-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I'm wondering whether we might better say that Edward's argument provides a possible secular dogma? I am always telling people that knowing someone is an atheist, or a theist, provides no knowledge about what that person believes beyond one simple basic fact: the person thinks gods do or do not exist. When we start discussing ontological arguments then we have moved beyond a simple yea or nay response into something much more complex. We have moved into the realm of trying to understand what makes a person tick; we have moved into the world of philosophy.
This is where the atheist façade begins to crumble. The atheist has no choice but to say that morality is relative; that either the individual or society at large determines it. However in reality they can't and don't live that out. If their sister, God forbid, were raped and murdered they are not going to say to the perpetrator "from my point of view that was wrong, but I respect your view that it was okay to do". No, at this point they will assert that rape and murder are ABSOLUTELY wrong (unless of course they're a total sociopath). I think maybe the starter of this thread ("Is there a such thing as an atheist") was trying to get us to this point.
With over 7 billion people in the world how does Satan find it possible to interact with more than a small number of people each year? Have you ever stopped to consider the logistics? Children, for example, have no troubling imagining that Santa can visit all the children of the world in a single night, and many Believers it seems imagine something similar for Satan? Simona, how do you explain this?
This can be true at times but not all professing atheists are the same and not all professing Christians are the same. In fact, the professing Christians have far too little agreement currently. If the professing Christians would love God more and walk more in the power of the Holy Spirit (and less in fleshly vanities and corruptions), then they would become more like the God they profess to believe in and more like each as they walk in love and unity.
Prayer: May there be a flourishing of Christian love for God, for unbelieving neighbors and for each other.
Prayer: May there be a flourishing of Christian love for God, for unbelieving neighbors and for each other.
Yes, LaVeyan Satanism was a philosophy that sprung up with atheism as part of it's core beliefs. However, many of the branches of Satanism that spread from LaVeyan Satanism practice a spiritual form. Most of these still do not believe in the god of the bible, but still are theists.
I recently got a chance to talk with a group of Satanists that are actually sympathizers with the Satan character that comes from some interpretations of some versions of Bible and the Qur'an. They turned out to be a very nice group of people, much nicer than the followers of the LaVeyan philosophy. I had a lot of fun learning about what they believed and why.
I don't think that it would be direct worship even if it was the case that we lived in a world where there was an evil deity called Satan. I don't see how someone can directly worship something that they do not believe in.
Evolution was not something that was "created", it is an aspect of life that was not well understood until the mid 19th century. The theory of evolution has been developed to understand the details and workings of this phenomenon, and understand how it fits into the rest of human understanding of biology. The theory of evolution has since become the backbone of modern biology, because of both its predictive and explanatory power between different fields of biology.
I think it is important to point out that accepting that the theory of evolution as a explanation of some aspect of reality does not make someone an atheist or a Satanist. A large number of Christians accept the theory of evolution. There are also atheists and Satanists who do not accept the theory of evolution as a explanatory model of the natural world.
I think it would be better described as a dogma of methodological naturalism than anything else. However it is an idea that is very common within modern groups who use the label "atheist" as their unifying characteristic. Yes, it is a counter movement but it is still possible to have a dogma within it. Based on the definition for atheist you have been using this would simply be a case of equivocation. I think that the colloquial definition for atheist differs from the more reasonable, and useful, definition that you have been using, and if we were to use the colloquial definition than we would be able to call it an atheist dogma. I'm just diving into semantics now, it is a hobby of mine.
I could either be in a position of agreement or disagreement with you. "Morality" is often a poorly defined word, as are the words "right" and "wrong". For some definitions of morality, I believe that actions can objectively be determined to be moral and immoral.
These acts were not beneficial to the promotion of happiness, well being or health. Beyond that, these actions clearly inflict unnecessary harm and suffering. A person does not need to believe in any gods to understand how this is harmful, and for those reasons we can give it the label of being "wrong".
I recently got a chance to talk with a group of Satanists that are actually sympathizers with the Satan character that comes from some interpretations of some versions of Bible and the Qur'an. They turned out to be a very nice group of people, much nicer than the followers of the LaVeyan philosophy. I had a lot of fun learning about what they believed and why.
I don't think that it would be direct worship even if it was the case that we lived in a world where there was an evil deity called Satan. I don't see how someone can directly worship something that they do not believe in.
Evolution was not something that was "created", it is an aspect of life that was not well understood until the mid 19th century. The theory of evolution has been developed to understand the details and workings of this phenomenon, and understand how it fits into the rest of human understanding of biology. The theory of evolution has since become the backbone of modern biology, because of both its predictive and explanatory power between different fields of biology.
I think it is important to point out that accepting that the theory of evolution as a explanation of some aspect of reality does not make someone an atheist or a Satanist. A large number of Christians accept the theory of evolution. There are also atheists and Satanists who do not accept the theory of evolution as a explanatory model of the natural world.
I think it would be better described as a dogma of methodological naturalism than anything else. However it is an idea that is very common within modern groups who use the label "atheist" as their unifying characteristic. Yes, it is a counter movement but it is still possible to have a dogma within it. Based on the definition for atheist you have been using this would simply be a case of equivocation. I think that the colloquial definition for atheist differs from the more reasonable, and useful, definition that you have been using, and if we were to use the colloquial definition than we would be able to call it an atheist dogma. I'm just diving into semantics now, it is a hobby of mine.
I could either be in a position of agreement or disagreement with you. "Morality" is often a poorly defined word, as are the words "right" and "wrong". For some definitions of morality, I believe that actions can objectively be determined to be moral and immoral.
These acts were not beneficial to the promotion of happiness, well being or health. Beyond that, these actions clearly inflict unnecessary harm and suffering. A person does not need to believe in any gods to understand how this is harmful, and for those reasons we can give it the label of being "wrong".
HQ, how exactly are rape and murder BENEFICIAL to anyones happiness and well-being? That statement does not even make any type of sense at all. And how does rape and murder benefit society? I'm sorry, no offense but your logic is a little twisted on that topic!! Talk to someone who has been raped, or had a loved one murdered. Maybe you'll have a different viewpoint afterward.
While it may be beneficial to one unit's happiness, it can also be shown to be objectively not the case for others involved. It can be shown that the harm is unnecessary by definition. Whether or not something is conducive to a thriving community is not a matter of opinion. Something is either objectively is or objectively isn't conducive to a thriving community, and either objectively is or isn't harmful to an individual or overall system. It is based on demonstrable facts and observations that allow us to be able to determine such things.
Yes.
Definition and demonstrable fact.
But, it is necessary to set up definitions before having a discussion. So what are your definitions for "morality", "right", and "wrong" that allow you to make statements like this?
Yes.
Definition and demonstrable fact.
But, it is necessary to set up definitions before having a discussion. So what are your definitions for "morality", "right", and "wrong" that allow you to make statements like this?
How does this statement address the primary point, that without morality deriving from Scripture, "every man does what is right in HIS OWN eyes"?
A society with floating morals, has NO morals. EVERYONE, including homosexuals, KNEW that homosexuality was immoral 40-50 years ago. Our society, at large, was morally, if not lawfully, governed by the Bible. We no longer are by a sizable chunk of our society and certainly not in gov.
Suppose in 10 or 20 years society,and gov, decides that pedophillia is just another "lifestyle" choice, and No one has the right to impose THEIR morality on the pedophiles?
This all matters because atheism has no answer to the point HQ made, which is without God the atheist MUST admit that there is no such thing as morality, because there is NO set reference point, and NO defined morality from an individual OR group.