Which political ideology do you most identify with?
This is Why I Believe What I Believe: (Part 2) You see, every worldview must rest on at least one m…
Part 3 The same principle holds true for the assumption that the human mind can reason correctly…
As a whole, these moral systems (of which all have contradictions) in both religion and non-religious philosophy are made, entirely in fact, by humans. I don’t expect to change your view, nor will I provide a long winded moral discussion (though I find it impressive how much you wrote and the quality of the argument), but I think that the very Bible we’ve written isn’t based in a god, it is based in a moral set and a long line of those who think that it is. Those that create and prime the social structure of a religion really do legitimately believe what they do, but their principles do contradict, in every religion and every ideal. Good moral principles, in some areas, were built in Christianity. Good moral principles were built in almost every religion. Every moral in religion is subjective and holds a “if you aren’t with me, you are my enemy” thought process. After all, that’s how they grow in the first place in so many ways. A secular perspective may not have a “middle ground”, but that’s because it doesn’t need it. If we endorse one religion, we make everyone else mad, when in reality, the only way to stop each religion from attacking one another in the area of both governance and established rights is to use none and all at the same time, as done by creating a system made to protect the people of all religions, creeds, races, sexual orientations, and genders alike. Every religion in history has attacked at least one of these traits with it’s own “virtuous” circular approaches, causing unnecessary and disgusting levels of suffering. The shedding of those beliefs often comes from outside pressure or the assumed “revelation” of recent or past prophets or highly influential members. Every religion tries to win, nearly every belief, even in religion, can break the stated “virtuous circle” when the right questions are asked. We created those logical laws, which is why god in the Bible is built on them. He didn’t create them, we created god, and used our logical laws that we had developed in the time of Abraham down to Jesus because we found the laws to be reliable, then claimed that those laws were gods.
Trending News
Here are the top political news stories for today.
6 Replies
I'm glad you took the time to read it. But how you claim to "endorse all and none" of the religions of the world at once, when, as I demonstrated above, they are unanimous in their belief that such a position is impossible? In so doing you necessarily reject every religion but your posture of neutrality in existence as false and yours as true, as the only way to stop strife, as the only way to bring justice, thereby recreating every fallacy and issue you have falsely attributed to Christianity.
Don't be confused – I never said ALL religions have "Virtous circles… Read more
@9CJ6CB62yrs2Y
When I say “all and none”, I don’t mean that I think all are right and wrong at the same time, I am saying that we preserve their right to worship at all costs, and that some secular logic would align a bit with nearly all of them, thereby making it all of them, while also favoring the rule of none of them, and not allowing any to rule over other religious groups, nor sponsor one religion as the “truth” over all others.
There’s flaws in all of those religions, Christianity does violate those laws of logic and objective morality on the occasion, and isn&rsqu… Read more
If we discovered the laws of logic, that still doesn't solve the problem of how they cam about in the first place in order for mankind to discover them, and the only explanation for their existence is STILL God. Christianity did not violate laws of logic and objective morality, provide me an instance in which it did please, but FIRST, tell me how the laws of logic came about, just saying we "discovered" them without explaining why they exist isn't going to cut it...
@9CJ6CB62yrs2Y
No, that leaves the chosen assumption that there is a god. Using the laws of logic as a justification of god’s existence could just as easily be used for math, which remains just about as concrete. We only find it because it’s there, just like we find a new location on earth because it was simply in existence, but that doesn’t prove god, that just points to humans using the logical laws they’ve discovered to create a god using the Bible. Neither of us can explain how the universe itself came about, you simply believe that it came from a god whose only empirical evidenc… Read more
Using the laws of logic as a justification of God's existence could just as easily be used for math, which remains just about as concrete.
Precisely! Not only can you not explain the laws of logic, you can't explain mathematics! Thank you bringing that point up!
We only find it because it's there.
But why is it there? That's what I asked you. And here you are, dodging the question for the third time in a row, because you, as an unbeliever, can't answer it without resorting to logical fallacies.
Neither of us can explain how the universe itself came about.
Actually I can, and I did: God created it. But you're right, you Read more
More conversations
Join in on more popular conversations.
