- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Conservatism doesn’t always equal Christianity
Posted on 3/4/21 at 10:47 am to AggieHank86
Posted on 3/4/21 at 10:47 am to AggieHank86
quote:
In modern usage, the distinction between atheist and agnostic is that (i) an atheist has an affirmative belief that no deity exists and (ii) an agnostic says he has no idea whether deities exist or not.
No doubt Azkiger and I will agree on most political viewpoints.
But the very common modern atheist claim is not that they have an 'affirmative belief that no deity exists' - but more subtly that they 'lack a belief in a god or gods'.
The distinction is subtle, but meaningful.
1
Posted on 3/4/21 at 10:51 am to BiteMe2020
quote:Which makes that person "agnostic," rather than "atheist," as the two terms are used in modern parlance.
But the very common modern atheist claim is not that they have an 'affirmative belief that no deity exists' - but more subtly that they 'lack a belief in a god or gods'.
I agree that the distinction is both subtle and important.
Posted on 3/4/21 at 10:55 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Which makes that person "agnostic," rather than "atheist," as the two terms are used in modern parlance.
I agree that the distinction is both subtle and important.
I agree with your conclusion. They're agnostic. But the common theme is to use the new definition to play coy with exposing one's own reasonings to criticism.
Posted on 3/4/21 at 11:23 am to Flats
quote:
Because you can't derive those from logic, which is what I've been saying over and over and you have been failing to understand.
You saying something over and over doesn’t make it true. Provide some evidence, or it’s just like your opinion man... not a fact
Posted on 3/4/21 at 11:26 am to Revelator
quote:
Before I start, let me first say, I’m both patriotic and conservative, but that doesn’t necessarily translate to ideas compatible with Christianity.
It seems there is a common theme to connect the two, as if they are synonymous. Sometimes, they are indeed compatible, but at other times, they are not.
There appears to be a feeling on this board that conservatism and Christianity are the same thing.
On something like immigration, it might be easier for a person on the Left to make a scriptural argument on why they are right
citing Bible verses. I, on the other hand could site numerous reasons why unchecked immigration is problematic to me personally or to my country, but I don’t think I could use scripture to make my case?
Too often, I fall into the trap of
basing my positions, not on scripture first, but on the premise of how it affects me personally.
Ultimately, my allegiances aren’t to a country, president or even to the constitution, but to God.
I think it’s a point that’s often overlooked.
Exactly correct. And it's one of the main reasons Christians get raked over the coals for voting Trump. He's not my minister. I'm voting for the most conservative choice and the one who will help protect my freedoms. If it comes down to who is most "Christian", none of them would get into office.
Posted on 3/4/21 at 11:33 am to BiteMe2020
quote:
I agree with your conclusion. They're agnostic. But the common theme is to use the new definition to play coy with exposing one's own reasonings to criticism.
What you’re missing is that the two words have different meanings. You can be one without being the other, as one speaks to belief and one to knowledge.
Maybe the definition has changed with time, most things do. Refusing to use the words by the current definitions only muddies the water. However small you feel the difference between the two is, doesn’t change the fact that there is a difference.
Posted on 3/4/21 at 11:35 am to Hammer of Rod
quote:But isn't the agnostic simply declining to participate in the "belief" discussion, because he thinks that he lacks adequate knowledge/information to FORM a rational belief?
What you’re missing is that the two words have different meanings. You can be one without being the other, as one speaks to belief and one to knowledge.
Maybe the definition has changed with time, most things do. Refusing to use the words by the current definitions only muddies the water. However small you feel the difference between the two is, doesn’t change the fact that there is a difference.
Posted on 3/4/21 at 11:36 am to Flats
quote:
Because you can't derive those from logic, which is what I've been saying over and over and you have been failing to understand.
Yes, actually, you can. Ignoring morals, if you come to believe in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god, then lots of things logically follow prior to your argument for or against objective moral values.
quote:
The rest of your post is confusing behavior with values. Once you have the basics that you mentioned above, of course you can use logic to inform your behavior. Values and behaviors that try to reflect those values aren't the same thing.
Valuing something just is a behavior. It's a subset of behaviors, much like scratching an itch, or feeding yourself.
Morals are just prescriptions for certain right behavior. In a moral philosophy that is "absolutist" - you might argue that the behavior of killing another person is always wrong, or that lying is always wrong, no matter what.
Objective morality (of which there are, of course, many flavors) is a medium ground, that takes into account the circumstances of a particular act. So, lying, which is a sin, to Nazis about the fact that you've hidden Jews in your basement might be the morally right thing to do under moral objectivism, but might still be wrong under moral absolutism. For the moral relativist, it's whatever floats their boat. There is no right or wrong answer.
I think the best way to approach the debate of subjective vs. objective morals is to simply ask you, "is, having two free, nonconsequential alternatives, raping a baby okay?"
If your answer is that it's "always wrong", then you're a moral objectivist. If your answer is "it depends on whether or not you, or the society, believes rape is wrong", then you might be a subjectivist.
Claiming that morality is subjective carries with it a lot of consequences I think most atheists don't want to acknowledge.
This post was edited on 3/4/21 at 11:39 am
Posted on 3/4/21 at 11:43 am to BiteMe2020
quote:I vacillate between agnosticism and deism. Either way, I have very little doubt that morality is ENTIRELY subjective.
Claiming that morality is subjective carries with it a lot of consequences I think most atheists don't want to acknowledge.
The only "consequence" of that which gives me any concern is that I DO want to be certain not to live in a society that has adopted a moral code VASTLY different from that in which I was raised. One that varies at the margins simply does not concern me very much.
Posted on 3/4/21 at 11:47 am to Hammer of Rod
quote:
What you’re missing is that the two words have different meanings. You can be one without being the other, as one speaks to belief and one to knowledge.
Maybe the definition has changed with time, most things do. Refusing to use the words by the current definitions only muddies the water. However small you feel the difference between the two is, doesn’t change the fact that there is a difference.
The definition has indeed changed over time. Initially, when I had my initial doubts about faith, I scoured the interwebz and bookstores looking for information that my Church failed to tell me about. I found it on both sides, and had to make a decision.
Logical coherency is a basic part of my fundamental beliefs. Whether or not there is a god, my beliefs need to be internally logically consistent. Someone who denies that God exists cannot logically support an assertion that certain actions are objectively right or wrong. It was that simple.
You can say, as an atheist, that you believe Hitler was wrong to murder Jews, but your position cannot be logically supported. It's just your feeling. There isn't really a right or wrong to discuss. You are simply expressing an opinion that - according to you - you disapprove personally of Hitler's murder of the Jews.
Atheists who are logically consistent will admit to moral nihilism, and therefore, "might makes right" - and admit that murdering Jews was only wrong because Hitler lost.
Posted on 3/4/21 at 11:49 am to AggieHank86
quote:
I vacillate between agnosticism and deism. Either way, I have very little doubt that morality is ENTIRELY subjective.
The only "consequence" of that which gives me any concern is that I DO want to be certain not to live in a society that has adopted a moral code VASTLY different from that in which I was raised. One that varies at the margins simply does not concern me very much.
In some countries they love their neighbors, in some countries they eat their neighbors. Which do you prefer?That's the subjectivist's question.
It's not the margins you need concern yourself with. It's more basic. Is taking the life of an innocent person actually wrong, or is it just that you disapprove of it strongly?
This post was edited on 3/4/21 at 11:51 am
Posted on 3/4/21 at 11:59 am to AggieHank86
[quote]But isn't the agnostic simply declining to participate in the "belief" discussion, because he thinks that he lacks adequate knowledge/information to FORM a rational belief?[/quote
Not at all. Who is declining to have a discussion?
An agnostic doesn’t think he lacks adequate knowledge/information, he thinks that there isn’t adequate knowledge/information to form a rational belief.
Not at all. Who is declining to have a discussion?
An agnostic doesn’t think he lacks adequate knowledge/information, he thinks that there isn’t adequate knowledge/information to form a rational belief.
Posted on 3/4/21 at 12:07 pm to BiteMe2020
quote:
Objective morality (of which there are, of course, many flavors) is a medium ground, that takes into account the circumstances of a particular act.
That's not what objective means.
Honestly, I have no idea what you're trying to say most of the time. In one post you say you can't have morality without God, in another you say all you need is logic. All of these are your statements:
quote:
We can indeed develop a moral code from logic.
We can ground these moral codes in the assertion that there is a source of these morals outside of mankind that is the source.
Trying to define a moral code without God .......... is doomed to fail.
You can get morals from logic, indeed.
Which is it? Can man create his own moral values using logic or is God the source?
Posted on 3/4/21 at 12:16 pm to BiteMe2020
quote:
Logical coherency is a basic part of my fundamental beliefs. Whether or not there is a god, my beliefs need to be internally logically consistent. Someone who denies that God exists cannot logically support an assertion that certain actions are objectively right or wrong. It was that simple.
You can say, as an atheist, that you believe Hitler was wrong to murder Jews, but your position cannot be logically supported. It's just your feeling. There isn't really a right or wrong to discuss. You are simply expressing an opinion that - according to you - you disapprove personally of Hitler's murder of the Jews.
Atheists who are logically consistent will admit to moral nihilism, and therefore, "might makes right" - and admit that murdering Jews was only wrong because Hitler lost.
What you don’t get is that you are simply stating your opinion.
Saying that someone who doesn’t believe in your God cannot logically do Anything is absurd.
Your beliefs are just that, your beliefs. In other words just a feeling.
You are simply expressing your opinion that It’s only wrong because some God said so.
Posted on 3/4/21 at 12:43 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
In modern usage, the distinction between atheist and agnostic is that (i) an atheist has an affirmative belief that no deity exists and (ii) an agnostic says he has no idea whether deities exist or not.
Nope
Posted on 3/4/21 at 12:55 pm to BiteMe2020
quote:
You can say, as an atheist, that you believe Hitler was wrong to murder Jews, but your position cannot be logically supported.
The same goes for Christians. If it turns out God ordered Hitler to do what he did you can say you believe what Hitler did was wrong, but your position couldn't be logically supported.
Sure, you could say that God didn't, and would never, do such a thing. And you're be half right. There's no evidence that God ordered Hitler to commit those atrocities. But he did order many atrocities in the Old Testament.
Your hands are just as tied in similar acts of genocide. Go ahead, try and argue God was wrong to drown millions of children. Or hunt them down and kill them because their Pharoah wouldn't listen.
There are plenty of acts in the Bible that could at least be mentioned in the same paragraph as the things Hitler did. And you're in no position to disagree. Worse, I suspect you wouldn't disagree. At least I have the freedom to criticize Hitler. You have to nod along when God drowns children.
Posted on 3/4/21 at 1:04 pm to Azkiger
quote:
The same goes for Christians. If it turns out God ordered Hitler to do what he did you can say you believe what Hitler did was wrong, but your position couldn't be logically supported.
This doesn't make a lot of sense for two reasons. 1) Man has free will, and 2) God is perfectly justified to take what is His.
quote:
Sure, you could say that God didn't, and would never, do such a thing. And you're be half right. There's no evidence that God ordered Hitler to commit those atrocities. But he did order many atrocities in the Old Testament.
Your hands are just as tied in similar acts of genocide. Go ahead, try and argue God was wrong to drown millions of children. Or hunt them down and kill them because their Pharoah wouldn't listen.
There are plenty of acts in the Bible that could at least be mentioned in the same paragraph as the things Hitler did. And you're in no position to disagree. Worse, I suspect you wouldn't disagree. At least I have the freedom to criticize Hitler. You have to nod along when God drowns children.
What's God's is God's and what's not yours is not yours.
Posted on 3/4/21 at 1:06 pm to BiteMe2020
quote:
You can say, as an atheist, that you believe Hitler was wrong to murder Jews, but your position cannot be logically supported. It's just your feeling. There isn't really a right or wrong to discuss. You are simply expressing an opinion that - according to you - you disapprove personally of Hitler's murder of the Jews.
Total horse shite. Some people, like yourself, are so small minded that they need the Bible in order to act like a human being. What a sad existence. I don’t believe in god. But I would never murder someone, because empathy has nothing to do with god. I’ve experienced pain. I do not specifically want someone else to experience pain, because I know how bad it is.
Speaking of, the Old Testament god was basically Hitler mixed with Jigsaw from the Saw movies. Probably worse actually. I bet you’re cool with that because he’s god though.
Posted on 3/4/21 at 1:10 pm to BiteMe2020
quote:Morality is for me and thee, but not for He?
God is perfectly justified to take what is His.
(forgive the poor grammar. I chose the rhyme.)
The usual response it the tautology that it is God who determines morality, so anything He does is thus "moral" by definition ... but (in some cases) only if done by Him.
This post was edited on 3/4/21 at 1:15 pm
Posted on 3/4/21 at 1:10 pm to MJforPrez
quote:
Total horse shite. Some people, like yourself, are so small minded that they need the Bible in order to act like a human being. What a sad existence. I don’t believe in god. But I would never murder someone, because empathy has nothing to do with god. I’ve experienced pain. I do not specifically want someone else to experience pain, because I know how bad it is.
Speaking of, the Old Testament god was basically Hitler mixed with Jigsaw from the Saw movies. Probably worse actually. I bet you’re cool with that because he’s god though.
This is a fairly typical atheist temper tantrum. Nobody needs the Bible to know morality. The Bible is not only a book that has moral lessons. If the Bible was nothing more than a book on morality, nobody would need it.
But that's quite beside the point of the Bible, and specifically the New Testament.
Page 12 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News