Two Gods or One

Quote: FrGamble

In the Aztec religion some type of God is recognized but the fundamental and universal moral truth of not killing innocents is denied.

What makes you think war captives and the enemy's nobility were all innocent people?

So, if faith and belief rate higher than actions and deeds, wouldn't a Phoenician priest who got paid, perhaps, by how many children he incinerated per year, be rated higher on the moral scale than non-religious philanthropist like, say, Bill Gates?

Quote: FrGamble

What do atheists stand for? I said very clearly that they belief that every religious person in the world is wrong about the existence of God. If you are uncomfortable with that perhaps you should reexamine your atheism. I know I would feel uncomfortable saying that the vast majority of the world and human beings throughout history have been wrong.

You do though. You believe on in the catholic God, which means you consider 100 millions of other people wrong.

Atheists stand for nothing, that's the point :)

Quote:

You do not need a divine power to be a moral being. I think I have been clear about this position many times. However, you do need a divine power to establish a concept of what is morally good or bad.

Ergo, you claim you DO need a divine power to be a moral being, because without the divine power there is no such thing as a person with good morals, as by your own statement, you need the power to create that morality.

This is incorrect.

Quote:

Subjective morality is only based on what one person or culture thinks may be correct and if this was true then we would be forced to say cannibalism or genocide or rape was okay if that person or community decreed it to be so. However, we know that this is not possible.

Why not? Show your working... and when you do, you might find a reason why God is not a necessary or suficient condition. Nor does it eliminate God, mind.

Quote:

There are universal objective moral truths and for these to hold to every culture they have to grounded in something universal that rises above our own authority as individuals and communities to determine for ourselves what is right or wrong. We need to have something that is immune to our emotional desire for power, wealth, lust, and fame to provide our moral guidelines. This is God.

Universal morality (which may or may not be a reality, as we only have the human existence on this world to compare to) does not require a higher power to impose it or decree it. It's actually possible to define a universal morality, debate and discuss it, and form it without the axiom of a high power.

And even that higher power is dependent on the interpretations of us humans. What is morally bad for the RC church (gay partnerships and homosexuality) is morally fine for other churches (Methodists, as I recall). But if there was divine impose morality, there would be no debate. But there is, and this is one of many. Your absolutism says that morality is defined by Rome, as a conduit from God. But, only if you agree that the RC God exists does that necessarily follow he is the arbiter and that higher power. Which leads us to a circular argument, so it's not a proof of his existence, but a proof that there is a logically sound system given the axiom in place.

Quote:

This is correct and that is why the prime mover argument, which provides us clear evidence that there is a God

Bzzzt... pre-supposition of the prime mover is not clear evidence of their existence.

Quote:

needs more thought to complete the picture. A discussion about morality will help us to see that this prime mover is not just some impersonal force but has rather implanted in all of us a moral compass pointing to goodness and truth.

Why? Why, if we accept the prime mover does it require a inbuilt moral compass.

Quote:

A compass that we have the freedom to not follow and a compass that we can lead others to ignore, but nevertheless a help to living a moral life. That is why many good atheists live extraordinarily happy and moral lives, oblivious to the obvious existence of God who guides them and determines objectively the good and right things to do.

Ha! And we end up back where we started... I'm only 'good' because God exists, and God gave me a moral compass I follow, regardless of my belief in him

Proof of nothing, if we remove the axiom that God exists. All that is left is belief and faith in his existence. Which is your right. But it is not logic you have used to get there. Just a deep desire for it to be just so as you describe.

Quote: Nareed

So, if faith and belief rate higher than actions and deeds,

This is what is strange, I kind of feel like I just said the opposite of this.

I will always take morally good actions over correct faith and belief any day. Let me put it another way. I respect the atheist who is kind and loving more than the Catholic who uses his/her religion to judge and hate others.

Quote: TheCesspit

You do though. You believe on in the catholic God, which means you consider 100 millions of other people wrong.

Wrong is such an absolute term. When dealing with the mystery of God I feel that those who have never been exposed to Catholicism or Christianity, say in the Middle East, are right to submit themselves to Allah as a Muslim. It is only atheists that think everyone is wrong about everything because they stand for and believe in nothing.

Quote:

Ergo, you claim you DO need a divine power to be a moral being, because without the divine power there is no such thing as a person with good morals,

No follow closely, you can be a person with good morals without believing in a divine power. What you cannot have is good morals themselves without a divine power. Without a divine power your "good" morals might be my "bad" morals.

Quote:

Why not? Show your working... and when you do, you might find a reason why God is not a necessary or suficient condition. Nor does it eliminate God, mind.

I have thought about this and it always comes back to the ability of a society or person to say my morality says that it is okay to cheat and steal to get ahead. There is no response to this view of subjective morality without a calling from a higher authority than this person or the community. If you say if everyone steals and cheats it will make society awful. His response may be then why should we care is society is awful or not? Maybe you say because your life will be personally awful? His response may be that I don't care if my life is awful or not or if I make other's lives awful. I think you get the point you will not be able to argue with this person to do what is good unless that good lies on a foundation that is much stronger, universal, consistent, and from a higher authority than any human being or society. This is why our rights are not based on the Constitution or government or a person, but rather only by God.

Quote:

Universal morality (which may or may not be a reality, as we only have the human existence on this world to compare to)

What else would we compare it to?

Quote:

It's actually possible to define a universal morality, debate and discuss it, and form it without the axiom of a high power.

Show your work....because I believe this to be impossible, but I would love to see you try.

Quote:

And even that higher power is dependent on the interpretations of us humans. What is morally bad for the RC church (gay partnerships and homosexuality) is morally fine for other churches (Methodists, as I recall). But if there was divine impose morality, there would be no debate. But there is, and this is one of many. Your absolutism says that morality is defined by Rome, as a conduit from God. But, only if you agree that the RC God exists does that necessarily follow he is the arbiter and that higher power. Which leads us to a circular argument, so it's not a proof of his existence, but a proof that there is a logically sound system given the axiom in place.

Good question. What I think you should do is remove all reference to Roman Catholicism or Rome in the above paragraph and replace it with Reason and you will have a better understanding of what I hold to and what my Church holds to. The God I love and believe in is the God of truth and reason, He gave us a brain and asks us to use it in order to live moral lives. There is nothing that God asks of us in regard to morality that isn't in line with human reason and nature.

Quote:

Bzzzt... pre-supposition of the prime mover is not clear evidence of their existence.

Only if you deny that there is movement. If there is movement than it is beyond clear that there is obviously a prime mover or the first mover.

Quote:

Why? Why, if we accept the prime mover does it require a inbuilt moral compass.

It doesn't, but don't you agree that we all do indeed have an inbuilt moral compass? If so then where did that gift come from if not the prime mover or first cause of all things?

Quote: FrGamble

This is what is strange, I kind of feel like I just said the opposite of this.

Eventually.

For some reason, an action, human sacrifices, and a belief, there is no god, posed a dilemma for you. You said as much.

I thought I clarified the reason why. A lack of belief can and has led to much worse, but on the whole it does not and certainly evil actions do not necessarily follow from a lack of belief.

Quote: TheCesspit

But it is not logic you have used to get there. Just a deep desire for it to be just as you describe.

This gets to the bare bones of everything.
Christians believe as they do not because
there's any evidence it's true, they believe
because they want it to be true. So they
make up evidence and use faux logic to
try and trick others into becoming believers
too. And it often works, most people love
to be followers, it takes all the work of
thinking out of it for them.

Quote: FrGamble

The common philosophical and religious beliefs of the 20th century’s worst human beings have all been atheists.

You just love these Vatican talking points.
Again, Hitler was a raised a very strict
Catholic in an era (1900) when the Church
was on a jihad on keeping the Jews out
of the holyland. Hitler learned to hate Jews
from the Catholic priests. And Hitler was
not an atheist, in fact he was never kicked
out of the Church and never renounced
his membership. This is what Hitler said
about atheists:

“We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations; we have stamped it out” ~Adolf Hitler

Quote:

Please name just one time I have been wrong about something we have discussed about religion.

You are wrong about the religion itself.
There is no god to sin against, and Jesus
died because he was a public menace,
that's what he was charged with by the
Romans. He would be shocked to learn
he died for anybodies sins, it would be
news to him.

Quote: FrGamble

A lack of belief can and has led to much worse,

No one has ever led a mass movement to support a lack of belief. No one ever will.

You're extremely prejudiced against atheists. For all your talk of reason (which also does not mean what you think it means) and philosophy, you let prejudice guide you and, as is usual, blind you to the facts.

Quote: Nareed

No one has ever led a mass movement to support a lack of belief. No one ever will.
.

The vast vast number of atheists spend
zero time thinking about religion, they
could care less. A movement for lack
of belief would be hilarious.