The Religion Thread

[Benguin]

I am restarting this because a lot of the time when I post on here (often not even mentioning my views on religions as was the case today) people engage me in a debate and then a perfectly good thread is derailed. 
 

Let’s keep it in one thread, keep it civilised and enjoy the conversation. 

Edited 19 December 2020 by Benguin

[King of Gipsy Lane]

God bless you 

[Izzy]

[Jimothy]

2 minutes ago, Izzy said:

Maybe resurrections are possible.

[Benguin]

2 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

So what you're telling me is there isn't one.  If there was an objective moral code it would be definable and quantifiable, there'd be scientific studies, you wouldn't need weasel words like "written on our hearts".  You just believe in your own code wholeheartedly enough to consider it objective.

 

To use an example with a similarly devout individual but from a different faith with different (in your opinion incorrect) moral standards which the individual in question believes to be objective:  If a Sikh converts a non-believer genuinely believing it will help them live a better life, would that be a moral act for trying to help them or would it be immoral because they're condemning them to eternal absence from God in the afterlife?   From his subjective perspective it's objectively moral but from you subjective perspective it's objectively immoral.  Do you see what I mean?

Not really no. It’s like I’m asking what 2+2 is and your saying 3+2 =5.

 

I wasn’t originally making any positive statement at all with regards to what the objective morals are and which God set them. That comes later. 
 

The original argument is that if there are absolute moral laws then it follows that there is a moral law giver. This is because for something to be universal it would have to transcend the individual human experience. 
 

that is all the argument is, nothing more. So to rebut my it you’d need to either go down the route that there are not absolute morals or that absolute morals can exist without any moral law giver.  
 

Dwelling on who the law giver is, is jumping ahead and I’d be happy to give reasons why I believe it’s the Christian God but that digresses completely from the moral argument because it’s not the moral argument that caused me to become a Christian but rather other things. 

[Carl the Llama]

Just now, Benguin said:

Not really no. It’s like I’m asking what 2+2 is and your saying 3+2 =5.

 

I wasn’t originally making any positive statement at all with regards to what the objective morals are and which God set them. That comes later. 
 

The original argument is that if there are absolute moral laws then it follows that there is a moral law giver. This is because for something to be universal it would have to transcend the individual human experience. 
 

that is all the argument is, nothing more. So to rebut my it you’d need to either go down the route that there are not absolute morals or that absolute morals can exist without any moral law giver.  
 

Dwelling on who the law giver is, is jumping ahead and I’d be happy to give reasons why I believe it’s the Christian God but that digresses completely from the moral argument because it’s not the moral argument that caused me to become a Christian but rather other things. 

And my response to that, as written above, is that if there is an absolute moral law then it would be definable and quantifiable, there'd be scientific studies and no need to prevaricate.  Just like we have with all other natural laws.

 

The point I'm trying to get to is this:  You keep saying that God must exist because it's implied by the existence of this absolute code.  That argument relies on the assumption of an absolute moral code existing.  I'm challenging that assumption because you're not pointing to any evidence in support of it and I don't believe you can possibly have any.

 

You're more than welcome to say you believe an objective morality exists, but unless you can back it up with non-subjective arguments it's still a subjective belief.  That's all the argument is.

[Brainy]

[Benguin]

2 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

And my response to that, as written above, is that if there is an absolute moral law then it would be definable and quantifiable, there'd be scientific studies and no need to prevaricate.  Just like we have with all other natural laws.

 

The point I'm trying to get to is this:  You keep saying that God must exist because it's implied by the existence of this absolute code.  That argument relies on the assumption of an absolute moral code existing.  I'm challenging that assumption because you're not pointing to any evidence in support of it and I don't believe you can possibly have any.

 

You're more than welcome to say you believe an objective morality exists, but unless you can back it up with non-subjective arguments it's still a subjective belief.  That's all the argument is.

Ah okay, sorry I misunderstood I thought you had said you believed in objective morals but I may have mixed you up with facecloth. 
 

You’re right the moral argument only works if you’re assuming that objective morality exists, so this is now a debate as to whether objective morals exist right? 

For clarity, do you think that there are any absolutes? (Not just with morality but with truth, logic etc)
 

[Jimothy]

14 minutes ago, Benguin said:

Ah okay, sorry I misunderstood I thought you had said you believed in objective morals but I may have mixed you up with facecloth. 
 

You’re right the moral argument only works if you’re assuming that objective morality exists, so this is now a debate as to whether objective morals exist right? 

For clarity, do you think that there are any absolutes? (Not just with morality but with truth, logic etc)
 

And you ignore what he put, didn't answer his question etc. This is what I was on about earlier. No respect, bad discussion, not interested in any other angle just that you're right and that's that.

Edited 19 December 2020 by Facecloth

[Carl the Llama]

14 minutes ago, Benguin said:

Ah okay, sorry I misunderstood I thought you had said you believed in objective morals but I may have mixed you up with facecloth. 
 

You’re right the moral argument only works if you’re assuming that objective morality exists, so this is now a debate as to whether objective morals exist right? 

For clarity, do you think that there are any absolutes? (Not just with morality but with truth, logic etc)
 

Given that some natural laws do exist then of course, that's why we have the sciences to empirically study them. 

 

The debate is mainly about your argument for Jaweh's existence. But since you claim as evidence the existence of an OMC that's what we're talking about now, yes.  So can you offer any evidence of your objective code?  It's kind of essential to your whole argument about evidence for God.  I really hope we're not going into the watchmaker argument here.

[Benguin]

12 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

And you ignore what he put, didn't answer his question etc. This is what I was on about earlier. No respect, bad discussion, not interested in any other angle just that you're right and that's that.

What question did I not answer? 

[Jimothy]

All of Carls. Youre clearly not even prepared to acknowledge any other point of view other than religion is the be and end all of life that make everything great and meaningful so it all pointless talking to you.

[Benguin]

6 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

All of Carls. Youre clearly not even prepared to acknowledge any other point of view other than religion is the be and end all of life that make everything great and meaningful so it all pointless talking to you.

It sounds like you’re suggesting because I have not been convinced by yours or Carl’s posts, I’m unwilling to change my mind. Well yeah, obviously. I’d only change my mind if you were able to convince me that I’m wrong. I’ve certainly acknowledged the points though. 
 

Also, is this not applicable to yourself too? 

[Jimothy]

2 minutes ago, Benguin said:

It sounds like you’re suggesting because I have not been convinced by yours or Carl’s posts, I’m unwilling to change my mind. Well yeah, obviously. I’d only change my mind if you were able to convince me that I’m wrong. I’ve certainly acknowledged the points though. 
 

Also, is this not applicable to yourself too? 

I've accepted you see the way you see it, and if you need religion to guide you thats fine, if you think we need religion to give us morality, that fine its up to you. You are not prepared to accept we can not believe in God, and that we believe that morals can be achieved without religious guidance.

 

You also have dodged Carl's questions like this on numerous occasions.

1 hour ago, Carl the Llama said:

You're more than welcome to say you believe an objective morality exists, but unless you can back it up with non-subjective arguments it's still a subjective belief.  That's all the argument is

 

[Carl the Llama]

Technically that's not a question 

[Jimothy]

1 minute ago, Carl the Llama said:

Technically that's not a question 

🤫 You know what I meant 

[Benguin]

9 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

I've accepted you see the way you see it, and if you need religion to guide you thats fine, if you think we need religion to give us morality, that fine its up to you. You are not prepared to accept we can not believe in God, and that we believe that morals can be achieved without religious guidance.

 

You also have dodged Carl's questions like this on numerous occasions.

 

You clearly aren’t accepting it as you are still arguing against a point I never made. For the record you and Carl disagree on this, you have said you believe objective morals exist, whereas Carl does not. 
 

I’ll get to Carl’s most recent post tomorrow as I need to go to bed now. 

[Jimothy]

3 minutes ago, Benguin said:

You clearly aren’t accepting it as you are still arguing against a point I never made. For the record you and Carl disagree on this, you have said you believe objective morals exist, whereas Carl does not. 
 

I’ll get to Carl’s most recent post tomorrow as I need to go to bed now. 

Didn't argue against what you believe, I argued for what I do and that mine is possible, which you dismiss. So yes I accept what you want to believe, you don't offer me the same respect and that is the issue I have with you.

 

You can have your god as you moral compass and think he's needed to give objective morals, thats fine, all I ask you accept other don't need it, and believe society would have these morals without a law giver as you put, and eve accept carls belief that all morals are subjective. You give no credit to either.

Edited 19 December 2020 by Facecloth

[Jimothy]

Oh and don't get me started on you thinking churches are somehow more worthy of opening than anywhere else. That opinion really cemented you as something I'll get banned for calling you.

[Benguin]

Just now, Facecloth said:

Didn't argue against what you believe, I argued for what I do and that mine is possible, which you dismiss. So yes I accept what you want to believe, you don't offer me the same respect and that is the issue I have with you.

Given that I believe wholeheartedly in Christianity, there isn’t room for me to accept I could be wrong. That’s part of the Christian worldview and any Christian who tells you they could be wrong, has not read the bible. Its not disrespectful, just faithful. If it’s disrespectful to you, I apologise but I’m not going to disrespect the lord by saying “I might be wrong” so if that is what you’re asking me to do in order to engage, I’m afraid  it’s probably best if you ignore me. 

[Carl the Llama]

While we wait for Ben to collect his thoughts on the objective morality issue allow me to lay out a few thoughts in the hope this thread doesn't get locked for squabbling:

 

If there is a God entity which made us and governs us then there is an objective morality: If it pleases God it's moral and vice versa.  Given that God can't be proven (or rather given they choose not to give modern humans incontrovertible proof), this cannot prove an objective morality.

 

Morality is at its essence about maximising society's happiness and security.  It's built on human emotions and instincts and so naturally evolves as our capabilities, our understanding of the world and of each other all evolve.  For me this demonstrates clearly that although there are certain things we consider universally wrong (cold blooded murder for instance), morality as a construct will always be a subjective thing.

 

I think the best rule of thumb is the golden rule:  Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

 

  Edit to add this: 

32 minutes ago, Benguin said:

You clearly aren’t accepting it as you are still arguing against a point I never made. For the record you and Carl disagree on this, you have said you believe objective morals exist, whereas Carl does not. 
 

I’ll get to Carl’s most recent post tomorrow as I need to go to bed now. 

Believing morals to be subjective doesn't mean I don't have a solid code of morals which I believe to be objectively correct here and now, I'm just aware it's subjective to me and the society I live in.  I'd wager @Facecloth's objective morals align fairly closely with my own take on ethics.

 

Edited 19 December 2020 by Carl the Llama

[Jimothy]

2 minutes ago, Benguin said:

Given that I believe wholeheartedly in Christianity, there isn’t room for me to accept I could be wrong. That’s part of the Christian worldview and any Christian who tells you they could be wrong, has not read the bible. Its not disrespectful, just faithful. If it’s disrespectful to you, I apologise but I’m not going to disrespect the lord by saying “I might be wrong” so if that is what you’re asking me to do in order to engage, I’m afraid  it’s probably best if you ignore me. 

I'm not asking you to admit you might be wrong, I'm asking you respect another view point and that others can see things differently. I accepted that about you, you can't accept that for others. Its not about saying you might be wrong, it about respect and acceptance.

[Scotch]

I'm fine with faith. I admire it even but I thin organised religion is dangerous and nothing more than an outdated attempt to control the population. 

 

I think people get religion and faith mixed up. 

[Carl the Llama]

.

Edited 19 December 2020 by Carl the Llama

[The Syrup]

I'm an atheist. Believing or following a deity is fine if that gives you comfort or focus, just can't see it myself. I'm sure the world would be a more peaceful place if it wasn't for religion though.