would infer multiple Gods. This is not the case since I already outlined the three modes of supposition of each person of the trinity. Tritheism would only follow if the three modes of supposition were not distinct and in actuality would make the essence or essential properties distinct within each person within the trinity.

 

[Cathode_RT]

The being is God yes, simply the divine or as I put it, essential properties. To say a multiplicity of beings would infer multiple Gods. This is not the case since I already outlined the three modes of supposition of each person of the trinity. Tritheism would only follow if the three modes of supposition were not distinct and in actuality would make the essence or essential properties distinct within each person within the trinity.

I have a question

 

[Atheist/agnostic slayer]

I kinda agree with u tho this is exactly what puts a negative view on religion, when ppl force their views onto others

I wasn't 'forcing' my views onto anyone. Someone made a positive claim, I refuted it. I can recite multiple verses which actually support my idea of confuting to the truth in which falsehood deserves no amplification nor medium. Are you saying now that I shouldn't defend a theistic worldview and let people throw baseless assertions, which in all honesty, retorts prejudicial discourse.

 

[Atheist/agnostic slayer]

I have a question

Go ahead. Ask away.

 

[Cathode_RT]

Go ahead. Ask away.

is this real

 

[totally_screwed]

I kinda agree with u tho this is exactly what puts a negative view on religion, when ppl force their views onto others

word

 

[Atheist/agnostic slayer]

is this real
View attachment 42391

No.

 

[Atheist/agnostic slayer]

is this real
View attachment 42391

Can someone at least warn this person for being extremely disrespectful for the last 24 hours in this thread, It's highly offensive and impious.