Unpopular Opinions You Hold

[Benguin]

2 minutes ago, RumbleFox said:

That for a society to flourish suffering must be kept to a minimum, a society with the least suffering is closer to ideal than one with lots. Human suffering is, on the whole, lessened by fewer acts such as murder, etc. Of course there may well be examples where murder is in fact ethical as we are nuanced beings and things are never black and white (as a very basic example of you killed a man to save 20 children, etc). 

 

On a more basic level, with all your philosophical floweryness and kind puzzles design to tie people up in semantics aside. Let’s get away from the “right and wrong” for a moment and may I ask you what proof you have for your god?  X 

That's all very well but in the model you have proposed, objective morality isnt justified. To be clear, objective morality is the idea that something is moral or immoral regardless of any opinion or societal standard. There is nothing there to explain why murdering babies is evil, this is not nuanced but a fundamental difference from the harmful to our survival notion you are positing. 

 

For the second part feel free to look over the last few pages, this whole debate started by me listing the evidences. 

[RumbleFox]

9 minutes ago, Benguin said:

This is a deflection in the debate. But if you are wandering I reccomend the late. Ravi Zacharias on this matter, he articulates it way better than I can. https://www.zachariastrust.org/does-the-bible-condone-slavery

How is it a deflection, you ere the one that raised slavery not me?  I enjoy a debate but your arguments have been a little dishonest so far. I have not, as yet, actually seen you answer a question?  X

[RumbleFox]

1 minute ago, Benguin said:

That's all very well but in the model you have proposed, objective morality isnt justified. To be clear, objective morality is the idea that something is moral or immoral regardless of any opinion or societal standard. There is nothing there to explain why murdering babies is evil, this is not nuanced but a fundamental difference from the harmful to our survival notion you are positing. 

 

For the second part feel free to look over the last few pages, this whole debate started by me listing the evidences. 

I have read all of your posts I cannot see one proof for a God?  Which is your best example.  I would honestly love to be given even one convincing argument for God.

 

With regards to morality, I don't think I want or believe in an absolute morality based on dogma?  I would rather have a morality that is reasoned, and discussed and thought out and continually improved? X

[Benguin]

2 minutes ago, RumbleFox said:

How is it a deflection, you ere the one that raised slavery not me?  I enjoy a debate but your arguments have been a little dishonest so far. I have not, as yet, actually seen you answer a question?  X

It's deflection because it seems you are implying that it's irnoic for me to say athiests can't ground morality when the bible itself condones immorality. This is not the case, the moral argument is a philosophical argument in dependant of Christianity, so arguing against it with Scripture is deflection. 

 

What question have I not answered? Of course with some stuff like the slavery question, there is a vast amount to it and I don't claim to be an expert so providing a link to someone who has spent the time setting this out and shares my view is a perfectly amicable way of dealing with it. Imo 

[Benguin]

1 minute ago, RumbleFox said:

I have read all of your posts I cannot see one proof for a God?  Which is your best example.  I would honestly love to be given even one convincing argument for God.

 

With regards to morality, I don't think I want or believe in an absolute morality based on dogma?  I would rather have a morality that is reasoned, and discussed and thought out and continually improved? X

 

In my opinion the best evidence for God, is through the sanctification and personal relationship with Christ, a believer has. I understand that this is not good evidence for a non believer though. 

 

I think the best other evidences are;

 

1. The cosmological argument

2. The teleological argument

3. The moral argument

4. The historical facts surrounding Jesus are best explained by the resurrection theory. 

[RumbleFox]

1 minute ago, Benguin said:

It's deflection because it seems you are implying that it's irnoic for me to say athiests can't ground morality when the bible itself condones immorality. This is not the case, the moral argument is a philosophical argument in dependant of Christianity, so arguing against it with Scripture is deflection. 

 

What question have I not answered? Of course with some stuff like the slavery question, there is a vast amount to it and I don't claim to be an expert so providing a link to someone who has spent the time setting this out and shares my view is a perfectly amicable way of dealing with it. Imo 

If you see that as a deflection then I apologise, it was not my intention but I will think harder before I respond from now on as I like to debate as genuinely and honestly as I can.  I will treat your points as a learning curve.  Maybe as a learning curve for yourself you might consider citing slavery as an ill which we are gladly rid of to be the best example to chose given it is condoned by the bible.  Maybe pick something the bible is clearer on to improve your argument or prevent people like me pointing the irony/hypocrisy.

 

I am never trying to offend or belittle your opinion by the way, I think religion is fascinating I just haven't ever seen anything which leads me to believe that it is true.  Of course, I would gladly change my mind if such evidence is put forward.  I think people get annoyed when they are told they cannot be moral without God which is why you have got a little bit of a backlash on here but it's all good, we are all adults.  X

[Benguin]

2 minutes ago, RumbleFox said:

If you see that as a deflection then I apologise, it was not my intention but I will think harder before I respond from now on as I like to debate as genuinely and honestly as I can.  I will treat your points as a learning curve.  Maybe as a learning curve for yourself you might consider citing slavery as an ill which we are gladly rid of to be the best example to chose given it is condoned by the bible.  Maybe pick something the bible is clearer on to improve your argument or prevent people like me pointing the irony/hypocrisy.

 

I am never trying to offend or belittle your opinion by the way, I think religion is fascinating I just haven't ever seen anything which leads me to believe that it is true.  Of course, I would gladly change my mind if such evidence is put forward.  I think people get annoyed when they are told they cannot be moral without God which is why you have got a little bit of a backlash on here but it's all good, we are all adults.  X

I understand that and agree with most. I would change the sentiment "people get annoyed when they are told they can't be moral without God" to "people get annoyed when they realise their actions and worldviews are incompatible" though. 

 

I'm glad you find it interesting, I would encourage you to keep looking into it. I was an athiest pretty much all of my twenties and was a regular debater against Christians throughout uni etc. My passion for atheism is what led to me discovering Jesus and I have no doubt it will happen with others too. 

 

I am now going to stop debating on here though as I don't want to continue to clog the thread up. Please PM though if people want to continue the chat and if people are genuinely interested am happy to point them to good sources etc. 

[RumbleFox]

15 minutes ago, Benguin said:

 

In my opinion the best evidence for God, is through the sanctification and personal relationship with Christ, a believer has. I understand that this is not good evidence for a non believer though. 

 

I think the best other evidences are;

 

1. The cosmological argument

2. The teleological argument

3. The moral argument

4. The historical facts surrounding Jesus are best explained by the resurrection theory. 

OK well as you say the personal relationship which is very real to you is not a good argument as, working in care as I do, I have met people with very real relationships with fairies and long dead celebrities so I understand the mind can play tricks.  I am not saying yours is just that, as you yourself rightly point out, it cannot be offered as proof.

 

As for your other "proofs"..... (By the way I am a layperson and not the brightest person in the world so my views may be wrong and if you can change them or point to where I have made mistakes then please do as I love to learn).......

 

1. The cosmological argument seems to contradict itself as far as I can see as if everything needs a creator then who created the creator?

2. Is that the one about the world looking like it must have a creator because of it's perfect design?  If so it also seems flawed as there are so many examples in nature of the design looking anything close to intelligent and evolution clearly offers a very very credible alternative?

3. The moral argument I just don't agree with as we have discussed.

4.  As I see it any "facts' about this are eye witness at best and anyone with even a cursory knowledge of law or human cognition knows that eye witness accounts are some of the least accurate and trustworthy.  I can see that a person called Jesus existed but "proof" he was the son of God?  Surely you cannot see any?

 

X

 

 

Edited 19 July 2020 by RumbleFox

[RumbleFox]

5 minutes ago, Benguin said:

I understand that and agree with most. I would change the sentiment "people get annoyed when they are told they can't be moral without God" to "people get annoyed when they realise their actions and worldviews are incompatible" though. 

 

I'm glad you find it interesting, I would encourage you to keep looking into it. I was an athiest pretty much all of my twenties and was a regular debater against Christians throughout uni etc. My passion for atheism is what led to me discovering Jesus and I have no doubt it will happen with others too. 

 

I am now going to stop debating on here though as I don't want to continue to clog the thread up. Please PM though if people want to continue the chat and if people are genuinely interested am happy to point them to good sources etc. 

I know you may not have meant it but that is one of the most patronising things I have ever read.  Could you not flip it and think about if it might also apply to yourself?  As far as I can see the worldview of believing in God seems to be incompatible with pretty much 99% of scientific and human knowledge?

 

Thank you, if I ever turn to Jesus I will thank you and we can enjoy eternity together.  Unless, of course, we opted for the wrong God then I'll be furious and have to get cross with you in Hell.

 

Don't stop debating please, it is interesting. X

Edited 19 July 2020 by RumbleFox

[Benguin]

2 minutes ago, RumbleFox said:

OK well as you say the personal relationship which is very real to you is not a good argument as, working in care as I do, I have met people with very real relationships with fairies and long dead celebrities so I understand the mind can play tricks.  I am not saying yours is just that, as you yourself rightly point out, it cannot be offered as proof.

 

As for your other "proofs"..... (By the way I am a layperson and not the brightest person in the world so my views may be wrong and if you can change them or point to where I have made mistakes then please do as I love to learn).......

 

1. The cosmological argument seems to contradict itself as far as I can see as if everything needs a creator then who created the creature?

2. Is that the one about the world looking like it must have a creator because of it's perfect design?  If so it also seems flaws as there are so many examples in nature of the design looking anything close to intelligent and evolution clearly offers a very very credible alternative?

3. The moral argument I just don't agree with as we have discussed.

4.  As I see it any "facts' about this are eye witness at best and anyone with even a cursory knowledge of law or human cognition knows that eye witness accounts are some of the least accurate and trustworthy.  I can see that a person called Jesus existed but "proof" he was the son of God?  Surely you cannot see any?

 

X

 

 

Okay one more response then 😊

 

1. The Christian worldview is that God is uncaused, Jesus says "Alpha and omega, first and last" We not believe in a created God. 

2. Yes kind of but the compelling part to this argument is the sheer probability required for life as we know it to exist. I think it's something like, if everyone in times square on NYE rolled a six on a dice first time. To me, that we overcame these odds is more absurd than the belief in God. 

3. Fair enough, let's park that one. 

4. Most of known History and most of the world's legal system is based on this, so if you can't take it as evidence, that's fair enough but not a common view. 

[RumbleFox]

Just now, Benguin said:

Okay one more response then 😊

 

1. The Christian worldview is that God is uncaused, Jesus says "Alpha and omega, first and last" We not believe in a created God. 

2. Yes kind of but the compelling part to this argument is the sheer probability required for life as we know it to exist. I think it's something like, if everyone in times square on NYE rolled a six on a dice first time. To me, that we overcame these odds is more absurd than the belief in God. 

3. Fair enough, let's park that one. 

4. Most of known History and most of the world's legal system is based on this, so if you can't take it as evidence, that's fair enough but not a common view. 

Thank you for your response.

 

1. That riddle of words says absolutely nothing in regards to the validity of God.  Also, using scripture to prove scripture just won't cut it surely?

2. When you consider the billions upon billions of planets in the Universe the probability of all things becomes almost 100%.  Life is very rare but there are enough planets to make it very abundant.  Morevover, we are only here to even contemplate our own miraculousness simply because we were lucky enough to inhabit a life bearing planet.

3. deal.

4. But how do you explain eye witness accounts of UFOs for example?  Are they as valid as the resurrection because thousands of people have "seen" them?

[The Bear]

Us existing isn't absurd in the slightest. The vastness of the universe means that no matter how small the odds if something can happen it will.

 

All it takes is the right conditions, a bit of stability, and time. We created all the building blocks for life in a jar in a cupboard years ago just with a few chemicals mixed together. 

 

We have no idea if it is a once in a universe thing or that life is all over the universe. Until we do we can't claim that life is miraculous. 

 

 

[Innovindil]

Why the hell has this somewhat decent thread been reduced to religious garbage.

[FoxesDeb]

To be fair to @Benguinhe's taken loads of flack, and like it or not he puts forward a really good argument for his beliefs. Fair play, I just wish I knew as much as him and could help him out a bit 

[RumbleFox]

3 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

To be fair to @Benguinhe's taken loads of flack, and like it or not he puts forward a really good argument for his beliefs. Fair play, I just wish I knew as much as him and could help him out a bit 

Fair play to his attitude certainly but I can’t see one good argument he’s made? It’s all word games, straw men and deflections as far as I can see? 

[Facecloth]

2 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

To be fair to @Benguinhe's taken loads of flack, and like it or not he puts forward a really good argument for his beliefs. Fair play, I just wish I knew as much as him and could help him out a bit 

I find him a bit patronising and insulting tbh, and coming off as morally superior. I was going to come back to it after the game, but Rumble got stuck in. But to say my morals aren't justified because i don't believe in god was a huge insult.

 

As Rumble said I prefer a society that can assess it morals, grow and improve, not one that's base them on a book written thousands of years ago.

[the fox]

1 hour ago, RumbleFox said:

I would honestly love to be given even one convincing argument for God.

 

1 hour ago, RumbleFox said:

 

1. The cosmological argument seems to contradict itself as far as I can see as if everything needs a creator then who created the creator?

I posted this a few pages back, Rumble.

 

"

the universe has a Creator. he is the un-caused cause because if he was caused by something, than what caused that something? and so on. we will be going back infinitely, and if the past is infinite, then we wouldn't have a present day because we are always stuck, going back infinitely. The creator is internal because if he was not, than it means that something caused that entity to exist, and if so, than what cause that something.... and just like that, we are stuck in going back in the past infinitely and that is what's called infinite regression.

 

now people will ask, is the Creator conscious or unconscious? and for that we only need to look at the universe. if the Creator is unconscious (operating automatically), than the universe should be eternal because if the actions of said entity are automatic, than the universe will also be eternal because that creator isn`t conscious and can~t decide when to create, it just does. (the universe isn`t eternal btw)"

[RumbleFox]

3 minutes ago, the fox said:

 

I posted this a few pages back, Rumble.

 

"

the universe has a Creator. he is the un-caused cause because if he was caused by something, than what caused that something? and so on. we will be going back infinitely, and if the past is infinite, then we wouldn't have a present day because we are always stuck, going back infinitely. The creator is internal because if he was not, than it means that something caused that entity to exist, and if so, than what cause that something.... and just like that, we are stuck in going back in the past infinitely and that is what's called infinite regression.

 

now people will ask, is the Creator conscious or unconscious? and for that we only need to look at the universe. if the Creator is unconscious (operating automatically), than the universe should be eternal because if the actions of said entity are automatic, than the universe will also be eternal because that creator isn`t conscious and can~t decide when to create, it just does. (the universe isn`t eternal btw)"

Thank you, I did see that but thanks again. I understand your aims but I just cannot see anything in post that that would constitute “proof” in any other field?  I am genuinely not trying to be obtuse but it’s just linguistic tricks and riddles? I honestly would love some genuine “proof” but, as yet I have seen none? X 

Edited 19 July 2020 by RumbleFox

[the fox]

2 minutes ago, RumbleFox said:

Thank you, I did see that but thanks again. I understand your aims but I just cannot see anything in post that that would constitute “proof” in any other field?  I am genuinely not trying to be obtuse but it’s just linguistic tricks and riddles? I honestly would love some genuine “proof” but, as yet I have seen none? X 

If someone doesn't believe in God or religion, and doesn't take a religious book as avoidance, than the only way to get to that point is by arguing for the existence of a Creator.

 

If my argument is a bit unclear than I apologize and I would use a simpler example. Because I disagree that the argument is just linguistic tricks and riddles.

 

Imagine a soldier aiming a sniper, said soldier can't shoot unless he gets the permission from his superior officer to shhot. And the superior officer can't authorize the call until he gets the order from HIS superior officer, and so on. If the chain of command is going back infinitely (meaning, every officer needs the permission from his superior officer, and the chain of command is going back infinitely) then the shot will never be taken because "waiting for permission" is going back infinitely. So, there need to be an officer, who doesn't need to get permission from his superior officer because he doesn't have any. If he had, than the chain of command will keep going back infinitely and the shot will never be taken.

 

Our own existence is a proof that there is a Creator.

[RumbleFox]

8 minutes ago, the fox said:

If someone doesn't believe in God or religion, and doesn't take a religious book as avoidance, than the only way to get to that point is by arguing for the existence of a Creator.

 

If my argument is a bit unclear than I apologize and I would use a simpler example. Because I disagree that the argument is just linguistic tricks and riddles.

 

Imagine a soldier aiming a sniper, said soldier can't shoot unless he gets the permission from his superior officer to shhot. And the superior officer can't authorize the call until he gets the order from HIS superior officer, and so on. If the chain of command is going back infinitely (meaning, every officer needs the permission from his superior officer, and the chain of command is going back infinitely) then the shot will never be taken because "waiting for permission" is going back infinitely. So, there need to be an officer, who doesn't need to get permission from his superior officer because he doesn't have any. If he had, than the chain of command will keep going back infinitely and the shot will never be taken.

 

Our own existence is a proof that there is a Creator.

Thank you for your response but I just think we have different definitions of the term “proof”. You must see that a story about a soldier doesn’t really cut it as proof. Firstly, some people just shoot people without any commands so spontaneous action is not impossible. Secondly, surely analogies cannot be taken as proof? In what other field other than theology would you accept analogy as proof?

 

Also, I do not accept that our own existence is proof of a creator? There are other models (Big Bang, evolution) which seem to me to be far more convincing and plausible which make no need for a creator? 

[murphy]

47 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

To be fair to @Benguinhe's taken loads of flack, and like it or not he puts forward a really good argument for his beliefs. Fair play, I just wish I knew as much as him and could help him out a bit 

I hope this doesn't sound patronising, not my intention, but i think that @Benguin has done a good job in defending his corner against a bit of an onslaught.  Mostly good natured, but some of it hostile. 

 

Yes, you @worthosoriginals  

 

I think you're wasting your time looking for proof of God or trying to provide it.  There is none, just as there is no proof of his absence.  You can only argue why you believe.  Or not.

[RumbleFox]

Also, we should probably move this to another thread as this is a good thread and don’t want to sidetrack it haha. X 

[murphy]

At the end of the day, without religion, there would be no Father Brown and no Father Ted and the world would be a much poorer place for that!

[Benguin]

1 hour ago, Facecloth said:

I find him a bit patronising and insulting tbh, and coming off as morally superior. I was going to come back to it after the game, but Rumble got stuck in. But to say my morals aren't justified because i don't believe in god was a huge insult.

 

As Rumble said I prefer a society that can assess it morals, grow and improve, not one that's base them on a book written thousands of years ago.

I do apologise if you find it insulting. I really encourage you to watch that video I posted as it deals with this very well despite the guy being a prominent athiest. 

 

I am in no way saying athiests can't be moral or that my morals are superior but rather in a theistic worldview, there is reason to think murder is always wrong but in an atheistic worldview it can only be subjective as there is no law giver. 

[the fox]

1 hour ago, RumbleFox said:

Thank you for your response but I just think we have different definitions of the term “proof”. You must see that a story about a soldier doesn’t really cut it as proof. Firstly, some people just shoot people without any commands so spontaneous action is not impossible. Secondly, surely analogies cannot be taken as proof? In what other field other than theology would you accept analogy as proof?

 

Also, I do not accept that our own existence is proof of a creator? There are other models (Big Bang, evolution) which seem to me to be far more convincing and plausible which make no need for a creator? 

Rumble, I think you are missing the point here. You sighting the big bang is inline with the existence of a Creator. He started all of that. Without an uncaused cause, there can never be a big bang. 

 

As for evaluation, it is not proven. As a matter of fact, the Darwinian evolution is disproven by Darwin's own falsification test of his theory. I think he has a chapter in his book talking about the problem of his theory, and he said something in the line of, "to prove my theory, people need to find millions of skeletons of creatures that are part human" and with that, his theory crumbled. He also said that the missing link between apes and the white human (the height of human evolution) is black people.

 

 

The universe was once one entity and it is now expanding, just like those verses said

 

"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?"

 

Suarh Al-Anbiya [21:20]

 

 

"And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander."

 

Surah Adh-Dhariyat [51-47]

 

Edited 19 July 2020 by the fox