/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Dab on them

>pastoradnersondabbing.jpg

>>609256

Gaythiests and fagnostics

>>609257

🅱️aptists are truly changing the game

>>609264

This. I no longer consider them a threat, though you should obviously do what the other anons ITT are saying when confronted with one and their poorly-thought-out "beliefs." People still fall hard for the "science and religion aren't compatible" false meme though, so brush up on those arguments.

>uses Occam's Razor to deflect any deeper interpretation of the Bible

<proceeds to say the universe being created by a convoluted sequence of flat out impossible occurrences is more believable than it simply being created by God

>>609281

>You may encounter the rare unicorn who understands the logical conclusions of moral relativity, but

But what?

>>609560

Meant to conclude that "but they probably wouldn't be obnoxious little cretins like the memelords."

>>609570

The execution of sodomites is ethically debatable, but the mainstream fedoralord holds it as odious.

It's a surefire way to either actually get him thinking or expose him for the blubbering mass of snot he is.

>>609275

If morals and values are a product of the evolutionary process, then a population should discard morals values that decrease its evolutionary or reproductive fitness. For example, morals and values that reduce a population's ability to reproduce itself, or to raise children properly, or to outcompete rival populations, should be actively discarded by that society. Atheist societies don't have children, don't raise the children they do have properly, and fail to compete at all against rival populations, and are indeed being replaced on a mass scale by those societies as we speak. As a moral or value, atheism is thus evolutionarily maladaptive. Therefore, in accordance with evolutionary theory, all societies should avlctively discard and dismiss atheism and atheists as fast as possible.

>>609256

>says beauty is subjective

>makes aesthetic assessments of lewd girls

How do we deal with virile male scum?

>>609256

>>609264

>>609281

I'm atheist and a moral realist, it's not really that uncommon.

>>609276

Being gay is cool.

>>609771

Where do morals come from?

>>609275

I remember CS lewis wrote a pretty good rebutal to these arguments, can someone post it?

>>609771

> Being gay is cool

Gay culture is incredibly cringy. Even if I was a homosexual atheist, I’d still be embarrassed by modern gay culture.

>>609775

It doesn't come from anywhere, it simply exists. Just like we have mathematical laws, we have moral laws.

>>609778

>>609779

Well, it's cool and trendy nowadays. It's interesting to me how people can influence themselves and others to like the same sex.

>>609781

There are some bad parts about it, yeah.

>>609792

>It doesn't come from anywhere, it simply exists.

Why should one be moral? What is the imperative or purpose?

Secondly, they have to be grounded in something, matter itself doesn't carry moral laws or normative injuctions within itself. So you can't just say "they exist" without grounding them in something, and if that something is "mindless" or "blind" then you'll have other problems since morality requires semantic content.

>>609792

>It doesn't come from anywhere, it simply exists. Just like we have mathematical laws, we have moral laws.

Okay, well then what do you do in the case of a moral dispute? If there is a dispute in mathematics, say one person says 2+2=4 and another says 2+2=5, people just look to objective math to see who is right. If two people have a moral dispute, say one person says bribery is evil and another person says bribery is good, who is right? Keep in mind, bribery is not considered immoral in all cultures. Here in America, it's considered wrong. In Switzerland, it's so accepted that corporations have a "bribery" space in their accounting sheets, where they can write off how much money they spent on bribing people. So if you have a moral dilemma, what is the objective standpoint that is used to measure who is right?

>>609792

Where did you even come from that you speak like such a normalfag? Did some one on facebook give you a link to this place?

I have grown to loathe the absolute degeneracy and moral relativism of the LGBT "community". It's cool there to threaten people with death (even beat them) for having a point where they stop accepting the most extreme degeneracy (currently, this is coddling trannies and pretending that they're attractive and that sex is a human need that everyone freely has the right to). It's quite alienating since they present themselves as the only option, and are pervasive enough to be the only option in many places.

> t. SSA female who just wants to be good in God's eyes at this point, and wants to be ultimate BFFs with one special *female* person

>>609931

meant for

>>609781

>>609792

>>609833

Regardless, you can ask them to trace the history of the moral idea(l)s they subscribe to. Politely but firmly dab on remind them about how such and such (ex "Do unto others…" Luke 6:31) is either recorded in the Bible itself, or biblical scholarship (anyone pre-1800 should be a solid choice, try to get as close to 33 AD times as you can and work forward). Hope this helps.

>>609792

>It doesn't come from anywhere, it simply exists.

So if atheists believe this, why do they not accept that same answer for the existence of God?

>>609780

this is one of them

This board is worse than /x/

What did >>610323 mean by this?

>>610317

This.

>>609256

>says morality is subjective

>makes moral assessments about everything

How are these things mutually exclusive?

>>609281

Nice strawman, they could respond like this:

>so then there's no universal set of ethics? does this mean Saudi Arabia is justified in executing homosexuals?

<According to my moral values, no. According to theirs they think they are justified.

Also,

>x is good because it is good

Is this not precisely the argument of Theists?

>>610547

>How are these things mutually exclusive?

They're not, what he means is that it's retarded for those who believe morality is subjective to express their morality because why would anyone else give a shit what they think? Obviously, they think their subjective morality is actually the correct one and don't truly believe in subjective morality at all. That's the point.

>Is this not precisely the argument of Theists?

No, we say there is a God, which is also a principle- a Logos, which is itself the definition of good.

Things done within the will of God are good, everything else is bad. By understanding God, you understand good and evil.

Contrarily, the atheist lists multiple items as "good" without explaining the underlying metric which makes a thing good or bad. I can never predict which issues the atheist will have placed into the "good" bag or the "bad" bag. Therefore, good becomes synonymous with "what I like" and therefore a useless word. Because, for Christians, what is good may not be what I like, but it is still good.

You may say you can't predict what Christians will think is good but that's because -most- self-professed Christians don't actually live their faith. You can, however, read the bible and theologians and get a very clear picture of how God's will applies to our new and ever-changing circumstances.

>>610554

Thanks for the response, I find this a very interesting and difficult topic.

>Obviously, they think their subjective morality is actually the correct one

If morality is reached through human reasoning alone as they contend then they would simply think their moral values are better, not "correct".

At most you could say they need to posit some objective standard with which to form moral values but this could be reached without looking outside the natural realm.

>No, we say there is a God, which is also a principle- a Logos, which is itself the definition of good

That's the point, God just IS. Therefore, "goodness" as a concept is either defined by God or followed by Him, meaning goodness also just IS.

>without explaining the underlying metric which makes a thing good or bad

They would use secular moral philosophy like utilitarianism or "maximising pleasure while reducing pain" or something similar.

>You can, however, read the bible and theologians and get a very clear picture of how God's will applies to our new and ever-changing circumstances

The problem here is that even if one is to concede every claim of Christianity to be true, there is still room for debate amongst Christians (including theologians) about what the Bible says and means. So much so that we may end up with the problem we see with the atheists you so aptly put: "good becomes synonymous with "what I like"".

>>610931

>At most you could say they need to posit some objective standard

>posit some objective standard

>some objective standard

>objective standard

>objective

If Atheists agree to this, they've already completely lost the "morality is subjective" argument

>That's the point, God just IS. Therefore, "goodness" as a concept is either defined by God or followed by Him, meaning goodness also just IS.

Right, but at least we mean something when we use the word. We say "God is good." When atheists use the word, they don't even agree on what they mean by it.

>They would use secular moral philosophy like utilitarianism or "maximising pleasure while reducing pain" or something similar.

Well, that's something that's objectively verifiable, isn't it? For instance, they could argue "happiness" could be quantified by average amount of dopamine in the brain over time. Again, this already concedes on behalf of the atheist that morality is not subjective.

>The problem here is that even if one is to concede every claim of Christianity to be true, there is still room for debate amongst Christians (including theologians) about what the Bible says and means. So much so that we may end up with the problem we see with the atheists you so aptly put: "good becomes synonymous with "what I like"".

Easily said from outside the Christian circle because we do argue. Less so from inside. We argue about tiny nit-picky points because all Christians already agree on so much. It's really more about application where we argue than the spirit.

We all agree on no murdering, no stealing, no adultery, etc. and the ones that don't are blatantly disregarding the scriptures such that calling them Christians is the equivalent of calling a homeopath a medical doctor. I mean, they can take the title if they want but no one who's spent any time on the subject thinks it aptly fits them.

If an atheist admits morality is objective, then there's a whole different argument. Here, we're talking about atheists that say morality is subjective. All your counter-arguments are "well, okay, morality is objective but it's a different objective metric than what you use." I vastly prefer that argument - but recognize that whatever metric you use is your "god" and while we may have different ones, you're atheist in name only. An overarching objective principle that guides ones life and is more important than the life itself may as well be and always has been considered a god.

<religion is the opiate of the masses!

<proceeds to write a whole book about how the government of the supreme authority on earth

>>610315

It really is.

This is how i approach them:

>first give them the benefit of the doubt and bring proper arguments to the table

>if they start acting like a retard let em know

>if they double-down, meme them out of the room

Maybe 1% have survived and they were usually the kind of atheist that actually knows that they're taking about and isn't a prick, but then for them it never devolves past proper arguments.

>>610323

>t-they're saying mean things about my cult

>i-i know, i'll make a baseless assertion and then leaves

>"Y-you're all dumb"

<leaves

>>610931

different anon here.

Utilitarians, Humanitarians, and Trans-humanists are retarded. They have the understanding of a child:

>"hurr durr it makes me feel good so it must be right"

>"a-derp, the greater good but only so long as my life is preserved"

>"uhh, If i keep eating nothing but candy, i will start to feel better." *Disregards the vomit on the floor*

Even children realize that too much of a "good" thing (such as pleasure) is bad, and that no matter how nice something is, even in moderation, if you do it day after day you will get sick of it. No man plays mario bros for the rest of their life (unless they're insane). That's even without factoring in how the world is fallen and all attempts at utopia will inevitably degrade into hell simply because God ins't in the equation in any of those. Tower of babylon, fam.

>>610931

Did you give up? No worries if so, my replies here:

>>610994

I was interested if there's any counter to this because, as I stated, it seems your only counter-argument to morality is subjective is to admit that it is, in fact, objective.

>>609792

>mathematical laws

Mathematical laws have predictive validity, as does formal logic – something morality sorely lacks as it is too heavily contingent on the subjective passions and intuitions of any given individual.

>>611783

>something morality sorely lacks as it is too heavily contingent on the subjective passions and intuitions of any given individual.

This is called "begging the question." It's a fallacy where you assume your premise in reaching the conclusion. You -assumed-

>morality… is too heavily contingent on subjective…

in concluding morality does not have predictive value.

If morality wasn't subjective, it would have predictive value. We're arguing whether or not its subjective.

I argue you can definitely state whether a given action would probably be moral or not and then could test, later, whether it did in fact turn out to be moral. Hence, I believe morality is objective.

You don't believe that, but you haven't posed an arguement- you just begged the question.

>>611718

Sorry, been busy, your responses are great and appreciated and have made me think,

>>610994

>If Atheists agree to this, they've already completely lost the "morality is subjective" argument

Perhaps, and I don't want to get into semantics but is it truly objective or are we just referring to it as so?

For example, if you allow me to steal your "dopamine levels in the brain" metric we're still left as to why we've chosen this so called objective standard. We as humans had to decide that this is the method we're using as opposed to some other metric or philosophical standard - that act of deciding rests on our subjective experience does it not?

To me this doesn't seem comparable to the true objective nature of definite moral values that come from God.

>Easily said from outside the Christian circle

I am a Christian but I'd probably be viewed as some sort of Socinian heretic by this board's standards.

>argue about tiny nit-picky points because all Christians already agree

When I look at disagreements within Christianity they span across time and denominations. For example, slavery being deemed okay by the majority of the Christian establishment not too long ago, disagreements about when taking a life is okay nowadays, the debate between pacifism and morally guided interventionism that has been going on since the 1700s, or whether the Church should allow divorce.

There are good arguments for and against on both sides of these issues and others that come from the Scriptures, but these rely on our subjective reading. Who determines the objective truth there?

>>612066

>Perhaps, and I don't want to get into semantics but is it truly objective or are we just referring to it as so?

>For example, if you allow me to steal your "dopamine levels in the brain" metric we're still left as to why we've chosen this so called objective standard. We as humans had to decide that this is the method we're using as opposed to some other metric or philosophical standard - that act of deciding rests on our subjective experience does it not?

>To me this doesn't seem comparable to the true objective nature of definite moral values that come from God.

There are two questions here that must be parsed when a person says: "morality is subjective." Do they mean, "morality is incapable of objective measurement" - I think we showed that is not true. Then, do they mean "the measurement system by which we test morality is impossible to come upon through objective experience" - this, I also think is false.

For instance, whatever system of morality - secular humanism, utilitarianism, whatever- seeks to impart itself through rational, intellectual debate. When we debate, we believe there is an objective reality being communicated through our words, a "truth."

If you can rationally be convinced of "a" system, it stands to reason that, with enough information, time, and understanding, you would reason to the objectively correct system. Basically, if you were omniscient, you would know the right system - hence why we have God.

Now, if you do not believe this, that debate carries objective truth, but instead believe that words are simply a method for controlling the person you're communicating with, then, by communicating that fact, you have shown the other person there is absolutely no reason to continue talking to you. The best such a person could want is to make the other their slave yet still hope for their happiness.

And that's sort of the point. By saying a thing is subjective you imply that your discussion of it is entirely an attempt to exert social control over the person you're discussing it with. Further, any moral condemnation you make shows incongruous thought. This is the point OP was making, albeit very quickly.

Lastly, you suggest that we cannot know a thing unless we have subjective experience of it. Yet, the whole point of language and debate to those who believe in its processes is that lessons and truth can be passed on with a person subjectively experiencing the reality. I can understand and debate about abortion although I am not a woman and will never be pregnant because to say my arguments are invalid because of my status is ad hominem. Similarly, saying an argument cannot be made because we all have "subjective experience" is basically an ad hominem against all possible speakers. If you believe in logic, this must be false. Of course, if you do not believe in any truth at all - that me telling you there's a table in front of you and you subsequently stubbing your toe is mere happenstance, then you can be consistent in saying morality is subjective but then also there is no good reason to debate with a person who holds such ridiculous beliefs.

>>612066

>Who determines the objective truth there?

God. The Holy Spirit delivers the truth to some. Who has the Holy Spirit? Pray and see for yourself. You don't have to believe, but if you believe and have the Holy Spirit, the answers to these questions become clear.

In fact, sometimes both sides are right because they are applying the same rules to widely different circumstances without recognizing that the other side is arguing from different conditions; they're talking past each other. That happens a lot.

Sometimes the difference is do to corrupt, but I find, especially at higher-level theology, the difference comes from particular application and not recognizing the Holy Spirit calls us to different actions based on our individual circumstances while still applying the same moral rules.

>>610317

Good video, but I kinda zoned out the moment I realized that the guy talking voiced Jauffre back in TES IV: Oblivion.