Because only a theistic doctrine has the potential to go beyond moral relativism.
And it is necessary to go beyond moral relativism if we are to have any reliable, obligatory and sanctionable values.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Atheism:believe in no God or disbelieve in God
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
Because only a theistic doctrine has the potential to go beyond moral relativism.
And it is necessary to go beyond moral relativism if we are to have any reliable, obligatory and sanctionable values.
Evidence of God for me would be direct interaction. I would think a lot of people say they don't believe in God, just to say that they disagree with popular definitions of God.
For example, i refuse to believe in a christian God who is supposedly omniscient and omnipotent, yet is comfortable damning people to hell, and is a homophobe. what kind of god gives a shit what people do with their dicks? in the bible animal offerings are made to offer a 'sweet savour' unto the lord. he likes the smell of beef? go to maccas dude!
I was chatting with an anglican mate of mine, and i'm not saying her views are anglican, but when asked she concluded 'i guess God just has a massive ego. why else do we have to do all this shit to please him, to get into his special playground.' My next thoughts were 'yeah screw him, he has time to make the universe, but only time to make heaven and hell? are people's actions really black and white like that?'
I mean god already knows everything that is gonna happen, why's he letting it play out? what's the point? he's supposedly offering people a chance, but he knows they won't take it. where they fall to temptation, he gave them that hunger for evil.
so yeah after that rant, evidence of God for me would have to be something contradicting all that. I think anything as vindictive and stupid as the Christian God should just be called 'over-powered retard'.
For example, i refuse to believe in a christian God who is supposedly omniscient and omnipotent, yet is comfortable damning people to hell, and is a homophobe. what kind of god gives a shit what people do with their dicks? in the bible animal offerings are made to offer a 'sweet savour' unto the lord. he likes the smell of beef? go to maccas dude!
I was chatting with an anglican mate of mine, and i'm not saying her views are anglican, but when asked she concluded 'i guess God just has a massive ego. why else do we have to do all this shit to please him, to get into his special playground.' My next thoughts were 'yeah screw him, he has time to make the universe, but only time to make heaven and hell? are people's actions really black and white like that?'
I mean god already knows everything that is gonna happen, why's he letting it play out? what's the point? he's supposedly offering people a chance, but he knows they won't take it. where they fall to temptation, he gave them that hunger for evil.
so yeah after that rant, evidence of God for me would have to be something contradicting all that. I think anything as vindictive and stupid as the Christian God should just be called 'over-powered retard'.
Because only a theistic doctrine has the potential to go beyond moral relativism.
And it is necessary to go beyond moral relativism if we are to have any reliable, obligatory and sanctionable values.
Interesting but the problem is that any moral chosen would be unfair for some people.
I think we should forget moral and try to live without our ego, to do everything with love (when you forget yourself) even if it imply that from some moral perspective it would be bad.
Bad or good is a subjective matter
Because only a theistic doctrine has the potential to go beyond moral relativism.
And it is necessary to go beyond moral relativism if we are to have any reliable, obligatory and sanctionable values.
On what grounds do you make that claim ?
Considering that theism is a faith based position and theists often have their own interpretations of scripture, God or gods and even theism itself, what would an atheist consider robust evidentiary support for the postulate of God?
I would say that good evidence would consist of a consistent occurance of certifiably miraculous/supernatural events across history up to the present day.
Rather than the descreasing occurance of them as science fills the gaps of ingnorance and superstition
That would be a good starting point for me