Endtimer's Posts

Nairaland Forum › Endtimer's Profile › Endtimer's Posts

1 2 3 4 (of 4 pages)

Christianity Etc › Re: For People Who Try To Justify The Barbaric Acts In The Old Testament by Endtimer: 9:33pm On Sep 28, 2022

Wilgrea7:
As always.. it's a pleasure to hear your views on the subject

Likewise

Wilgrea7:
I don't get the whole “If they are commanded by God" thing. If you believe they were commanded bt God in the old testament, what makes the commandments any less valid today?

I don’t. I believe they still are valid. That may not have come across well in my post.

Wilgrea7:
If these actions can be seen as moral based on the old testament, and immoral based on Christianity.. doesn't that imply in some way that Christianity's idea of morality runs somehow contrary to the initial old testament standards?

Nothing in the Old Testament is immoral in Christianity. What I meant was that Islamic extremists are acting immorally because they commit atrocities contrary to Christian doctrine or immoral in Christianity.

Concerning the idea of substitutionary atonement, the difference between sacrificial lambs and Christ is that Christ is God. The reason He can take someone else’s place is because the sin was committed against him. The only reason He even had to do this was because He is both just and kind.

As to whether people can continue to live sinfully because of Jesus’ sacrifice; I’ve thought long and hard and I’ve come to the unfortunate conclusion that Christianity doesn’t have any protection against this. The answer as far as I know is yes. I don’t like it but I’m being honest.

Hopefully the answer to the main topic is clearer now.

Christianity Etc › Re: Honest Question To The Christians by Endtimer: 9:05pm On Sep 28, 2022

Tamaratonye1:
And yet that's what we've been doing ever since we stopped letting the churches write our laws.

So what? What you’re saying is that most people do what everyone else does. What I’m saying is that it isn’t warranted whether or not the people in question are aware.

You are simply saying that in the absence of your hypothetical church-laws, people (due to ignorance) would continue to act properly. I’m asking why they should. Saying that they ignorantly will is a cop-out. I’ll restate the question: if God doesn’t exist, why should anyone do the right thing?

Hopefully, you won’t say, “because we’ll throw them in jail otherwise”. The question would become: why should we throw them in jail? If you say, “because killing people (as an example) is wrong”; the question becomes: why is it wrong? If you say, “it just is”; the question becomes: why? That’s enough prediction from me, but just in case you say that we just know what is good and what isn’t you’d have created the basis for rationalization of whatever anyone does based on their subjective knowledge of good and bad.

Hopefully you see why I have to continue explaining myself.

Christianity Etc › Re: Honest Question To The Christians by Endtimer: 8:55pm On Sep 28, 2022

Tamaratonye1:
This is chronic with respect to your posts. Everyone but you doesn't get it. An objective observer might suggest you get a mirror.

People allegedly responding to my posts are sure they understand me and I’ve taken the liberty to clarify whatever misconceptions they have concerning what I’ve said and encourage them to actually refute me instead of their straw men. I suppose you would prefer I let them misinterpret me.

It’s good to see that behavior-wise, you guys are no different from any group of people. You act and respond like anyone would when deeply held, ego-invested beliefs are challenged. Great to observe human nature triumph.

Christianity Etc › Re: Honest Question To The Christians by Endtimer: 8:51pm On Sep 28, 2022

Tamaratonye1:
Okay. Then presumably you can demonstrate that objective morals would not exist in the absence of God. If you have and I missed it, please link me.

This much is self-evident or properly basic. I’ll have to redirect that back to you and ask that you explain how objective morals can exist authoritatively without God.

Christianity Etc › Re: For People Who Try To Justify The Barbaric Acts In The Old Testament by Endtimer: 6:43pm On Sep 28, 2022

Wilgrea7:
Happy Sunday everyone

So this is something I've noticed in a lot of debates against Christians.

When barbaric things either done by the Christian God, or on his behalf in the old testament are brought up, Christians are often quick to jump in and justify it, using one terrible excuse or the other.

In this discussion, i want to focus on the latter. That is, things done on behalf of their God. For example,

1. Commanding the stoning of non-virgins, disobedient children and people who work on the Sabbath day
2. Commanding his alleged people to commit several acts of genocide
3. Asking a dude to sacrifice his son (I'm talking about Abraham)
4. Commanding the murder of those who don't worship him

Common reasons I've heard in support of these terrible acts include

1. He is God, and he can do whatever he wants
2. He did it, so the nation of Israel can be established, which would later lead to the coming of Christ who would save us all
3. He did it, because the people back then were sinners, and those were his ways of passing judgement

I'm sure you get the point. So now here's the catch.

If these things are justifiable based on the reasons given above, or the ones you're likely to give, then why aren't similar acts committed by Islamic terrorists considered also justifiable?

Things like killing apostates or infidels, and spreading their ideologies by the sword are things we all abhor, and object to. We sight these things as objectively wrong.

But when they happen in your old testament, for some reason, they're completely fine.

It seems to me that anyone can commit almost any barbaric and terrible act, and simply get away with it by saying “because my God told me so" or to claim it was for a higher purpose which we can't yet see. Both very terrible excuses.

So where exactly do you draw the line? And why?

Why is something deemed Just and good, when done by followers of your God in your book, but bad when done by others, who also claim to have been instructed by the same “supreme" God?

On what basis do you reject their claims of instruction, but also justify the ones committed by the people in your book?

Look forward to hearing your answers. Atheists, agnostics, and people from other faiths are also welcome to contribute.

I’m glad we were able to come to an understanding concerning the moral argument and God in theism as the authentic source of morality, regardless of how that information has not been applied to your question.

On the face of it, this is obviously an emotional argument constructed to appeal to pity, fear or indignation. I’m stating this as a reference in case the argument moves in the direction I predict it will. I present my case with the idea that it doesn’t have to make people comfortable, happy or feel good. It just has to be feasible.

Based on what we discussed already concerning morality, it is clear that God doing the things done in the Old Testament makes those things moral. Consequently, those things are still moral today, if they are commanded by God.

This is where our last discussion left off: adapting the moral argument to Christian theism. I believe that it is very moral to kill people who sacrifice their children to Moloch and to stone people who enter marriages as non virgins, regardless of how angry that may make atheists (more on this in a minute). The reason I can condemn people who kill others today is because they do it for reasons immoral in Christianity and more importantly because of Christ’s redeeming sacrifice which disqualifies anyone from doing those things today.

Christ’s sacrifice means that all sin (such as, child sacrifice and extramarital sex) has been paid for. It is moral for people who do those things to die and someone indeed has died for them which is why they can carry on living and why Christians believe that we should be grateful to Christ.

Christianity Etc › Re: Honest Question To The Christians by Endtimer: 10:10pm On Sep 18, 2022

Near1:
To repeat for those who are clearly hard of reading: Those evidence correlation, but not causation.

I have emboldened the point, for those who couldn't find a point on a tack.

You've yet to come up with anything at all in the course of this conversation, so don't feel too bad about yourself there. I understood your point. I simply think it's vacuous and self-congratulatory on your part. You're very proud that your faith is what keeps you in line and provides you your values. Bravo. Let's have a little round of applause.

Life is not inherently valueless to the living. I never thought I'd have to actually type out such an obvious banality, but I guess some people have never considered or even noticed that very basic fact. Really, just because your life is meaningless in the absence of your faith doesn't mean that's the case for everyone; but I will say I'm glad for you that your faith prevents you from committing suicide. Whatever it takes, right? I don't go through each day trying to talk myself out of suicide or some crap just because our morality is subjective.

And I did not attribute anything to you other than the obvious: that you hold morality to be absolute, and then point out that your own faith, and therefore your own morality (since your faith is what you credit as the font of morality), is inherently subjective, because you choose to believe.

Damn, dude, exactly how unperceptive are you?

Well, this is a silly argument, and I use that word loosely. 1) is that simply repeating a bald claim doesn't lend it any more validity. 2) is that I can demonstrate that morality is subjective simply by pointing to the fact that humans have moral disagreements all the time. That is the very definition of subjectivity.

And, if your god determines what is and is not moral, than that too is subjective.

Evidence?

The fact that you missed my point doesn't mean I didn't lay one. Do you need more help reading for comprehension? Perhaps you should get thee to a college for some remedial reading classes. Or, if you'd rather, I'll restrict myself to monosyllables and simple sentences.

No. You'll need to demonstrate beyond a doubt that the god you claim to found your morality upon actually exists. Lacking that, I'm fully entitled to brush off your moral framework as just as subjective as anyone else's. I believe you simply lack the honesty, or courage, to admit that.

This is a clear and deliberate misstatement of my point. Dishonest much?

Wrong. Many laws have no moral dimension at all, say, tax laws, budgetary laws, and so forth.

Yeah, given the fact that you clearly are having issues with English comprehension, I can't really blame you for begging off this discussion. The links you provided did not show causation but only correlation for religion and teh happyfeelz, despite my pointing that out previously. You've misrepresented some of what I have written, and clearly misunderstood more.

Hey now, we've got a tough guy over here. LOL

I’ve read your latest nonsense and I’ve discovered that you have the intellectual abilities of grass. It’s not that you’re wrong. It’s just that I need to explain things to you that everyone should know. Properly basic philosophical fact. For instance, you know nothing of objectivity or morality. You question my reading comprehension in order to make me fix your straw men in the most spectacular display of daftness I’ve experienced this decade.

To beat you in an argument, I’d need to teach you what I’m talking about; allow you to come to predictable conclusions and prove to you why you’re wrong. You are simply not worth the effort as a human being. I’ll add you to the list of people who can’t make intelligent responses along with the emotional girl who said something about ballet. Good luck to you.

Christianity Etc › Re: Honest Question To The Christians by Endtimer: 9:29pm On Sep 18, 2022

Near1:
What's funny is that you'll find atheists underrepresented in American federal prisons:

https://onlysky.media/hemant-mehta/in-20...opulation/

So much for the notion that atheists are more prone to criminality, all other things being equal.

I don’t mean to be petty but I’m starting to feel like I’m bullying you and the other girl. You respond with straw men and she responds with emotionalism. Once again, you aren’t addressing a point of mine. The quote you lifted had nothing to do with atheists being more likely to be imprisoned. I didn’t even hint at atheists being less law-abiding than believers of any stripe. That you made a point, appended my name to it and then proceeded to defeat it puzzles me. Did you do it because I said I’d take a break from the thread.

So, you win. Against yourself.

Christianity Etc › Re: Honest Question To The Christians by Endtimer: 8:56pm On Sep 18, 2022

1000WaysToLive:
I don't agree with that, obviously, and I'll point out that our hypothetical pedo is overwhelming likely to be a god believing person.

Some people don't care whether or not the thing they're doing is bad. Some do, and can't help themselves or are self destructive for reasons too long to list in a short post.

This isn't a problem for any particular moral system - it's a problem for every moral system. In the end, that's why authoritarianism is such a garbage system.

You can tell people to do whatever you want all day long. Won't mean they listen. Ask the many impotent gods we're told to consider. Listen to their whiny complaints about it in magic books.

Its much better to be able to explain to people why they shouldn't do x by reference to some fact of x, not some (alleged)fact of who said not to do x - which would be a subjective deontology.

Everyone here wrongly thinks I’m talking about actual experiences rather than abstractions. I agree that most people will continue living as though there is a reason to be good. What I’m saying is that there isn’t such a reason, regardless of whether people act as though there were. The problem isn’t that there are people who digress from morality. The problem is that adherence to Godless morality is unwarranted.

It appears discussion on this thread is played out. One of the women here has begun talking about drowning in my ejaculate, which I find stupid and disturbing. I’ll take myself to a more intellectually simulating thread, at least until this one stabilizes.

Christianity Etc › Re: Honest Question To The Christians by Endtimer: 1:06pm On Sep 18, 2022

Near1:
The ignorance encapsulated in this one sentence is stunning.

That should read: “responsible for spreading Christianity...”

Christianity Etc › Re: Honest Question To The Christians by Endtimer: 1:01pm On Sep 18, 2022

Near1:
I had asked you for a source. You haven't provided any. Why should I lend some complete stranger credence?

Just as I had asked you to look it up. Here’s one that proves my point and more:

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/31/are-religious-people-happier-healthier-our-new-global-study-explores-this-question/

Findings include:
-Religious people happier and more satisfied with life.
-Religious people less likely to drink and smoke.
-Religious people more likely to vote
Amongst others. Check it out.

Here’s another study showing that religious people live longer:

https://www.apu.edu/articles/why-do-religious-people-live-longer/

Near1:
This is a particularly stupid riposte. There is a clear difference between choosing what I value and choosing my capabilities. Surely you possess the mental acuity to at least see that.

No argument. Just childlike rhetoric. Whatever point you struggled to articulate here, I will address below.

Near1:
Further, your dismissing of the subjective choices we all make rather undercuts your own faith, because that too is a subjective choice you have made about which credo you will follow. As such, by your own logic your choice is just as insipid as mine.

I can’t come up with something witty to address this straw man (believe me, I’ve tried). I spoke of ultimate value and ultimate purpose and you replied in a completely unreasonable fashion. To clarify, my point was that on atheism, life is ultimately valueless and purposeless, regardless of how you feel or think about it. Attempts to create value for oneself may serve as the mirage/delusion they were meant to, but do not change the fact that life is inherently worthless (this is my point in case you want to know what you should be attacking). The attempt to create ultimate purpose or value is a succinct reminder that there is none. No mention was made about the validity of selective choice or free will. You might want to reassess my point and address it, rather than create your own and then proceed to tear it down.

Near1:
I really don't care what theists believe about me or my outlook. I'll let you know if that changes, but don't hold your breath. And again, your choice to believe in your god is equally subjective. Or, if you are compelled by objectivity, then you've just undercut free will. Congratulations.

Are you kidding? What does this have to do with anything? I suspect you didn’t understand any of what I wrote. You’re taking my argument, going off on a tangent and posing as though you’ve accomplished some great feat by attacking your own ideas.

Near1:
Again, your unspoken premise is that values may only be handed down from on high. In that sense, you are simply reiterating your argument, not supporting it.

That is hardly an unspoken premise. If you could see it then it must’ve been clear. When we speak about moral values, they can only be truly authoritative if provided by God. Moral values cannot be provided by men, the objection to this is simply: “says who?”

-We shouldn’t kill one another. It isn’t good.
-Says who?

Authoritarianism is the only way to enforce this baseless system of ethics.

Near1:
This is one big non sequitur. Just because values are subjective, that doesn't mean that people cannot agree upon many, most, or all of them. Sloppy thinking on your part does not an argument make.

No point made. Whether or not people agree on them is not the argument. The argument is that they do not cohere with objective reality. Collective delusion is what you’re suggesting.

Near1:
All societies depend upon consensus regarding basic mores. And quite frankly, the idea that religious thought coheres with reality is laughable.

Consensus on what is believed to cohere with reality. If you know that there is no foundation for these conventions then there can be no consensus. It’s like a placebo: it only works if you believe it is the real thing. Until you provide an authoritative philosophy of ethics to underlie atheistic morality I’ll assume you know that no actual moral values exist without God; only opinions. In that case, you are suggesting further collective delusion: “let’s all act in our collective best interests as though morals exist”. People aren’t stupid enough to go along with that and will eventually inquire as to why they shouldn’t act in their best interests to everyone else’s detriment.

Near1:
You think morality and legislation are inextricably linked? Are you saying that all laws have a basis in morality?

Now, I've already asked for sourcing for your bald claims, which sourcing is noticeable by its absence in this second pile of bald assertions. I assume that your tacit refusal to do so means that you have none. If I'm wrong on this, feel free to show that, by providing said sources.

Yes, all laws are moral principles enforced by power of state. They exist because it is believed that X is good and Y is bad, not because X is beneficial to our society. An easy example of this is slavery.

I’ve addressed your post in its entirety despite it having nothing to do with my points. I’ve also furnished you with links to the relevant studies backing my obvious “misinformation” to quote the writer of the op. However, I will not persist in arguing with you over your own points. Next time, read and understand me and try to address points I’ve actually made. I will not dignify your straw men with my responses any longer.

Note that I’ve matched the snark and pettiness in your comment and will continue to do so if it persists.

Christianity Etc › Re: Honest Question To The Christians by Endtimer: 11:16am On Sep 18, 2022

midnight378:
That's not my main point bro . (It also was not your main point).

..my point was that something(s) existed at high temperature and density PRIOR to the expansion , (which IS what the Big Bang was), thus the Big Bang says nothing about a creation event , despite what Christian apologists try to make it look like . the Big Bang DOES NOT support theism. Lots of known events need no cause . What is the "cause" of a random quantum fluctuation(s) ? What is the cause of random radioactive decay ? Order arises spontaneously in this universe. No gods are needed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

You avoid my point by calling the singularity, “something that existed at high temperature and density”. By doing so, you’ve demonstrated that we can fix SARS by renaming them SWAT. There is no evidence of anything existing prior to the Big Bang. That is intuitive human speculation. A good glance at Wikipedia should convince you of this.

I’m tired of playing defense so let me ask you once again. Where and when was this something that existed at high temperature and pressure prior to the existence of space and time?

As to your misunderstanding of causality. No theist worth his akara and bread has ever said that everything has a cause. That is a faulty restatement of the first premise of the cosmological argument. Everything that begins has a cause is the correct premise. Radioactive decay is spontaneous, rather than random. If your phone suddenly started decaying it would be random, but the decay of radioactive material is hardly random; it just happens without prodding and is therefore spontaneous. It’s cause is nuclear instability; that is, it is caused by unstable atomic nuclei. It does not happen randomly. As for quantum fluctuations; I know very little about the subject but a simple Google search shows that the Uncertainty principle might have something to do with it. I’ll look into it some more.

Lastly, I followed your link on Chaos theory. I find it self-defeating for you to try to posit an unordered universe by pointing to a systematic study of disorder. The entire point seems to be that things formerly thought random are in fact not, but can be studied through complex analyses. If these things truly were random, no science could study them.

By the way, where are we going with this?

Christianity Etc › Re: Honest Question To The Christians by Endtimer: 10:48am On Sep 18, 2022

1000WaysToLive:
I have observed that nearly all of your posts on this website are posts trying to refute atheists,. And this is supposed to be a newly registered account.

You seem to believe in the infallibility of your opinion about what atheists think or what they believe. The small number of atheists here all think and believe all sorts of different things about everything under the sun.

Imagine the diversity among this "we" you're trying to push, on a global scale. Or do you, religious people, all think and believe the same way?

If I may ask you, who and of what are you trying to persuade here? Yourself? That atheists are deeply mistaken? Why is this?

Do you need everyone to agree with you so that you can feel secure you're right?

Are your own convictions not enough that you need to "prove" atheists "wrong"? Or are there doubts nagging at you and you think, "I'll challenge those atheists and reconfirm my faith"?

I suggest you take a long hard look at yourself and your motivations here.

This isn’t an argument but I’ll give you an answer. Your post seems like advice for me to back off.

I don’t appreciate any form of psychoanalysis, because I understand my own mind to a large extent.

I find your post to be disrespectful towards all the atheists here. Are you trying to say that when they post something, looking for discussion with people on the other side of theological aisle, they should be left unchallenged? Why is that? Do you not believe that they really mean it when they say they want to know what theists think on certain issues? Do you think they can’t take it when someone has a difference of opinion? Why do you feel the need to protect people who’ve chosen to participate in intellectual discourse concerning their own opinions?

As to who I am, that is hardly of any importance. Like I said before I’m a Christian of sorts. You’d have better luck finding me reading Augustine’s City of God, than dancing at your local church. I feel comfortable communicating with people who believe that there is something wrong with the church today because that is exactly how I feel. Where we disagree is that some people would rather we got rid of religion than amend a few loose ends. Like everyone else, I’m searching for answers and helping those who share that quest. I do it because I like to, not because I doubt what I know and tell. I do it because we’re all looking for someone who disagrees with us to give them a piece of our minds and to confirm the strength of our beliefs. I do it because this is something I can do; something I’m well informed about. We are better off disagreeing than we are complacently believing we are right all the time.

Christianity Etc › Re: Honest Question To The Christians by Endtimer: 10:28am On Sep 18, 2022

Tamaratonye1:
Because we all lose if we all play negative sum games like murder, rape, and theft. Any society that doesn't prohibit these behaviours doesn't last long. Seriously, how long do you think a society made entirely of murderers would last? Stabbity-stabbity and everybody's dead. Anthropologists of the future will marvel at the extremely rapid decline of the Endtimers, lol

You missed the point again. I’m not talking about society based on murder. I’m talking about atheists like you saying that we should all do good and one bad egg decides that it is in his best interests to organize large numbers of people to live contrary to whatever social order you want to authoritatively impose.

For instance, you are probably against bestiality and pedophilia. In your hypothetical society someone might decide that he loves children and animals and demands that their relationship be made legal. Regardless of how many times you claim that sleeping with children isn’t good for society, he may remark that good is a social construct or that he cares only for himself rather than society. There is no cohesive ideology to prevent him from carrying out his wishes other than authoritarianism based on what you, his fellow man, thinks is right. I’m only saying that that is a slippery slope to allow any kind of behavior.

In fact, I suspect that the prisons in such a society would be filled with people who dared question other people’s ability to do whatever they please. Filled with the exact kind of person who thinks that we all lose if one guy gets to enjoy his fun with a few toddlers. Filled with people who dare tell others what to do even after breaking free of the oppressive shackles of religion.

Christianity Etc › Re: Why You Should Absolutely Question "God" by Endtimer: 10:14am On Sep 18, 2022

Wilgrea7:
I
I think get it now. So basically, what I think you're trying to say is that God once acted in a certain way, which became the arbiter of good and evil. But he will only act in line with how he acted before, or as you've put it, only ever do the same thing, in order not to change the definition of right and wrong, thereby making it arbitrary.

I think this is an absolutely outstanding position in theory, or if you try to argue for a deistic sort of God. But the theist, especially Christians and Muslims may run into serious problems when they try to apply this to their God. But I'll try not to make this about the Christian doctrine.

Glad to see that we understand each other. That is the answer to Euthyphro’s dilemma and the only authoritative source of objective morality. To adapt it to Christianity in particular is relatively easy, but as always, it involves Jesus’ death on the cross.

Christianity Etc › Re: Why You Should Absolutely Question "God" by Endtimer: 6:13pm On Sep 17, 2022

[quote author=Wilgrea7 post=116753775]I don't see how the standard set by God, can be in any way, different from his character or nature
[\quote]

This is astonishingly correct. God’s own immutable nature is the standard. That’s been my point all along.

[quote author=Wilgrea7 post=116753775]The highest good, if something like that were to exist, is something which could deviate from these standards, or nature, but doesn't.
[\quote]

Is that a restatement of my argument? If it is then we completely understand one another. The highest good in your comment above is God: something that could deviate from itself as it is the standard, but doesn’t. Our choosing to call it “good” is a matter of semantics.

[quote author=Wilgrea7 post=116753775]Perhaps i need to rephrase what I'm trying to say. If something cannot be considered bad, then it cannot be considered good either
[\quote]

The above does not follow. The correct statement is: if something cannot be considered bad, then it must always be considered good at best and morally neutral at worst.

[quote author=Wilgrea7 post=116753775]Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me like you're saying “everything which God has done up until this point has been good things" ... If so, then there needs to be something against which we can judge them as good or bad. Or else how do we know they are indeed good?

If as you've said earlier, they are good simply because God did them, then saying God has only ever done good things, loses it's meaning
[\quote]

I’m not saying that God has only ever done good things. I’m saying that on theism, it is considered that God has only ever done the same things rather than good things. Those things, by virtue of His doing them are good. If He had done the opposite of those things they would be considered good. Moral arbitrariness is avoided by positing that God only ever does the same things, therefore the same set of actions remain good and objective morality is preserved.

Christianity Etc › Re: Why You Should Absolutely Question "God" by Endtimer: 5:36pm On Sep 17, 2022

Wilgrea7:
I think the infinite moral regress arises when you indeed, try to define God's standards as “the highest good", from which all other good get their definition

To me, it would be similar to trying to solve infinite regress in creation, by calling the first cause “the greatest creation", from which all other creations come from.

If we truly want to avoid infinite moral regress, then the highest authority cannot be seen as good or bad.. just as the first cause cannot be seen as created, or having a beginning.

It doesn't invalidate morality in my opinion. Calling it the highest good, begs the question as to why it is indeed good, which begs for a higher standard to compare it to.

You could point to God's character, or his virtues, or his nature, but it still leads to the question “then why are those good"

The response followed by that is often something along the lines of “because it just is".. which makes it lose it's meaning.

If God is truly at the top of the moral command center, then in order to avoid the regress you're talking about, we need to avoid judging the standard, based on said standard, or based on a non-existent higher standard, which would only ressurect the problem

I find formatting these posts to be quite difficult so I’ll quote your post in its entirety.

First off, I think you are committing the fallacy of equivocation by comparing morality to creation. Morals can be scaled given a standard; they have gradation. While it is possible to be more moral than something the same cannot be said about being created.

As for whether the highest authority is to be seen as good or bad, I addressed this before as a semantic issue. Given superlative morality, we can choose to call one extreme good and any imitation of that extreme good. It is not that they are actually “good”. “Good” is a term designated to describe behavior characteristic of this superlative morality. Evil is the term chosen to describe the opposite superlative morality. It isn’t that God is good; it’s that God is superlatively moral in a direction we call “good” while calling the reverse superlative morality evil.

Think of “good” as a term chosen to describe one of the two kinds of superlative morals.

This should also settle the problem of infinite regress. God’s morality isn’t called good because it matches an external standard. It is simply the highest standard of morals in a certain direction, that we happen to call it good is inconsequential. To paraphrase Shakespeare; would what we call a rose, by any other name, smell less sweetly.

I hope I’ve ironed this point out.

Christianity Etc › Re: Honest Question To The Christians by Endtimer: 5:08pm On Sep 17, 2022

midnight378:
..and you would be wrong and you were told why you were wrong, and it went over your head...
You were given the definition and you cannot answer "what was at high temperature and density that banged ?". Nothing changed. Energy was preserved... nothing was "caused". The concept of the Big Bang Theory has changed (as all science does) since it was conceived of. A lot of Catholics opposed it at the time.
Obviously you know nothing about Physics and the history of physics . you don't know anything about whether there were other events . All you know about is 5 % of this universe. That's hardly enough to make any conclusions from. So best you take another stab. Roger Penrose, (Hawking's friend) wrote a book called "Cycles of Time". He contradicts you. You should learn to read books . The Big Bang Theory is about the EXPANSIONARY phase of the universe.... It's not about a "creation" phase. Yes theists, specifically Fundamentalist Christians , hijacked the theory to say what it does not.....
"Around 13.7 billion years ago, everything in the entire universe was condensed in an infinitesimally small singularity, a point of infinite denseness and heat. Suddenly, an explosive expansion began, ballooning our universe outwards faster than the speed of light". See that. There was a "point" that banged . It says nothing about a "point" being created..

Even granting that there was a "creation" event, (which I don't grant), ... it says nothing about your "cause" (which you just contradicted yourself about by saying there no "time" before) ... it's actually space-time, and clearly there was a "progression" (space-time) from the "tiny dot" to an expanding universe, and you know nothing about or when space-time began to "fall out" of the properties of the early universe. You also know nothing of the properties which were extant in any extra-universe state in which your god must have existed, and it's requirements for a cause.... typical theist assumption error . All you know is how things work in a very small subsection of this universe, and 95 % of this universe is unknown, (Dark Energy and Dark Matter) .... you really should go get a science education.

here's one of the spectacular failures of your proposed bullshit. Dinesh D'Souza used to debate about the Utilitarian nature of Christianity.
Until he didn't. LOL. https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-off...ance-fraud

Unfortunately you are the best informed atheist in this thread; despite your teenage in-your-face attitude you are doing better than the girl and that other guy by at least adding some sense to your invective. I’ll be quoting excerpts of your last post to make my point.

[quote author=midnight378 post=116753571]You were given the definition and you cannot answer "what was at high temperature and density that banged ?
[\quote]
Your main point here is that a singularity existed eternally before the Big Bang. My point is that there is no evidence of a singularity. Only of expansion.

I did in fact answer your question by pointing out to you that there is in fact no evidence of a singularity (that’s the answer you were looking for right). Scientists observed the cosmic microwave background and the expansion of the universe and retrospectively posited a singularity. There is no evidence of this singularity. There is, however, evidence of the beginning of space-time during an event before which there were no events known as the Big Bang. Your insistence on a hypothetical eternal singularity is mere speculation whether on not some colleague of Hawkins agrees with you (which is a repeated attempt at appealing to authority).

Let me ask you a few questions of which I expect answers: why does expansion from a point mean that everything must have been condensed at that point? Where was this point, if space-time didn’t exist? What details about this point can you furnish me with other than speculating that outward expansion must entail previous condensation at some unsupported dot.

[quote author=midnight378 post=116753571]Even granting that there was a "creation" event, (which I don't grant), ... it says nothing about your "cause" (which you just contradicted yourself about by saying there no "time" before)
[\quote]

So it isn’t contradictory to assume that a singularity existed eternally prior to the beginning of time, but it is to assume an atemporal omnipotence?

[quote author=midnight378 post=116753571]"Around 13.7 billion years ago, everything in the entire universe was condensed in an infinitesimally small singularity, a point of infinite denseness and heat. Suddenly, an explosive expansion began, ballooning our universe outwards faster than the speed of light"
[\quote]

Ok. Where?

That’s about everything sensible I could glean from your post. The rest is poorly written invective and rambling. I don’t mean this to be offensive, but you should calm down. You’re so angry that someone challenged your belief that you wrote hundreds of words and scarcely made any points. I predict this conversation will either civilize itself to become a proper, well reasoned argument on the Big Bang or a one-sided conversation when you find yourself looking to trade insults and nobody willing to join you.

I’ve said enough. I expect answers to my questions. I’ll let you respond.

Christianity Etc › Re: Why You Should Absolutely Question "God" by Endtimer: 1:03pm On Sep 17, 2022

To clarify my last point: God’s standard is chosen as good because it is superlative, which means that if anything can stop infinite moral regress, it is either His morals or their evil superlative equivalent. It follows that He is either completely good or completely evil. At this point we are dealing with the designations “good” and “evil” rather than their connotations. We could dictionary swap the words and say God is evil but reality would remain the same and a positive and negative standard would still exist, however reversed.

Christianity Etc › Re: Why You Should Absolutely Question "God" by Endtimer: 12:56pm On Sep 17, 2022

I’ll address what I can. I need to read more on God’s relationship to certain things.

Wilgrea7:
So earlier, you mentioned that God is good, because whatever he does is good. And then you added by saying that he will only do certain things or act in a certain way. I see that as a contradiction.

I don’t see the contradiction. The point of that option in the dilemma is to make the theist abandon moral objectivity in favor of arbitrariness. I accepted the option and sidestepped the challenge it is supposed to pose.

Wilgrea7:
If whatever a God does is, and has to be considered good, then regardless of what he does, it MUST be seen as good

I agree.

Wilgrea7:
And if a God will, or can only act in a certain way in order to be considered good, then good is not dependent on him, or should I say, good is not dependent on his actions. I fail to see the middle ground here.

I disagree. Here you are mixing up the premises of both options of the dilemma. It isn’t that God will only act in a certain way to be seen as good. It is that whatever God does is good. Good is whatever God does. It isn’t that He only acts in those ways to conform to the good; rather those things are only good because they are His characteristics. Good is therefore entirely dependent on Him. However to eliminate the possibility of moral subjectivity, I said that God does not change morally. While whatever He does is good, He has only ever done the same things. So good is good because God does it and it doesn’t change because God’s nature doesn’t change. Evil would be good if God suddenly did it, but that’s an impossibility in this model. This is theistically sound, even though it requires further explication to be used in Christianity.

Wilgrea7:
The idea that we would not need God in such a situation only arises in cases where people think a God has to directly tell them or spell out what right and wrong are, as in the case of Abrahamic religions and a several others.

I do believe that God is the only authoritative source of morality. I’ve just been accused of not knowing anything about ethics but it is in fact well known that any atheistic philosophy of ethics must assume certain moral first principles borrowed from religion. Aquinas referred to these as the cardinal virtues as we can arrive at them logically even though they lack moral value without God.

Wilgrea7:
The standard itself cannot be seen as good or bad.. the standard simply is. The only way you can call it good or bad is if you measure it against another standard.

This is especially insightful. God’s moral qualities are seen as superlative. That is, God’s virtue outdoes all incidence of morality. While all morals are on a scale of decay from His, we’ve already covered this as part of the dilemma. The reason the standard is good is because it is representative of God’s character. Remember that that is the first option of the dilemma: that what ever God does is good. What makes it good is that God does it. What we’ve done here is pick God’s superlative qualities as our moral pivot (the only alternative would be superlative qualities in the other direction). The reason for this is so one standard doesn’t depend on another; so that we avoid infinite regress of moral dependency.

Christianity Etc › Re: Honest Question To The Christians by Endtimer: 10:46am On Sep 17, 2022

midnight378:
don't bother. It's long ago debunked.
The Big Bang says nothing about a first cause.
Theism hijacked the theory and dishonestly rejiggers it .

The Big Bang not only says nothing about a First Cause , it does not need one.
"The Big Bang event is a physical theory that describes how the universe expanded from an initial state of high density and temperature."
The Big Bang says nothing about "creation" or causation . it says the universe went from a state of high energy and density to an expanded state.
"Nothing: is not at high energy and density. "Something" was already there in a high energy and high temperature state . The theory says nothing about how that "something" got into a high energy and high temperature state. The Big Bang Theory does nothing to support theism...... Nothing..... Ignorant Christians who actually know nothing about the theory have hijacked it and claim it says something about a cause . It says nothing and assumes nothing about a cause..... it also implies nothing about an "ultimate" cause.
a real god could have made universe makers , or set them to make themselves , on any level of multiverses. There is no justification to think or assume that the Big Bang says anything about causation .. AT ALL.

your First Cause argument is false... you know nothing about the conditions in which the Big Bang happened,.... and your assumption that they were in any way similar to what we observe in this universe , is not justified. Until you know about the conditions in which this universe began, (if it ever did, and was not as Penrose... .. Hawking's friend) postulates just a series of bangs and re-bangs, you can say nothing about the need for "first cause", (as Sean Carroll demonstrated to WLC in their debate, and went unanswered).
there are many logics,.... and you have no justification for choosing one over the other ..., until you've TESTED them all, in their conditions, and have the data to prove the one you chose may be correct . Seeming to be "intuitive" to human brains is hardly a reason to pick one .

I was saving my answers for the better informed atheists but I’ll take a stab at your falsehoods. The big bang is the event before which there are no events. It is allegedly the explosive expansion of space from a singularity (which you are claiming is uncreated, I’ll remind you of that soon enough). You also mentioned the multiverse which means your knowledge of physics is influenced by comic books. I’d advise you to visit a library where you’ll probably learn to trying to duck causation by claiming that there is a larger multiverse is simply geography. Any theist worth his salt would change the discussion to be about this multiverse (actually still called a universe as the term multiverse is meaningless).

After the Big Bang, space-time began to exist. It is a contradiction in terms to say something happened before the Big Bang as there was no time before it. The singularity you posited as constantly existing is scientifically unsupported. The cosmic microwave background only supports that the universe is expanding outwards. We intuitively assume that it must have come from a hypothetical singularity based on common logic. The question as to what caused this expansion and the creation of the universe at the Big Bang is what is relevant. The singularity is a common myth and your assertion that it existed eternally before the Big Bang is as unsupported as the singularity itself.

I’ll conclude that theists didn’t hi-jack the Big Bang. It was conceived by George Lemaitre, a catholic priest.

Christianity Etc › Re: Honest Question To The Christians by Endtimer: 2:43am On Sep 17, 2022

midnight378:
First you said "people" then you changed "people" to "one rule breaker. How do you know about the one rule breaker ?
Let's see the study and the data ? Oh wait, you have no data, and no study. You made it all up. Your assertions about what happens in the absence of religion are already proven false. In Northern Europe, in countries with less and less religion, crime and evil are no worse than they were under religion.
You don't scare me. You think you can scare people into religion ? LOL.

I’ll address this one post as it makes a point. Your hero Nietzsche addresses this in Beyond Good and Evil. Your view of man is corrupted by millennia of good religion, leading you to falsely conclude that this is our natural state. You mention Europe; the continent responsible for spreading religion around the world. They have hardly had enough time to fully divorce themselves from religion. Look instead at the soviets and the Chinese; both prominent communists and vehemently opposed to theistic faith. They have collectively killed millions for abhorrent reasons. Today, however, we see religion rear its head in these places once more. Think of atheism as a break for religion during a boxing match. It isn’t our natural state. It isn’t healthy and we don’t stay there for long.

I should also add that I’m not here to proselytize. I don’t care what happens to you and I have no intention of converting you. I’m not idealistic enough to imagine I could change deeply held beliefs so easily. I’m here to test my ideas till I get bored or am convinced of their infallibility. You’re here for your own reasons. Do not get that confused.

I’ll address other serious concerns when I return.

Christianity Etc › Re: Honest Question To The Christians by Endtimer: 2:36am On Sep 17, 2022

Near1:
[Citation needed]

Your unspoken, and clearly unquestioned, premise here is that religion provides the only solid basis for the social contract.

Why are you worried about what others do with their lives? And do you have reputable sources to back up this claim of yours?

I do not look to my atheism for any reason to live, because it is not any sort of guiding set of principles for me. It is merely a statement of one belief which I don't hold. I find the meaning for my life myself. I get that you and many other religious folk do not understand this because y'all apparently need to be told why your own lives are important. Thankfully, I'm not that blind. I can find my own purpose for myself. Religions or gods need not apply.

Is this correlation or causation?

If so, it's a shallow and unconvincing attempt. You should think more about this.

This answer is particularly easy to debunk. On first reading it I assumed you made a few points. Now I believe otherwise.

I’ll address it backwards:
- Yes, increased unbelief is correlated with decreased rates of personal fulfillment. We are all aware that the west is experiencing reduced religious involvement. Cursory internet searches will furnish you with associated data on decreased personal happiness. Your question is therefore pointless. Whether it is directly caused by or just happens to coincide with is beside the point.

- Your point about finding your own purpose is subjective and ultimately inconsequential. The purpose you pick for yourself only has no actual value. You might as well decide to become a superhero tomorrow. The value is subjective and not ultimate. On theism, it is believed that ultimate value can only be given if a thing has a purpose for which it is created. On atheism life is the result of mindless chance irrespective of the illusion of purpose with which you preoccupy yourself. Such a life has no ultimate value; only one that you make up as you go.

Further, this means that the atheist has no qualms against suicide. Life is random and valueless. In fact, all forms of crime lose their moral reprehensibility. To prevent this would require collective delusion. The atheist society would require that it’s members all believe something that isn’t true for the sake of living together. Everyone would have to believe certain things are good and others bad just so that they can coexist.

- Lastly, religion does provide the only consistent basis for society. That is to say, religious societies operate based on what coheres with reality whereas atheist societies depend on consensus. They decide what is reality and act as though this delusion is correct. This is exceedingly clear when it comes to morality and legislation which are inextricable.

Christianity Etc › Re: Honest Question To The Christians by Endtimer: 2:18am On Sep 17, 2022

I should note that, as this is your space, it is to be expected that I’ll receive lots of feedback. I anticipate that this may be overwhelming and I’ll focus on the answers I deem most important such as those from the writer of the op and any other well argued posts. I can only respond to the properly structured arguments as I have limited time to spend on this.

Christianity Etc › Re: Honest Question To The Christians by Endtimer: 2:11am On Sep 17, 2022

Tamaratonye1:
Please give some examples of how science is bringing us closer to belief in the supernatural otherwise it's just a baseless assertion.

Are you perhaps referring to the LHC and discovery of the Higgs Boson particle? If so it's a very big stretch to describe the discovery of a particle in such a way. I would argue the reverse, for example; neuroscience and MRI technology is now sufficiently advanced for us to be able to observe interactions between the brain, senses and a soul even if the soul itself is undetectable, yet scientists have never observed this even when specifically looking for it. In the entirety of human history not one single supernatural event has ever been definitively proven genuine so I fail to see how science is moving us closer and closer to to belief in the supernatural, were it so I guarantee the press would be getting very excited, indeed it would be the greatest news story in history yet all I hear are crickets chirping.

I’m not impressed. I was talking about the Big Bang and Darwinian evolution. I find it laughable that an adult would insinuate that neuroscience could discover evidence of the soul in the brain. That’s the most ludicrous thing I’ve read this year. You also claim that no supernatural event has been proven genuine. I’m curious as to how you arrived at this assessment. You state point blank what you’ll have to backup. If you need explanations as to how the Big Bang and evolution supports theism, I’ll tell you that it’s because they suspiciously involve an intelligent first cause. I’ll explain further if you require it.

Christianity Etc › Re: Honest Question To The Christians by Endtimer: 2:06am On Sep 17, 2022

Tamaratonye1:
Unfortunately you’ve missed the point entirely. It’s not necessarily going to be crimes as extreme as rape, but people will want to know why they should obey certain humanist principles with time. I’m not talking about you and me. I’m talking about one rule breaker who isn’t content with pretending like there is order where there isn’t.

Also your picture is quite meaningless. It fails to address the point which is that people have no reason to behave the way they do in this religious society organized based on hundreds or thousands of years of rigid morality. Atheists seem to think that the effects of long term religious prosperity are human nature; something covered in Beyond Good and Evil. It doesn’t matter what I will do if religion disappears. It matters that after a few hundred years people will be so different from the people we see today that my hypothesis will be proven correct. Anarchy and religion will follow.

I’ll also add that you responded to my point by supporting me with a visual aid and making the relevant portion of my answer bold. I asserted that atheism requires that people live as though there is such a thing as objective morality and you posted a picture of a man saying that he’s surprised that theists say that atheists have to live as though objective morals exist. Thank you for that.

Next.

Christianity Etc › Re: Why You Should Absolutely Question "God" by Endtimer: 5:54pm On Sep 16, 2022

On questioning God’s benevolence
- It is true that as a Christian I believe that God’s goodness is enough reason to believe Him. Aquinas’ fourth way is a great summary of what I believe and how to address this topic. He observes a gradation of values of all things and proposes a superlative standard. This is commonly done by scientists even today. For instance, chemists presuppose the existence of an ideal gas that doesn’t exist to describe behaviors by other gases. Likewise, God is traditionally believed (it is irrelevant whether God exists or whether it is true or not as this is Christian doctrine and not the present argument) to be ideally good; the superlative good from which all other goods are sub-prefixed. Why it is assumed that the creator of the universe is good is because it is assumed that the first cause must possess superlative moral qualities from which others derive. This first cause as we have already discussed is omnipotent. An omnipotent malevolence is implausible given that we exist freely and often happily. To construct a syllogism, presupposing God’s existence:
- God is maximally moral or immoral and prevents infinite regress of moral dependency.

-Given the world we live in it isn’t rational to suppose that God is the grease conceivable evil. Everyday life testifies against that notion.

-Therefore God isn’t evil and is maximally good.

To account for the evil in the world in spite of an omnipotent benevolence, we rely on the free will argument.

I anticipate your response.

Christianity Etc › Re: Why You Should Absolutely Question "God" by Endtimer: 5:29pm On Sep 16, 2022

On questioning God’s plan for our lives
- To begin, everything that happens doesn’t happen for a reason. God doesn’t micromanage reality. Good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people. Anyone who says otherwise is peddling extra biblical doctrine. The absurdity and randomness of the human condition are poetically described in the books of Job and Ecclesiastes.

Also, given God’s desire that we act freely, it is no surprise that our fates are not set in stone. In this regard it is futile to question God’s ways. Whether or not they are higher than yours or He is infinitely more intelligent is beside the point. If one’s entire family is wiped out by terrorists it would be more prudent to console them, rather than discuss God’s grand plan as God had nothing to do with the event. It’s not that God allowed it to happen because he has a grand plan for the person. It’s that something bad happened to the person due to others exercising their free will. If one chooses to question God in such a scenario, they have wrongly believed that they are owed security and protection by God. Thinking like that is just a form of prosperity gospel.

Christianity Etc › Re: Why You Should Absolutely Question "God" by Endtimer: 5:17pm On Sep 16, 2022

On questioning God’s morality
- This age old topic concerns the source of morality and is most famously described by Plato. His Euthyphro dilemma can be simplified as asking:
A) Is something good because God does it?
B) Does God do things because they are good?

The theist is trapped between a rock and a hard place. The first option would mean that morality is arbitrary. God can do whatever he wants and that would be good. It follows that we can do whatever we want as well as long as it’s on God’s good list at the moment. In this scenario, morals are a mirage.

The second option would mean that good exists independent of God and we do not need him to arrive at morals. In this sense God is morally irrelevant.

Of course, I choose A. Whatever God does is good. However, God will only do a particular set of things. That is to say, God will willingly only ever act in certain ways and by doing so, eliminate the arbitrariness Plato saw as inevitable. In this sense we have objective morals and God as their source just as we did before the question was raised.

I should note that the point of this and subsequent posts is not to comment on whether to question God (which is fine by me), but to provide answers to some of these questions as presented in the op.

Christianity Etc › Re: Why You Should Absolutely Question "God" by Endtimer: 5:02pm On Sep 16, 2022

There are a number of issues at play here: one concerns the Euthyphro dilemma, another concerns predestination of some sort or fate and the final one concerns God’s omni-benevolence. So when you say we shouldn’t question God you’re arguing on three different grounds simultaneously. I’ll address all three separately. But I agree with the basic conclusion that questioning belief is justified and should be encouraged more often in theism. I’ll address the three sub-themes as questioning God morally, questioning God’s plan for our lives and questioning God’s benevolence. I will address them as a Christian, not a theist.

Christianity Etc › Re: Why I, As An Atheist, Spend My Time Debating Religion by Endtimer: 4:23pm On Sep 16, 2022

[quote author=Wilgrea7 post=116723742]The only difference is that if I don't know something, I don't simply assume that "a God did it". I just simply say that I don't know.
[\quote]

This is an accusation of a God of the gaps fallacy. I should point out that the actual difference is that I’m open to any feasible interpretation of reality. No one has posited that God created life, only that intelligent life is the most probable cause for life on earth.

This is not a God of the gaps situation, it is an inability to fill in the obvious answer (intelligent design) on your part.

You are correct that we are probably on equal terms scientifically. I would describe myself as a natural Christian, so scientifically there should be no difference between us.

Christianity Etc › Re: Why I, As An Atheist, Spend My Time Debating Religion by Endtimer: 2:41pm On Sep 16, 2022

Wilgrea7:
We know what happened in the past based on the data the past left behind. This isn't rocket science.

Oh.. my bad.... If you wanted links, you could've just asked for them.

This one talks about the big bang
https://www.space.com/13347-big-bang-origins-universe-birth.html

And this one talks about evolution
https://necsi.edu/evolution

This is as illogical as me asking you for video proof of the creation story.

And how exactly do you know this? What proof do you have that the author wasn't lying about the inspiration? Or rather, what proof do you have that the author was indeed inspired?

You're missing the point. It's not about comparing different stories to see which is "better". It's about facing reality. If you want to verify if a story is true, compare it with reality, not with other stories.

Superman may be more powerful than other mythical superheroes.. That doesn't make him real.

If someone doesn't know something, it is perfectly ok to say "I don't know". That is intellectual honesty. The problem is claiming to know and failing to prove it.

That being said, the intricacy of the universe, down to the subatomic scale denotes an enormous level of complexity, which can be associated with intelligence. What exactly is your point here?

While I’m late to this thread I think it’s a good place to continue our debate. I’ve just commented elsewhere concerning the coherence of modern science and Christian theism, along those lines, I intend to address your points concerning the Big Bang and evolution; two suspiciously religious theories.

Given an Origenist allegorical interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis, evolution is dependent on intelligent design. The components of evolution (Darwinian natural selection, Mendelian genetic heredity, possibility of mutation, common descent and micro-adaptations) are all well evidenced scientifically except spontaneous generation. Spontaneous generation is a poorly supported scientific attempt at avoiding the existence of God. Given this weak link, it is sound to inquire where the first unicellular organisms got its life from. On theistic evolution-which provides a fuller picture than atheistic evolution- God is still required to have created this life.

Christianity Etc › Re: Honest Question To The Christians by Endtimer: 2:11pm On Sep 16, 2022

You ask an impossible question and plead that we ignore its impossibility for the sake of argument. I’m curious as to how science could disprove God. Contrary to common atheist folklore, science has spent the last century bringing us closer to belief in the supernatural. It’s a shame that there aren’t enough Christians aware of this to point it out often enough until it sticks. It’s a shame there aren’t enough Christians who know that science is on their side.

As to your point concerning the difference between life with and without God:

- Atheism is only tenable in a predominantly religious society. If we all began to live without belief in God as a result of some impossible scientific discovery, it would ultimately destroy society or lead back to religion. The reason for this is because atheists take for granted the religious pillars all civilized societies are built on; the concept of morality and legislation for instance go hand in hand. Rather than reorder society after the eradication of religion, atheists would need to continue pretending as though religion still had moral force in society; until someone asks: “why can’t I just do whatever I want”. In the end we’ll arrive at a religious society because atheistic society is unsustainable and humans are incurably religious.

- On a personal, rather than sociological, level religion provides purpose for living. Atheism doesn’t. On atheism, suicide is not morally abhorrent. Western nations are beginning to witness the effects of unbelief as their citizens increasingly end their own lives. Let me ask you a question: would it make any difference if you were going to kill yourself today or tomorrow? On atheism, it certainly wouldn’t. On atheism, the fact that we are going to die one day is enough motivation for us to end our lives at once. Anything is enough motivation for us to end our lives.

- Contrary to what many atheists believe, increasing secularism negatively correlates with happiness in society. While happiness isn’t the point of life, it is worth noting that the decline of religion has been accompanied by increased depression in the west.

Note that none of the above is meant to validate the authenticity of religion. Instead it is to conceptualize the faithless society posited in the op.

1 Like

1 2 3 4 (of 4 pages)