I am a christian, i and i strongly belive in my lord jesus christ, and i also belive that if you belive in him and except him as your savior, u will go to heaven. and i also believe that he created the world, not the big bang, or that we came from stupid apes.
I wasn't sure the purpose of this thread at its conception, and I'm still not. If the discussion is evolution, there are already threads out there with debates going on. As has been demonstrated by apologists and atheists alike, evolution is not contradictory to Christianity. Nor is evolution an attempt to prove any of the tenets of atheism. It is also not meant to answer the question of origin or of a "rime mover" since evolution deals with mutations of already existing biological chemicals.
Let me try to redirect the discussion to something more useful: Who is in a better position: the Atheist or the Christian? This is meant to be a very open and somewhat vague question. But objectively think about what each philosophy entails. And no using Pascal's Wager...
Thank you, Moegreche, for redirecting this discussion back on track.
Now the way I see it, the two beliefs boil down to a few things.
Atheism: There is no God. Nevertheless, in case there is, I'll try to be good so that a just God would save me.
Christianity: There is a God, and I've seen proof of it. After I am saved, I live my life like a saved person. When I die temporally, I will go to heaven.
The loci of argument between the two faiths are: 1. Is there a just loving God who created everything? (Questions about God and evil, his attributes, evolution, etc. fall under this category) 2. What evidence does Christianity have of its truth? (Questions about the Bible, historical events recorded in it, etc. fall under this category)
Personally, I am convinced by the evidence available that there is a just loving God who created everything and that Christianity is true. I believe that even if there was only the atheist's "just God," he would still punish me for all the wrongs I know I've done in my life.
Sorry but it's based completly on assumptions, and in fact some radiohalos (google again) support the idea of a worldwide flood.
Errm how exactly is it based on assumptions. Even itf it was, you can say the same thing about christianity. As for the worldwide flood, you can find anything to back up your arguments if you search for long enough.
To help push this forward, let's take what we know and then I will present some argument for and against belief in a god. Hands down, we do not know whether or not a god exists. We must operate under a given assumption based upon this existence or a lack thereof. Perhaps we could take the following two arguments and expound upon or refute them:
For a god (specifically Christian): At the end of the day, one is happier who believes in God. He is there for you when you need Him and He will love you unconditionally. Christianity also provides a moral compass and a template for living a good life. The community formed by a church congregation provides a healthy social outlet for adults and children who share common interests.
Against a god (specifically Christian): Why dedicate your life to something you don't know exists? And for that matter, how are we to discern which texts and laws we are still to follow. Parts of the Bible is far too outdated to be applied to modern concerns, and we know that the books included in the Bible were chosen by humans, not god. Religion serves only to unify people under a false banner and clearly leads to another source of struggle and suffering between members of different faiths.
There is nothing new about either of these arguments, and each is at a different end of the spectrum given the earlier restrictions about not knowing there is a god. Kant argued that humans ought to act as though there is a god because otherwise there would be no reward for just act or punishment for evil. I'll leave it at this and see where this conversation goes.
Now I think that when it comes to morality, Christianity provides the most coherent view. When we look at philosophy and morality, we have Joseph Fletcher's situation ethics, Ayn Rand and his egocentric humanism, Kant and duty, and so on, but they contradict each other so heavily and lack coherency. They have no transcendent reason for morality; it is only survival, and there are many other alternatives we could have taken if our goal for morality was originally to survive. And that's the thing. If morality is merely an evolutionary construct, would I not be more justified if I raped to propagate my superior genes? Or if I indiscriminately killed all males and kept a harem for the same purpose? I think the fact that we have an innate sense that we know murder, rape, dishonesty, and stealing is wrong is a way to know that there is something out there.
I think the fact that we have an innate sense that we know murder, ****, dishonesty, and stealing is wrong is a way to know that there is something out there.
Not really. It depends on how you were raised. Where I come from in Nigeria these things u mentioned take place on a regular basis and due to cultural differences and their development, the perpetrators do not see these things as inherently evil. In fact in manty cultures with much harsher environments, you are expected to do these things to survive and they are not considered evil,(obviously not ra,pe but killing and stealing etc). These morals are not applicable to all humanity, which would be the case if there was truly a God.
Also, just because non christian intellectuals are not coherent isnt to say that this proves christianity right, it just shows that there are different viewpoints on the subject.
If a thing takes place in a regular basis and people no longer consider it inherently evil, it does not change its inherent status. If something is inherent, that means it is constant. There may be a culture that sees murder and rape as good, but I have not heard of any. Indeed, if they exist, I believe that they are wrong.
That does mean that there are different viewpoints. But you see, coherency is key in an argument such as this religious/philosophical. If there is no coherency, what can you argue?
If a thing takes place in a regular basis and people no longer consider it inherently evil, it does not change its inherent status. If something is inherent, that means it is constant. There may be a culture that sees murder and **** as good, but I have not heard of any. Indeed, if they exist, I believe that they are wrong
I am not saying they see these things as good, but that they do not see them as evil, just nescessary. There are in fact many tribes in africa that share this viewpoint.
But you see, coherency is key in an argument such as this religious/philosophical.
Why?
This argument can be approached from many different angles, bearing in mind it is specifically christianity vs atheism, not religion vs philosophy.
But you see, coherency is key in an argument such as this religious/philosophical.
Different philosophers contradict each other, however so does the bible in parts, does this make it incoherent too? Of course there are different interpretations of both religion and philosophy, which is why it makes this such an interesting argument, incoherency doesn't invalidate either viewpoint, it just shows there are different ways of looking at it.
This argument can be approached from many different angles, bearing in mind it is specifically christianity vs atheism, not religion vs philosophy.
Different philosophers contradict each other, however so does the bible in parts, does this make it incoherent too? Of course there are different interpretations of both religion and philosophy, which is why it makes this such an interesting argument, incoherency doesn't invalidate either viewpoint, it just shows there are different ways of looking at it.
We are arguing Christianity vs. atheism right now. That is where coherency comes into play. If different atheistic views cannot be reconciled with each other, how can you make a general argument for it? Furthermore, the Bible doesn't contradict itself; aside from a few scribal errors it is inerrant in its message.
The reason christianity is more coherent is because it has establishments that represent it and the bible which puts down everything its belief entials. There is no way the atheists would have such an equivalent. There is no atheistic 'bible' or authorotative work, but that doesnt weaken the argumanets of atheism on the whole.
If different atheistic views cannot be reconciled with each other, how can you make a general argument for it?
Most of the time you do not need to as any one of these argumanets can prove christianity wrong independant of other views.
An argument doesnt nescessarily have to be coherent to be superior, just in my mind, make more sense and have more evidence.
Atheism is after all the non belief in any form of God. Of course different people have different takes on it, which is why i find it appealing, there isn't just one view. This doesnt however diminish its validity.
That is a valid point. I do not understand what this is supposed to mean though:
An argument doesnt nescessarily have to be coherent to be superior, just in my mind, make more sense and have more evidence.
How is an argument supposed to work if it does not link together and make sense? In the case of our morality question, I was specifically asking why, if there is not God, do we have morality, and why atheistic viewpoints tend to be so fragmented on the issue. What is the truth? Atheism is such a broad topic and Christianity so much more narrow that whenever someone tells me they're an atheist, I'm inclined to ask them what type they are.
I was specifically asking why, if there is not God, do we have morality, and why atheistic viewpoints tend to be so fragmented on the issue. What is the truth?
Athiesm is a belief not an argument. You dont argue all of its principles at once, of course it is possible to have a coherent argument if your stance is pro atheism. We have morality because of the way people are brought up. Most people live in societies where murder,theft and rap,e is considered wrong, not because of inherent fears of god. Thats why there are prisons.
Just because Christianity is narrow and atheism is broad doesnt make it right, even if it makes it easier to argue for.
Woody is right we learn morality through observation. The social cognitive theory of psychology shows how when our brain is developing we learn by watching role-models and imitating their behaviour. This is why violent computer games are blamed for kids behaving badly because they imitate the game. A good role-model will result in good behaviour. Obviously this is one view and most certainly not mine but it explains morality in human beings (personally I like freud but that is more 'cos he is great than his theory is perfect.. oh well)
