The Atheists Paradox

[descarte]

:help:
Dictionary and Thesaurus | Merriam-Webster

😕😕 i am asking you not dictionary

 

[Ishmael]

😕😕 i am asking you not dictionary

Are you scared of Dictionary because you can't argue with it? Very sad.

 

[descarte]

When will you start answering my question?

Another paradox has to do with deliberate, sustained moral reflection on injustice and evil in the world. All of us recognize that the world is suffused with human misery. But many of us give relatively little thought to suffering until it absolutely forces itself into our consciousness. Why is this? Self-protection. We rightly recognize that if our hearts were truly moved by every hurt, every loss, and every tragedy that we witnessed, they would break. Although we all recognize that empathy is one of the greatest moral virtues, we recoil at any level of empathy that threatens our own happiness and emotional stability. That is why we vacation in luxury resorts well away from the slums, prefer romantic comedies to documentaries, or inure ourselves to violence until we can shrug off images of the maimed and weeping on television.

Source: Shenvi

any way,you got no point. You are just confusing urself

 

[Ishmael]

any way,you got no point. You are just confusing urself

Is this all you can say??? You are better than that descarte

Just to help in the future, there is no dichotomy between science and religion, in contrast, they are separate areas of investigation. They scientific method is designed to investigate Natural physical phenomena. It is very good at this limited role, but it is limited. Science cannot tell you most truths. Science can prove that glass can cut skin, but science is impotent to prove hitting grandma over the head with a liquor bottle is morally wrong. Science is morally neutral. That is why my moral arguments can not be defeated.

 

[descarte]

Is this all you can say??? You are better than that descarte

Just to help in the future, there is no dichotomy between science and religion, in contrast, they are separate areas of investigation. They scientific method is designed to investigate Natural physical phenomena. It is very good at this limited role, but it is limited. Science cannot tell you most truths. Science can prove that glass can cut skin, but science is impotent to prove hitting grandma over the head with a liquor bottle is morally wrong. Science is morally neutral. That is why my moral arguments can not be defeated. [/Q
There is some sense in what you are talking about. However morality is independent from divinity

 

[Ishmael]

There is some sense in what you are talking about. However morality is independent from divinity

Scientifically, there is no good or evil. Now, how will you address the issue of morals without God?

 

[descarte]

Scientifically, there is no good or evil. Now, how will you address the issue of morals without God?

with human rationality

 

[Ishmael]

with human rationality

You don't need to twist my argument. There is no scientific meaning of good or evil.

 

[descarte]

You don't need to twist my argument. There is no scientific meaning of good or evil.

I am not arguing on science point of view. what i am saying is that we can know using rationality just as Aristotle said but not through god

 

[Ishmael]

I am not arguing on science point of view. what i am saying is that we can know using rationality just as Aristotle but not through god

But how do you know good from evil without God through rationality/ Can you give us examples.

 

[descarte]

But how do you know good from evil without God through rationality/ Can you give us examples.

I think the point is not good or evil but rather either something is immoral or moral.We know this through rationality not via god. eg. Genocide war is morally wrong because it does not promote human human dignity.

 

[Ishmael]

I think the point is not good or evil but rather either something is immoral or moral.We know this through rationality not via god. eg. Genocide war is morally wrong because it does not promote human human dignity.

You avoided my argument. Belief in God is irrelevant. God is necessary for morals to be real.

You have no objective basis for moral values or duties without God. That's the pertinent fact you cannot refute.

 

[Ishmael]

I am not arguing on science point of view. what i am saying is that we can know using rationality just as Aristotle said but not through god

No, actual good and evil cannot possibly exist without God and I've demonstrated it. You need to stop protesting the logically inescapable truth that I point out and take responsibility. You have no solution to YOUR own logical incoherence.

(1) You have no objective grounding for moral values whatsoever.
(2) Your chemical animal view of man (no soul) precludes any possibility of free-will - the very foundation of moral choice.

 

[mchapafito]

It is philosophically impracticable to be a non theist; since to be a non theist you must have adequate lowdown in order to know that there is no God and or no deity exist, inter-alia, to be sure about saying "God does not exist", you have to have infinite knowledge. Saying so, to have infinite erudition knowledge, a non theist would have to be God him/her/-self. It’s a paradox to be God yourself and a non theist at the same time!

Wherefore, I would extend this by saying non theists rather than know God doesn't exist they in fact BELIEVE God doesn't exist, although they do not have evidence of their belief. Accordingly, this produces a problem since non theists defend their beliefs and condemn those of religion and or faith in God by saying religion is just a belief where as non theism is....???

Non theist Paradox

upumbavu huu

 

[Ishmael]

upumbavu huu

I see, ....

 

[descarte]

You avoided my argument. Belief in God is irrelevant. God is necessary for morals to be real.

You have no objective basis for moral values or duties without God. That's the pertinent fact you cannot refute.

for moral to be real, what is real? you have used fact and yet fact is always refers to sth empirical which we can observed,so can you prove empirically what you are claiming.
I Asked a question that do you think that without god we could not have morality?

 

[descarte]

No, actual good and evil cannot possibly exist without God and I've demonstrated it. You need to stop protesting the logically inescapable truth that I point out and take responsibility. You have no solution to YOUR own logical incoherence.

(1) You have no objective grounding for moral values whatsoever.
(2) Your chemical animal view of man (no soul) precludes any possibility of free-will - the very foundation of moral choice.

You believe in logic? then i am strongly doubting your knowledge about logic cux it seem you are ignorant. Anyway you better go and revise your logic and try to see your argument again.
Man you just surprise me for arguing out of ignorance and you still believe your limitedness of logic.
I cannot continue repeating the same thing because of your refusal which has no ground.
I can see you have the medieval's or dark ages' view of reality,go and polish ur knowledge first. don't argue for the sake of arguing rather for the sake of gaining sth to change your primitive world view.

 

[Ishmael]

for moral to be real, what is real? you have used fact and yet fact is always refers to sth empirical which we can observed,so can you prove empirically what you are claiming.
I Asked a question that do you think that without god we could not have morality?

Real is empirical facts or impeccable exhibits.

 

[Ishmael]

You believe in logic? then i am strongly doubting your knowledge about logic cux it seem you are ignorant. Anyway you better go and revise your logic and try to see your argument again.
Man you just surprise me for arguing out of ignorance and you still believe your limitedness of logic.
I cannot continue repeating the same thing because of your refusal which has no ground.
I can see you have the medieval's or dark ages' view of reality,go and polish ur knowledge first. don't argue for the sake of arguing rather for the sake of gaining sth to change your primitive world view.

In fact logic is part of Christianity.

Still you have failed to support your arguments and or claims that God does not exists with verifiable evidences. FYI: Science logic and reason rest on philosophy my mindless friend. You cannot build upon anything that has no foundation in reason. The Christian scientists like Bacon, F., who invented Empiricism (the modern scientific method, if you don't know the meaning of it) did so on the basis that God was reliably rational and unchanging, so His order could be discerned by falsification.

You cannot prove the Britain exist or that the external world is real with absolute 100% certainty. You or I can always offer some cockeyed basis to deny your/MY assumptions and evidences. When will you comprehend this?

 

[descarte]

In fact logic is part of Christianity.

Still you have failed to support your arguments and or claims that God does not exists with verifiable evidences. FYI: Science logic and reason rest on philosophy my mindless friend. You cannot build upon anything that has no foundation in reason. The Christian scientists like Bacon, F., who invented Empiricism (the modern scientific method, if you don't know the meaning of it) did so on the basis that God was reliably rational and unchanging, so His order could be discerned by falsification.

You cannot prove the Britain exist or that the external world is real with absolute 100% certainty. You or I can always offer some cockeyed basis to deny your/MY assumptions and evidences. When will you comprehend this?

It is good you have mentioned Bacon, then you have many idols, first , purify them. Either you prove or you don't Britain do exist,it is an empirical fact. in other words,it does not depend on your prove or denial.