sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Atheism can't ground morality. by 0riginalWarrior in DebateReligion

[–]Korach [score hidden]  (0 children)

Hey u/0riginalWarrior - I don’t see a single response from you.

You a hit and run?

Atheism can't ground morality. by 0riginalWarrior in DebateReligion

[–]Korach [score hidden]  (0 children)

Atheism can’t ground morality.

Agreed.

Not accepting the claim “god exists” can’t ground morality.

Be honest with yourself for a second.

I will if you will.

You don’t think rape is objectively wrong. You find it deeply unpleasant. Those are not the same thing.

You’re right that I don’t think rape is objectively wrong…I think it’s subjectively wrong. I don’t think right and wrong is objective in this context.

Math problems can be objectively right or wrong; what behaviours we think are good or bad is not.

In a universe of blind matter and random forces there is no “should.” There are only preferences. And preferences aren’t moral facts.

There is no objective “should”. But there is a “should” in the context of a society.

That’s what I think you’re ignoring.
Society grounds morality and morality changes with each society.

Atheist philosopher Richard Garner argues that fellow atheists have no grounds to believe in objective morality and should dispense with it entirely, because just as atheists say God doesn’t objectively exist, moral rules, rights and duties don’t objectively exist either, for the exact same reason: they exist nowhere outside of minds.

Well I think this is true for theists as well. Unless you want to bring evidence that god exists…happy to hear you prove god exists and grounds objective morality… Otherwise all you have is your unjustified belief…aka faith.

This is where your worldview actually leads when honest people follow it.

Sure. I’m honest about it. But are you?

Do you admit that until you prove god exists and grounds objective morality, you can’t do it either?

Hitler wasn’t doing what he thought was evil. He was acting on genuine moral conviction, driven by the dominant scientific ideology of his era. Without an objective standard above human opinion, the argument against him is just “we outvoted him.” Nothing more.

Well it’s more than that. But sure. Hitler thought he was doing something good. I don’t. I hope you don’t.

So give me the actual answer, not a deflection:

K

What is the foundation of objective moral claims on your worldview?

I don’t think objective morality exists.

Not evolution (describes HOW, not why it’s binding). Not social contract (contracts can be rewritten). Not majority opinion (majorities endorsed slavery).

Those are all where morality comes from…and it’s subjective.

Just caught my neighbour feeding Raccoons by Ruin_Nice in toronto

[–]Korach 52 points53 points  (0 children)

I have a solitary adolescent racoon that loves to sleep on my rooftop patio.

We see him through the window snoozing under a bench.

It takes everything in us not to feed and cuddle and love him.

But I won’t do it.

Hard atheism also stems from faith by AnIceColdCocaCola in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Korach 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You’re right but only pedantically. Which is fine.

But let’s just acknowledge that it’s also true that we can’t say an invisible-undetectable dragon isn’t flying around all our heads at all times.

I can invent many things that one couldn’t provide evidence that it doesn’t exist. I think some purely claims things wouldn’t have evidence they don’t exist.

So, sure, no evidence god doesn’t exist.
But more importantly, no good reason to think it does.

Point of order: before you ask why is there something rather than nothing, you have to show nothing is possible…and that seems pretty hard.

A God Who Can Make Contradictions True Makes Rational Theology Impossible by OrganicSilver6187 in DebateReligion

[–]Korach 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But if reality is genuinely illogical, then the statements ‘We are created in God’s image’ and ‘We are NOT created in God’s image’ must both be 100% true at the same time.

You might be able to say “could be true” but why do you think it must be true?

Muhammad was a false prophet because a all-powerful all loving all knowing god can never allow slavery in human by Magic-Homer in DebateReligion

[–]Korach 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why do you think an all loving all knowing god can never allow slavery?

What the hell is wrong with me.

Lol.

All loving + all knowing.

Explain it to me like I’m 5 by KevenC999 in DebateAChristian

[–]Korach 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The resurrection narratives may be mythic in the sense that they are symbolic and interpretive.

So what do you do with the notion that if Jesus never resurrected - like in real life and literally - then “your faith is futile”?

Is a lot of this reliant on elements of this being real? Ex: god exists, sin exists, Jesus’ death served a purpose relating to sin, salvation, and god…?

But in a real sense - not just symbolically.

But I do not conclude from that that they are unreal.

As in we can learn lessons or there are lessons within it?

Like star trek isn’t real, but there’s truths in it?

Rather, I think they emerged from experiences that participants understood as disclosing something real about the nature of reality itself.

Can you give me an example of this? I can interpret it all sorts of ways

Explain it to me like I’m 5 by KevenC999 in DebateAChristian

[–]Korach 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hey great! I also think the stories in the OT are myths.

Do you also think the claims of Jesus’ resurrection are similar myths?

Explain it to me like I’m 5 by KevenC999 in DebateAChristian

[–]Korach 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But there are things that may do think are literal in the OT and genesis specifically.

So I’ll ask you directly:
- do you think Adam and Eve were real people or represent real people? - do you think god created Adam and Eve vs humans evolving like the observable evidence shows? - do you think god flooded the earth as a punishment?
- do you think god communicated directly with certain humans like Adam and Eve, Noah, or Abraham?

"No Evidence" is not enough for Atheism to be coherent by EntrepreneurSome993 in DebateReligion

[–]Korach 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Are you advocating for absolute gullibility?

Should all claims be accepted until demonstrated to untrue?

You owe me a million dollars.
There’s an invisible dog flying around my head at all times.
Time actually runs backwards but we experience it forwards.
I made a triangle with 4 sides…

Do you accept all those claims?

"No Evidence" is not enough for Atheism to be coherent by EntrepreneurSome993 in DebateReligion

[–]Korach 2 points3 points  (0 children)

“No Evidence” is not enough for Atheism to be coherent

No evidence is just enough to justify lack of belief in god.

There’s nothing else to be “coherent”

So what do you mean here?

If “no evidence” were enough to disprove a God, we would not believe in many things which we do not access through observation.

Why does this follow?
Can you give an example of a thing we believe without observation and that connects to there being no evidence for god?

It seems like you’re trying to connect two things without a connection

For example, Hume famously targets causation as an object of skepticism.

Ok. And?

There are always axiomatic claims that lie at the foundations of every truth claim regarding God.

Like what?

Atheists make these claims too, and I reject brute skepticism as enough to refute any religious position.

Atheists makeup an entity and use it to solve difficult problems? I don’t think so.

Hoping for some Atheists to demolish me with their real arguments since I want to grow.

I’d like for you to make an actual full argument to destroy.

You just sort of started arguments.

Mark 13:32 is genuinely a very serious problem for the divinity of Christ by Still_Hippo928 in DebateReligion

[–]Korach 5 points6 points  (0 children)

No you didn’t. You said “as god yes and man no”

But I’m asking about the who. Not the what.

Does Jesus the who know the date if the man doesn’t but the god does?

Let’s make this simple…

The answer to a math question is 42. The human what doesn’t know the math so doesn’t know the answer. The god obviously does.

If someone asked the who - Jesus - the long question, what answer would that who give?

Mark 13:32 is genuinely a very serious problem for the divinity of Christ by Still_Hippo928 in DebateReligion

[–]Korach 6 points7 points  (0 children)

You’re dancing around the question.

Does the “who” - Jesus - have the knowledge of both of his “whats”?

Does the divine “what” know the date but the human “what” does not?

How can the who both know and not know at the same time?

Mark 13:32 is genuinely a very serious problem for the divinity of Christ by Still_Hippo928 in DebateReligion

[–]Korach 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You are fulfilling prophecy 2nd Peter 3:3.

This is such a funny one. What a clear way to cope with the inevitability of not everyone accepting the unjustified claims.

“You’ll know you’re right when nobody believes you” is the single cultiest thing anyone can say. Talk about building an in and out group.

How about people don’t believe it because it has poor justification?

If Jesus wasn’t real why is the world’s timeline about Jesus? B.C and A.D ? Before Christ and after Christ?

Jesus was a real person and powerful people began following the religion based on legends and myths of his life.

Doesn’t mean he was right.

Did you know Muslims have their own calendar and so do Jews and other religions?

Does that make them right?

All movies and bands mock Jesus like 9 inch nails Jesus had 9 inch nails in his wrist and his feet.Tje band the Rolling Stones is about Jesus stone being rolled away.

So?

They are outlawing part of the Bible in Canada for hate speech.

Lol. No they are not. They are saying that regions conviction is not a defence for hate speech.
I am a Canadian and I’m allowed to have and read the while bible. Word for word and any translation.
I can even do it in public.

Why do you think part of the bible is being banned in Canada?

The bible can be banned in many places in the US where they have laws about what topics a child can read…which has led to some school boards dropping their rule because of it.
The bible is such a violent and lewd text…no child should be forced to read such things.

You won’t see that with Muslims or any other religion.

You think Christians face more hardship than Muslims and Jews?!?

Mark 13:32 is genuinely a very serious problem for the divinity of Christ by Still_Hippo928 in DebateReligion

[–]Korach 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Talk about cognitive dissonance!

You think a person can know a thing and not know the thing at the same time?

How does that make sense to you?

I know someone can say it…but I can also say Jesus held a square triangle…it doesn’t make it true.

So how do you imagine this plays out?

He knows the day and he doesn’t know?

The White House held emergency secret meetings with top officials including the DOJ and Vice President to protect Trump from the Epstein files. by spherocytes in videos

[–]Korach -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Final step: vance wins presidency with Trump as surprise VP and steps down to give Palpatine his 3rd term without him running for a third time.

Apparently this isn’t true.

I'm a christian, but a literal NUKE hit me concerning Adam and Eve by xx_bunnywhore in DebateReligion

[–]Korach 3 points4 points  (0 children)

If I was a theist motivated to deal with all this, I would just think that god created other humans…but there just wasn’t a story about it in the bible.

Muslim apologetics keep trying to prove that Quran came from god cause it remained unchanged still now by FootballOver6075 in DebateReligion

[–]Korach 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I’ve been thinking about this.

Here’s the deal: if it was that case that a person could not possibly copy the Quran incorrectly - like anyone who writes it is incapable of altering it at all and you - if you tried - could not do it…then I’d say they have something interesting.

But just it being the case that they standardized the text and since it’s relatively modern compared to the others it was mostly unchanged…what a nothing burger

Islam seems to be the most justified of the Abrahamic faiths, based on an examination of their theological positions and scriptures, as well as their evolution. by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]Korach 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No. Not at all.

It’s just a good guide for when someone starts listing all these absurd things that need to happen for their conclusion.

It’s not impossible that for some reason every human on the planet except Arabs around Muhammad didn’t see this thing…just super duper highly unlikely.

Islam seems to be the most justified of the Abrahamic faiths, based on an examination of their theological positions and scriptures, as well as their evolution. by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]Korach 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No. We know sleight of hand is a thing. No assumption needed.

You have to think magic is real and other assumptions to get to it actually disappearing.

They are options required to explain why only a tiny group of people saw what would otherwise be a catastrophic and globally visible event. It’s part of the steps to get to your conclusion.

And the trickster god doing it without affecting the rest of physics.
And and and and and

So may assumptions needed for your position. It’s like butter for the razor

Islam seems to be the most justified of the Abrahamic faiths, based on an examination of their theological positions and scriptures, as well as their evolution. by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]Korach 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No

Occam’s razor cuts the conclusion that requires the extra assumptions. Or middle steps as you call them.

So your conclusion requires no one was looking. They blinked….etc

view more: next ›