"If there is no god, there is no morality."

This is one of the stupidest stances anyone can possibly hold. Atheists are not immoral. We may have slightly different morals than you, but we have morals, and they have nothing to do with god.

Morals are nothing more than a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do. That inherently has nothing to do with religion.

In fact, I'd consider the biggest difference between my morals and yours is that I don't condone preaching. Believe what you wish, but keep it to yourself. I don't try and convince religious people to stop believing, yet they're constantly preaching at me and other non-believers trying to convince us that we need to believe what they do.

I can prove the Bible is true and God existed. Do you want evidence?

i thought religion was banned from internet

Also without god there are still human value but a lot of human value is placed in God.... hard facts tho pagens never lead crusades of children to their death in the name of “God.” Catholics have a bad rep, too.

@Nauzhror "This is one of the stupidest stances anyone can possibly hold. Atheists are not immoral."
You missed the argument completely, as atheists normally do when this point is made. No one's arguing that someone can't be moral without religion. We're saying that apart from God, there is no basis for morality to exist, ie. objective morality. Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin also had their own beliefs about "what is and is not acceptable for them to do". On what basis would you say they're wrong? Would you preach to them about morality (ie. harming others is wrong), or do you not believe in preaching? ;)
If you were about to run off of a cliff and one of us point that out, are we wrong to do so? Are we just trying to control which way you run, or do we have a reason for pointing that out? In the same way, those who are going to hell should be warned about it and shown a way out, that is Jesus. In Toronto, a street preacher named David Lynn was arrested for telling gay people that God loves them. Now, he can't even rent a church because he was charged with municipal hate speech laws. His message wasn't offensive at all and the whole thing is available on youtube. We (theoretically) have freedom of speech, so don't tell me to keep it to myself, because this is the type of society you're creating. Toronto is a lot more degenerate than other Canadian cities though.

spoiler alert..... universal objective morals don't exist....


also your god does not seem very nice.... making people suffer in eternity for breaking some rules he himself made..... and the only way out is through belive in him..... seems a tad narcissistic to me....

cant you find a nice god to belive in insted?

Edited 2/5/2020 15:41:05

@LND
For morality to come from God, God would have to exist. Since we are still waiting for a god’s existence to be demonstrated, this entire argument is moot. We end the argument there, and tell you to come back when you can show at least one evidence for this 'so called' god.

do you have any suggestion njord? seems a little pessimistic otherwise

@Njord https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iP4A3C3E4Cs RC Sproul - "What's wrong with you people?"

This thread has degenerated from what it once was: wholesome posting of verses from the bible. If we could get back to that instead of pointless arguments, that'd be great.

These discussions are actually the only interesting thing about this thread. It's also interesting to see these defenses on the almightys glory. Sometimes i see the flawedness only when reading it the second time

All hail the supreme leader jeff

that video shows what christianity is, its a good video..... But for us that do not see ourselves as slaves it do seem like the christian god is an ahole while if you see your self as one that needs to summit to god, it seems righteous.


to me it seems like a slave religion

@tacky

its not pesimitic, it is what it is.....

John 15:15 - "No longer do I call you slaves, for the slave does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard from My Father I have made known to you."

When we're saved, we're given a new nature ("born again"), so that we desire the same thing God desires for us, and we don't want to continue to do the bad things we used to. In this way, we become progressively righteous, called sanctification. We'll never be completely free from sin, but we will overcome known sins. We're not slaves because Christianity isn't a list of rules we struggle to keep (as many people, including many Christians think), but it's depending on the Holy Spirit to be conformed to Christ, which we desire because of our new nature.
Doubt that'll change your mind, but I explained why it isn't a slave religion.

your talking about something different than in the video you posted, which seems completely like a slave/master dynamic.

So you got a new nature that is better than those not saved.And you will overcome known sin. Thats seems pretty prideful to me

to shoot down someone else’s opinion because it is not your own and not even provide a counter opinion, other than you don’t agree, seems pretty negative/pessimistic

Edited 2/5/2020 21:54:51

I was talking about something different because you were too. You initially said God was narcissistic, so I sent you that video. Then you said that Christianity is a slave religion. Now you're making a new argument, saying it's prideful.
The new nature/Holy Spirit is a gift... how could I be proud of a gift? I deserve hell just as much as anyone else. Even if it was a source of pride, why is that a bad thing according to moral relativism?
Ephesians 2:8-9 - "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast."

if Fizzer created function to mute forum threads I would be so happy...

Edit: There is no argument that would dissuade believers from believing, or dissuade non-believers from not believing, or else it would've been said some time in the last 2,000 years. No point arguing about religion. The Bible has great stories though.
The best argument I have heard in my life to encourage faith in God is Pascal's wager (which in hindsight isn't a very good argument anyway). We can however, go about it pragmatically. We can ask the other side questions that can feasibly be answered (i.e. no questions like "where do we come from?" "who created the universe?" that sort of thing). The point of this is to establish whether or not we need religion.

Do I need to believe in God, to be a good person?

(I haven't read any of the new comments so sorry if I'm interrupting an ongoing argument :P)

Edited 2/5/2020 22:50:44

@Ganymedes
I could just as easily ask you for evidence that God doesn't exist, and you would be just as (supposedly) unable as me to find any. (though if you'd read through the whole chat you would see me giving examples of evidence in support of the truth of the Gospels and therefore attesting the existence of God).
Because He is an omnipotent deity that set the laws of this world in place, He is not bound by the laws of this world. Therefore "proof" (or "disproof") of His existence cannot be found by observing the laws of is world.
And, to be honest, unless you are actually open to the idea that God could be real, no evidence I give will be satisfactory, because you won't want it to be and you'll convince yourself it isn't. (To support my point, the fact that you ignored my evidence in support of the gospels and called for more.)

Anyway, let's assume God doesn't exist. The universe accidentally explodes into existence from nothing, a ton of extremely improbable chemical reactions accidentally happen to form nucleic acids and other biomolecules, these miraculously survived long enough to miraculously clump together with lots of other biomolecules, the nucleotides randomly bond together in a chance order which coincidentally forms the genome of the first prokaryote, somehow the cell gets a membrane, ribosomes and the thousands of other components essential to cell growth. So somehow it's genome is correct, and it is able to function fully...

Now, I don't know if you're much of a scientist, but I'm at least a half scientist (and biochemistry is my interest area) and when I look at that scientifically, I see mere guesswork at how the world happened. I have not seen experimental evidence to support any one of these steps happening, much less the chance of them happening all at once by pure accident, which are ridiculously tiny chances.
Anyway, assuming all that unlikelihood to have happened, we are the result of random chemical reactions, and therefore so are your thoughts. In which case, there is nothing to say that one person is right and one wrong. Bye bye objective morality.

Though one may be overpowered by another, two can withstand him. And a threefold cord is not quickly broken.

Ecclesiastes 4:12 NKJV

Commentary:
This verse is telling us the value of having friends; you can stand together, help one another out, encourage each other in their faith and in other things.

Edited 2/5/2020 22:54:37

"a ton of extremely improbable chemical reactions accidentally happen to form nucleic"

You have almost answered your own question there friend. Improbable, not impossible. Something to consider is that these reactions happened over billions of years. I know it's difficult to comprehend just how much time that is (I'm not being sarcastic), but that is a really long time for small changes, granted improbable changes to accumulate. I only have to reference the butterfly effect for you to know what I mean.
As someone who is "at least a half scientist (and biochemistry is my interest area)", I'm sure you're aware of the studies carried out on the 'Miller-Urey experiment' vials. They have discovered 20 amino acids and amines! The building blocks of life!!! This is honestly incredible and testament to human ingenuity and genius. They created organic compounds from inorganic substances (feel to correct me on my terminology, long time since I studied biology). This happened in less than 70 years, imagine how much more could happen in a thousand years, a million years, maybe even billions of years hmmmmmm.

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/New-insights-into-prebiotic-chemistry-from-Stanley-Bada/ee5b3b10e890dc36f2d67a206471924e78b4813e

Edit: I said less than 100 years, but it's less than 70 years.

Edited 2/9/2020 13:36:44