Lessons In Apologetics, Part 1: Introduction & Agnosticism

[Key]

6 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

Isn't "There is no God" a conclusion? Not accepting something on the basis of no satisfying evidence is still a conclusion.

 

 

I've wrote that Atheist have no system of morals, so I haven't misrepresented anything. And since God cannot be dis-proven,  Atheism can only be construed as an unproven philosophy. Funny how you define Christianity as mythology, but take offense when Atheism is referred to as a philosophy. 

Wholly inaccurate, Dan, and you know it. A person can have morals, regardless of any religious belief system they may or may not have.

Why do you continue to insist that morality can not be exclusive from a belief in a deity?

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

23 minutes ago, Key said:

Wholly inaccurate, Dan, and you know it. A person can have morals, regardless of any religious belief system they may or may not have.

Why do you continue to insist that morality can not be exclusive from a belief in a deity?

 

 

Because Dan's world outlook is so stiff and rigid, that he can't bend on anything.  Only break.

 

Grass bends.  Trees break.

 

 

[cuchulain]

Because it's called baiting. Dan does indeed know.  He also knows what pushes Johnathan's buttons, and is hoping to elicit a specific, angry response that will eventually get Johnathan banned from the forum.  He can't win the argument, so he tries to eliminate the players who keep making the arguments that he can't beat.  That'd be why I put him on the ignore list...well part of the reason.  That and the fact that I figured the rest of the board was probably getting ridiculously tired of our heated interactions.

 

Morality is subjective.  Morality is objective.  Christians seem to espouse the objective morality track, but I cannot fathom why.  Subjective means someone's opinion.  If God exists, and he sets morality, it's all his opinion, and therefor subjective.  If, as I believe, God doesn't exist, then morality is determined by social norms and people in general...and is subjective.  There once was a time when slavery was perfectly acceptable.  There was a time when smacking your wife around for mouthing off was the thing to do. (Both were supported by Christians using the bible, by the way).  Now, society sets the moral standard a little higher.  If it didn't, slavery would still be perfectly acceptable, and people would expect the wife to get a beating for speaking in public.  And let's not forget that that sort of thing DOES still happen, in different locations where society still thinks it is acceptable.  This just seems to me to be proof that morality is subjective to society, not some divine being.  If it were the divine being, then wouldn't it be universal?

 

Still and all...this topic is thoroughly dead.  This is especially apparent when I, I I I I I, of all people, proclaim it so.  Everyone knows I beat the horse to a pulp, then slush it around in the blender for good measure...and I am saying this horse is dead.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, cuchulain said:

1.  Because it's called baiting. Dan does indeed know.  He also knows what pushes Johnathan's buttons, and is hoping to elicit a specific, angry response that will eventually get Johnathan banned from the forum.  He can't win the argument, so he tries to eliminate the players who keep making the arguments that he can't beat.  That'd be why I put him on the ignore list...well part of the reason.  That and the fact that I figured the rest of the board was probably getting ridiculously tired of our heated interactions.

 

2.  Morality is subjective.  Morality is objective.  Christians seem to espouse the objective morality track, but I cannot fathom why.  Subjective means someone's opinion.  If God exists, and he sets morality, it's all his opinion, and therefor subjective.  If, as I believe, God doesn't exist, then morality is determined by social norms and people in general...and is subjective.  There once was a time when slavery was perfectly acceptable.  There was a time when smacking your wife around for mouthing off was the thing to do. (Both were supported by Christians using the bible, by the way).  Now, society sets the moral standard a little higher.  If it didn't, slavery would still be perfectly acceptable, and people would expect the wife to get a beating for speaking in public.  And let's not forget that that sort of thing DOES still happen, in different locations where society still thinks it is acceptable.  This just seems to me to be proof that morality is subjective to society, not some divine being. 

 

3.  If it were the divine being, then wouldn't it be universal?

 

Still and all...this topic is thoroughly dead.  This is especially apparent when I, I I I I I, of all people, proclaim it so.  Everyone knows I beat the horse to a pulp, then slush it around in the blender for good measure...and I am saying this horse is dead.

 

1.  Maybe.  I have been coming to the conclusion, that Dan can not understand any position except his own.  Since Dan is never wrong about anything -- it follows that Dan must correct the error.  Not actually stupid, but very rigid.

 

2.  You're making this too complicated.  If I believe that God authored the Bible, then morality is objective.  If I know that people produced the Bible -- many people, with various motives, over vast periods of time -- then morality is subjective.

 

3.  Keep it simple.  If it were God, Scripture would contain information that people didn't have at that time.  Look at the Cosmology in Genesis.  Well?  Genesis was produced by people who didn't know where the Sun goes at night.

 

Don't you wish that you were "spiritual"?     

 

4.  I'm waiting to see if Kingfisher has anything else to say.  Fair is fair.  He came in late.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 4, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Dan56]

8 hours ago, Key said:

Wholly inaccurate, Dan, and you know it. A person can have morals, regardless of any religious belief system they may or may not have.

Why do you continue to insist that morality can not be exclusive from a belief in a deity?

 

I didn't say a person could not have morals, I wrote that Atheist don't have a system of morals, like the 10 commandments... It was actually Jonathan who wrote; "What gets me bent out of shape, is when the pious insist on misrepresenting Atheism; into something that it's not.  For instance, dialectic materialism.  Or Philosophy.  Or a system of morals."  So I was simply agreeing that Atheist don't abide by any preset system of morals,  but not implying that a person can't have individual moral values.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

It would be more accurate, to say that Atheists have the values of the society they grew up with.  This is indeed fortunate.  You won't find a secular society, anywhere, that permits slavery.  What a pity, that neither the Bible nor the Koran, forbids owning people as property.

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

19 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

Thanks for attempting to reason, but some folks just aren't open or receptive to ideologies besides their own, and that includes myself. But it stands to reason that since I believe in one God and one truth, I can't agree or compromise with those who believe in nothing spiritual. That fact seems to irritate them, they are easily insulted and get extremely defensive. Its almost a paranoia that puts them into immediate attack mode, as you have discovered. 

 

I do agree with your terminology and analysis comparing theistic realism and dialectical materialism. I'm obviously in the theistic realism camp and think dialectical materialism adequately defines the Atheistic/Agnostic group, not so much in the godless communistic sense as they've implied, but more from a humanism perspective.

 

The bottom line is that Atheist discard spirituality, their reality is limited to the natural world, so they only diagnose things from a physical existence, which is limited to what you can see, touch, hear, smell, and feel. Thus the consistent demand from cuchulain who's only acceptable evidentiary procedure is limited to his materialistic realm of existence.

 

That's essentially the non-negotiable duality, God is spirit and is experience spiritually, God is not revealed or perceived naturally, the spiritual and the physical are entirely separate. Anyway, thanks for trying to bring some clarity to what differentiates the 2 ideologies, which in my opinion boils down to those with spiritual faith and those who don't know or just can't conceive of anything beyond the here & now.   

 

 

 

Oh, yea of excess faith.  I had plenty of belief in the supernatural when I was younger.  I grew up.

 

 

[Dan56]

13 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

5.  In what way is Atheism a philosophy?  You still can't understand something that simple?  Non-belief due to non-evidence is not philosophy.  I don't know why you persist in trying to bait me.

 

No ones trying to bait you.. I give direct answers to questions and state my honest opinion.. Cuchulain accused me of the same thing after he couldn't answer a question or didn't like my answers.   Its typical of someone (liberal) who has no valid points to contribute to a discussion,  so they just resort to constant accusations.

 

I previously wrote; "Isn't "There is no God" a conclusion? Not accepting something on the basis of no satisfying evidence is still a conclusion." Your just nitpicking and arguing semantics now. Conclusion, philosophy, or non-belief -  call it what you will.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

55 minutes ago, Dan56 said:

 

No ones trying to bait you.. I give direct answers to questions and state my honest opinion.. Cuchulain accused me of the same thing after he couldn't answer a question or didn't like my answers.   Its typical of someone (liberal) who has no valid points to contribute to a discussion,  so they just resort to constant accusations.

 

I previously wrote; "Isn't "There is no God" a conclusion? Not accepting something on the basis of no satisfying evidence is still a conclusion." Your just nitpicking and arguing semantics now. Conclusion, philosophy, or non-belief -  call it what you will.

 

 

Just to be clear -- like Adam -- you have the power to name things.  You name something a philosophy.  Poof.  It's a philosophy.

 

This is not an exchange.  This is you making up the rules as you go along.

 

I'm done here.

 

 

 

[Key]

7 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

I didn't say a person could not have morals, I wrote that Atheist don't have a system of morals, like the 10 commandments... It was actually Jonathan who wrote; "What gets me bent out of shape, is when the pious insist on misrepresenting Atheism; into something that it's not.  For instance, dialectic materialism.  Or Philosophy.  Or a system of morals."  So I was simply agreeing that Atheist don't abide by any preset system of morals,  but not implying that a person can't have individual moral values.

You do know the difference between an Atheist and Atheism, right? Atheism is in regards to not believing in a deity without evidence. Atheist are a result of that thinking.

Atheism, itself, is "not a system of morals", and, in fact, not a system at all, really. Whereas, an Atheist is an individual that may actually have morals that don't necessarily follow a system, per se. They may simply not need to have right and wrong written down for them on stone tablets, nor copied many times over with translation difficulties.

Now, when you write an Atheist doesn't have morals, you actually are implying that a person could not have morals.

[Key]

2 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

No ones trying to bait you.. I give direct answers to questions and state my honest opinion.. Cuchulain accused me of the same thing after he couldn't answer a question or didn't like my answers.   Its typical of someone (liberal) who has no valid points to contribute to a discussion,  so they just resort to constant accusations.

 

I previously wrote; "Isn't "There is no God" a conclusion? Not accepting something on the basis of no satisfying evidence is still a conclusion." Your just nitpicking and arguing semantics now. Conclusion, philosophy, or non-belief -  call it what you will.

Now you are making it sound like a political debate. The comment is uncalled for and is an offensive generalized opinion. No one has made an equally offensive aside for a conservative, which, rest assured, is certainly just as true.

I have witnessed you making many of the same nitpicking and semantic maneuvers, as well, so I'll leave it at that. You aren't as innocent as you portray yourself.

[Dan56]

2 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Just to be clear -- like Adam -- you have the power to name things.  You name something a philosophy.  Poof.  It's a philosophy.

 

This is not an exchange.  This is you making up the rules as you go along.

 

What rules? The definition of philosophy; the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.... a theory or attitude held by a person or organization . Atheist don't believe in the existence of any God, whereby 'philosophy' could be an accurate description of atheism.  It certainly isn't a religion or a fact,  but a philosophical observation derived from the absence of evidence. But as I said, describe it with any words of your choosing, I don't care.. You don't believe in God,  so I refer to it as a philosophical conclusion, and you get offended?  I believe in God,  you refer to it as mythology and fairy tales, but I'm not offended because I don't care. 

 

1 hour ago, Key said:

You do know the difference between an Atheist and Atheism, right? Atheism is in regards to not believing in a deity without evidence. Atheist are a result of that thinking.

Atheism, itself, is "not a system of morals", and, in fact, not a system at all, really. Whereas, an Atheist is an individual that may actually have morals that don't necessarily follow a system, per se. They may simply not need to have right and wrong written down for them on stone tablets, nor copied many times over with translation difficulties.

Now, when you write an Atheist doesn't have morals, you actually are implying that a person could not have morals.

 

No.... Again, I didn't write that Atheist don't have morals, I wrote that Atheist don't abide by a given set of morals... Your misconstruing  what I wrote (again).

 

1 hour ago, Key said:

Now you are making it sound like a political debate. The comment is uncalled for and is an offensive generalized opinion. No one has made an equally offensive aside for a conservative, which, rest assured, is certainly just as true.

I have witnessed you making many of the same nitpicking and semantic maneuvers, as well, so I'll leave it at that. You aren't as innocent as you portray yourself.

 

Sorry you find the term "liberal" offensive, but its not a dirty word. You have no argument, just accusations of me nitpicking without a single example of it.

[cuchulain]

Dan's baiting is showing clearer and clearer, isn't it

[cuchulain]

8 hours ago, Key said:

Now you are making it sound like a political debate. The comment is uncalled for and is an offensive generalized opinion. No one has made an equally offensive aside for a conservative, which, rest assured, is certainly just as true.

I have witnessed you making many of the same nitpicking and semantic maneuvers, as well, so I'll leave it at that. You aren't as innocent as you portray yourself.

Its amusing to see dan make numerous false assumptions and claims.  I am not a liberal, but a conservative...in every area but religion. 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

58 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

Dan's baiting is showing clearer and clearer, isn't it

 

 

You were right.  Dan's provocations have lost all trace of subtlety.  Still, it seems an odd strategy.  There are no moderators around to kick us off.  Even if there were..... then what?  He inherits what's left of this broken board.  As far as I'm concerned, he can have it.

 

If you want to chat, or Key, I'm here for you.  Otherwise, consider me gone.

 

 

[RevBogovac]

On 2/4/2019 at 2:55 PM, cuchulain said:

[...] proof that morality is subjective to society, not some divine being.  If it were the divine being, then wouldn't it be universal? [...]

 

Yes, indeed it would be... In this example the bible would, from the very first page, stay consistent to that universal truth. And not some lope-holes like; oh yeah, the old testament said it's okay to have slaves and kill homosexuals but now Jesus came along and we all of a sudden think differently... (@Dan: no need for another jump here, I really cannot take you serious any more.)

[RevBogovac]

2 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

[...] If you want to chat, or Key, I'm here for you.  Otherwise, consider me gone.

 

Hey! That hurts!!!

[Key]

10 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

Sorry you find the term "liberal" offensive, but its not a dirty word. You have no argument, just accusations of me nitpicking without a single example of it.

No, I don't find the word, itself, offensive. But the way in which you used it to single out a particular ideology, was.

As for providing examples? They've been given numerous times by various persons throughout this forum. Why should I ride that carousel when I know it won't go anywhere? Even if I manage to clutch the brass ring, you'll deny that I did.

[Key]

2 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

If you want to chat, or Key, I'm here for you.  Otherwise, consider me gone.

 

 

Thanks, Jonathan. And I for you.

[Dan56]

2 hours ago, RevBogovac said:

(@Dan: no need for another jump here, I really cannot take you serious any more.)

 

Likewise