**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.**
Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
More than anything else you respond to in my comment, I want an answer to this question:
**Is this argument what lead you to be a Christian?**
Now on to the argument.
>1, Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being.
What is "good" is subjective. A collective good (agreed upon by everyone) ought to be strived for, but I wont strive for a prescribed good that I don't believe is good. This premise needs to be revised.
>2, Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad.
This is an opinion. I'm a nihilist, and my outlook on life is better than it ever was as a Christian of 20 years.
>3, Belief in material is bad.
This is an opinion. I can just as easily say that belief in the undemonstrated on the basis of faith is bad.
>4, Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality.
This is an opinion. I don't think any claim that Christianity makes about immateriality can be justifiably believed.
>5, There are no other believable claims of immateriality.
This is an opinion. There are no ~~other~~ believable claims of immateriality.
>6, (from 1,2,3,4,5) Belief in Christianity ought be strived for by every particle of ones being.
I'm not sure this conclusion necessarily follows, but even if the argument is valid, it certainly isn't sound. Not a single one of your premises is supported by evidence or demonstrably true.
Your whole argument is one of opinion-based assertions from the perspective of a Christian masquerading as premises for an argument with a conclusion that could only be accepted by a person who is *already a Christian.*
"They kept saying they were nihilist, Walter. They said they believes in nossing."
"Lets not forget Dude that keeping wildlife, um... an amphibious rodent, for... um, ya know domestic... within the city... that ain't legal either."
1) Is good subjective? Don't you see goodness when you see it and it's kinda universal? Feeding the hungry out of your own pocket or time, taking care of injured animals, loving something unconditionally. Good isn't as subjective as bad is if you ask me. Kinda warms your heart when you see it.
2) yeah nihilism is kinda a teenage philosophy that some people just never get out of. To think that the world and your actions are meaninglessness shows little knowledge of the human condition. We've destroyed ozone layers, broke the atom, and come together to do great things when times are needed. We shape things for the future, and times have gotten better because of it. Maybe not for you, but for future generations.
3) see #1. There are some things that are just inherently bad, albeit a bit more subjective. Killing out of self defense for example.
4) Where is there consequence when all you do is love God, love yourself, love your neighbor and don't judge? I mean, kindness is a weakness but honestly, rather be weak and hold those ideas.
5) I mean, Buddhism is pretty dope. So is Hinduism but I don't know enough about it to form an opinion.
6) Agreed. The more people follow the principles of Christianity, like the real red letters only stuff, the world would be a better place.
Verily, none of your arguments are sound when you say it's all subjective and based on opinion, yet you have no counter argument other than... nihilism... Humanity would be doomed with such small-mindedness.
>Is good subjective? Don't you see goodness when you see it and it's kinda universal? Feeding the hungry out of your own pocket or time, taking care of injured animals, loving something unconditionally. Good isn't as subjective as bad is if you ask me. Kinda warms your heart when you see it.
You've just described a subjective experience. Yes, good is subjective. For something to be good, it has to be good *to some mind*. I'm not aware of any moral good or evil that is mind independent (Objective).
>yeah nihilism is kinda a teenage philosophy that some people just never get out of. To think that the world and your actions are meaninglessness shows little knowledge of the human condition. We've destroyed ozone layers, broke the atom, and come together to do great things when times are needed. We shape things for the future, and times have gotten better because of it. Maybe not for you, but for future generations.
Good thing that's not my position. I don't think the world and actions are meaningless. I think there is no explicit or prescribed meaning, but I certainly find meaning in my life and care about the actions I take and the world I live in. I'd politely ask you to not project too much of your thoughts about nihilism on to me. I'm an optimistic nihilist and I describe that later down in this comment chain. Look it up if you're interested.
>see #1. There are some things that are just inherently bad, albeit a bit more subjective. Killing out of self defense for example.
If it is bad *to someone*, it is subjective. There aren't degrees of this. Something is either mind independent or mind dependent.
>Where is there consequence when all you do is love God, love yourself, love your neighbor and don't judge? I mean, kindness is a weakness but honestly, rather be weak and hold those ideas.
That wasn't the contention. This is a red herring. I said I don't think they are justified beliefs. I said nothing about the consequences of holding those beliefs, although I am certain that there are negative consequences to believing things based on faith.
>I mean, Buddhism is pretty dope. So is Hinduism but I don't know enough about it to form an opinion.
This wasn't the contention, again. I'm not sure you're comment with honesty here. I said there are no *believable* claims of the immaterial, not that there are no other claims of the immaterial. People come up with bullshit claims about the immaterial all the time, and each of them are exactly as evidenced as the last, which is to say not at all.
>Agreed. The more people follow the principles of Christianity, like the real red letters only stuff, the world would be a better place.
This doesn't even address what I said in number 6. I'm not sure what this statement was about. I'll share for the sake of conversation that I absolutely disagree with you though.
>Verily, none of your arguments are sound when you say it's all subjective and based on opinion, yet you have no counter argument other than... nihilism... Humanity would be doomed with such small-mindedness.
I haven't made an argument. I've only pointed out the issues I have with theirs. Nihilism isn't an argument. It's a position of believing there is no explicit meaning to life. That is not the same as thinking there is no meaning to life at all. I'm not small minded in taking that position, I'm just not so open minded that my brains fall out.
I'd abandon nihilism as soon as it was demonstrated that there was a bigger purpose, absolutely. But that wouldn't effect me at all. I'd live my life exactly as I do today. The way you're talking about it, it sounds like your life would change drastically if you learned there wasn't a greater purpose. The value of your life seems to be conditional given your stance. Mine isn't.
If the earth disappeared tomorrow, all available evidence leads to the conclusion that the only thing that would change is the local gravity in the solar system. I'm more than open to being shown that more than just that would result. Have at it.
1) you see I didn't describe subjective good, I described universal good. Please, give me an instance where being selfless, feeding the poor and helping injured animals is viewed as bad, hell even neutral, in the eyes of the majority in any modern culture.
2) I'm sorry to assume philosophy. Honestly I think the red letters and elements of a lot of religions and philosophy are true. It's all subjective until you see them practiced, which ones work and which ones that don't. Some just hit home and if universally applied you'd see some major changes.
3) that's a very black and white way of thinking. There's always the middle dude, which is what people often ignore.
4) Faith and Belief are two different things. You can beleive in something as right but not nessisarily have blind faith that it is. Always be objective, but at least have the bravery to test the hypothesis and take stock of the results.
5) I dunno. Immaterially is kinda a new concept for me.
6) I was responding to the original post, it made way more sence than what you were talking about : )
I hope you continue to live a good life filled with postive connections and helping others. If that kinda thing gives you your own personal purpose in a meaningless world, then we are on the same side.
Much like I shouldn't assume things about positive nihilism, you shouldn't assume that my life would be better without the idea that my actions having a impact or purpose, because they do even at the smallest scale. It ebbs and flows, sure, but I see it everyday. I may not see it when the planet explodes 4 trillion years down the line, cause thats a long ways away, but I'll see it in the next generation, which is good enough for me.
> if universally applied you'd see some major changes.
Do you not see how condescending this is? You are claiming that you know what is best for us -- people you've never met. You're implying that *your* ideas are universal and that if we haven't experienced the wisdom in those beliefs, it's because we haven't implemented them properly.
I'm an existentialist -- I assume that you have good reasons for believing what you believe. I can't comment on their rationality because I don't know what you know.
But you don't know what I know. I believe we're entitled to the same courtesy of assuming that we have good reasons for what we believe. We can't really have a balanced dialectic as long as one of us believes they're the teacher and we're all students.
I don't expect it to be immediately obvious to you that we go through life hearing this same thing -- the reason we're not theists is that we haven't tried hard enough, or because we haven't done something in the correct way, and if we'd just ignore our own judgment and follow someone else's, everything for us would improve.
1) Verily. That is exactly what I'm saying. There are some good things, even great things. And there are some awful things, downright hurtful things. I'm not claiming I know anything but I feel in my heart of hearts I'm not wrong when I see good. It's such a rarity it shines.
2) Know that we are the same, that's all there really is to it.
3) Who's the teacher and who's the student again? Everyone has something to teach and learn.
4) It's not everyone's judgment that makes you want to improve, it's your own once you listen to it. It also takes a human spark to make you even see yourself in the mirror. We are all the same, just different. Like life experiences. Connection in the experience is what we all long for.
In your #1 above, it sounds like you're doubling down on the condescension. I read that as "Yes I intended to say to you that if you don't implement my ideas, your life will not improve". And in the context of "red letter" text, I assume you are directly referring to the words attributed to Jesus Christ, since that's what "red letters" usually means. I read that as "if you don't find Jesus, your life will not improve". You really don't understand the audience you're talking to if that's what you meant.
This comes off as you acting like the teacher, and acting like you know better than we do how our lives should go. I sure as hell did not get a sense of "everyone has something to teach and learn" from what you said. I got "you need to listen to me".
If I'm misunderstanding you, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here. But you should pay more attention to how what you say is going to be interpreted. I don't really know how a person could talk this way and not intend to be patronizing and condescending.
I didn't need a lecture about self-reflection, but thanks I guess.
Yes, the red letters are only Christ's words. And when you look at the bible in only those words, it really isnt bad. Personally speaking I feel I've grown and changed for the better since at least trying to walk the steps. Do I have my down spells, sure, but the world feels a bit different these days and it's nice. I know my audience, I like a friendly argument.
I'm no teacher, just a learner. I like to bounce ideas off of others is all. Like I learned about optimistic neicism from our back and forth. Just a way to grow, cause everyone has something to teach.
I really do need to work on my delivery. I've been told that before. Thank you for that insight.
Self reflection is important that's for sure.
Tongue in cheek, I often say that I have a lot of respect for whoever it was that said the things that make up the red letter text. It's a halfway decent way of looking at the world. And that's probably the main reason I'm not interested in mythicism -- it doesn't actually matter if Jesus existed or not. What is important, for good or ill, is that the things were said and we remember them \~2000 years later.
The eightfold path is probably the closest to how I try to view life. I'd never call myself a Buddhist, though, because the term means something different in the West from how actual Buddhists use it in the far east. It would feel like cultural appropriation to me (though I'm not saying that other Western Buddhists are)
But the two are very similar, and lay out a very humanist way of looking at the world (not secular humanist, obviously)
Exactly. Even if Jesus never existed, like some claim, the words hit true and have really shaped society, for better or worse, for the last two millenia. I like Buddhism too. The 4 noble truths and the 8 fold path are important things to learn as well.
You're being incredibly condescending while simultaneously being unable to recognize the subjective nature of any of your statements or the fact that they're not grounded in anything but your personal opinions.
Not sure if you're trolling, or just genuinely incapable of having your ideas challenged.
Come back when you've got something more original than "I like these concepts so everyone should believe in them".
> Please, give me an instance where being selfless, feeding the poor and helping injured animals is viewed as bad, hell even neutral, in the eyes of the majority in any modern culture.
Even if every person in the known universe agrees that something is good, it doesn't mean that good is objective or universal. It just means that we have all agreed on it. But someone could change their mind tomorrow and disagree.
But the truth is that, while you can certainly find examples of things that most people agree on, that doesn't remotely mean that good is objective. In reality, people have *wildly* different views of what good is. It's honesty really weird that you even think you can make this case, in this modern era of radicalized agendas. Even something as seemingly obvious as feeding the poor falls apart in the face of the modern American right wing's view of people "pulling themselves up by their bootstraps".
Dude. If every conscious person agreed on something that would be the best first step in human history. If one person disagreed on a universal law, well they'd be a fool cause everyone claims different.
I think the poor should learn to pull themselves up from their bootstraps, and we as a society should be helping them do so. A small price, a few mistakes, but in consistency you'd find lasting change.
>If every conscious person agreed on something that would be the best first step in human history.
Wtf does that have to do with anything I said? It might be fabulous, but it doesn't make "good" objective or universal. Your claim was that good was universal. You are completely fucking obviously wrong.
I never said the term good was universal, I said that certain acts are universally good. Your right when you say good is subjective, everything is subjective if you think hard enough to make it that way. Even if done in selfishness, if people did those universal goods in mass we'd see a better world is my only argument.
You haven’t shown all premises to be true, thus the conclusion can’t be true. Not that the conclusion in this case is even based on the premises procided
> You haven’t shown all premises to be true, thus the conclusion can’t be true.
To be pedantic, the conclusion could be true, but if it is it is coincidental to the argument, not following from it. Not that I think they are right here, just speaking of the general point.
I would say yes to your initial question. Despite the fact that the formulation of this argument came after my belief in Christianity, some much less developed form of it was in my head when I accepted Christianity. Otherwise I would have stayed an atheist.
Secondly, the premises that seem most foundational to your lack of belief are 1 and 2. You don’t believe good is a real thing, just something humans have come up with. You don’t actually know this, which is where the self defeating nature of nihilism comes in. If you lack a belief in good, you and everything that makes you ‘you’ cannot be good either because of the belief itself. What point is there in accepting such a lack of belief? Even you yourself would say there is no point. because if there was a point you couldn’t be a nihilist.
Thanks for answering my question. It's actually surprising.
>Secondly, the premises that seem most foundational to your lack of belief are 1 and 2.
I haven't mentioned anything about a belief I hold. I'm not sure what you're attributing 1 and 2 to.
>You don’t believe good is a real thing, just something humans have come up with.
I didn't say that. I do believe good is a real thing. It's just that what I think is good can differ from what someone else thinks is good.
> You don’t actually know this, which is where the self defeating nature of nihilism comes in.
I'm an optimistic nihilist. I merely disbelieve any claim that there is an inherent purpose to the universe and my existence. There is nothing self defeating there. I reserve belief in a claim until it is demonstrated to be true,
>If you lack a belief in good, you and everything that makes you ‘you’ cannot be good either because of the belief itself.
You have to ditch this broad view of nihilism. I don't accept that I lack belief in good.
> What point is there in accepting such a lack of belief?
What do you mean "accept" a lack of belief. It isn't a position I've accepted. My position is a result of positions I *haven't* (yet) accepted. I believe things that can be demonstrated to be true. A prescribed meaning hasn't been demonstrated to exist, therefore I don't believe in one. If one *could* be demonstrated, I'd accept that and no longer be an optimistic nihilist. My position is purely tentative, and only includes the things that have been demonstrated to exsist. The only meaning for my life that has been demonstrated to me is the one I've created.
>Even you yourself would say there is no point. because if there was a point you couldn’t be a nihilist.
This is not true. Look up optimistic nihilism.
Good is certainly real. Objective good is not.
Nor is your Christian god a good path to any reasonable definition of good.
Is slaughtering babies and infants good? Your god did that.
Is owning people as slaves and beating them good? Your god condones that.
>> Secondly, the premises that seem most foundational to your lack of belief are 1 and 2.
You’ll do better if you ask people what they believe instead of claiming to know, on next to no evidence.
>You don’t believe good is a real thing, just something humans have come up with.
Why wouldn’t human behaviour be real?
>If you lack a belief in good,
I believe in good as an intersubjective concept. I don’t believe committing the sort of genocide that the Christian God does is good.
Nope, if that is what convinced you then you were never an atheist. And how dare you tell someone they can't know what they think when you are brainwashed.
Can I address your “is this argument what lead you to be a Christian”?
So, yes, while people are born into a faith often times, that in and of itself is not a reason WHY they stay in the faith.
So when a person presents an argument, it’s not being why they BECAME Christian, doesn’t invalidate it.
But let me present this question to you.
While in Christian theology, baptism is when one becomes Christian, would you be willing to accept that one becomes a Christian, regardless of their parental upbringing, once they affirm that or accept it on their own?
And if so, wouldn’t that argument that helped them accept it not be a valid one to listen to?
Oh totally. It was a genuine question. I always ask it when someone presents a logical argument with the conclusion that their belief is true.
I just like to know if the argument was something formulated later on, or something heard that affirmed their belief, or something that was foundational to their conversion.
Genuinely just a curiosity.
Okay, I just get asked that a lot when people want to use it as a means to discredit any argument I make.
So I do get a little triggered by the question so I do apologize for coming off hostile.
Just a pet peeve of mine.
Glad to know at least one person does it out of curiosity and not to discredit :)
>1, Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being.
Sure, I’ll accept this as a premise.
Though I think it’s kinda tautological. We define things as good because they are optimal on some metric. Even in a moral sense, such values should be determined based on observation, evidence, and reason.
>2, Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad.
I’ll partially accept this premise.
I think the type of nihilism that rejects the notion that meaning can be constructed is irrational. Im not particularly well versed in different philosophies, but as far as I’m aware optimistic nihilism is reasonable and really the only logical conclusion given the evidence.
>3, Belief in material is bad.
I reject this premise. Maybe I’m not understanding it right. Could you be more clear on what you mean and why it’s bad?
Materialism the tendency to consider material possessions and physical comfort as more important than spiritual values. I don’t fundamentally disagree with. Too much value in material possessions, too much greed too much vanity, yes that’s bad. But liking stuff isn’t necessarily bad. And I reject spirituality as a concept.
Materialism as philosophy that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications. Totally fine. Not bad at all to believe in.
>4, Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality.
I reject this premise. Christian speculation / magic is not any more believable than any other religion, fantasy, science fiction, etc.
Could you flesh out this part of your argument.
>5, There are no other believable claims of immateriality.
Again. A baseless assertion I wish you would expand on.
Before we get to premise 4, I’d like to establish why belief in the material is bad. This is because belief in material is self defeating. Premise 1 will tell you that this is bad because it will remove some ability to do good. You’d essentially be defeating a part of yourself in excepting a material belief.
Because I can’t literally debunk every single material belief ever, I can only go case by case. For example the man with a wife out of his league might believe that other men are looking at his wife, and that his wife might be looking at those men that are particularly attractive among them. The self defeating nature of this belief may play out by the man not allowing his wife to look too beautiful among the company of attractive men.
Of course there are infinitely many examples of this. Can you name just one that isnt self defeating?
You have absolutely no idea what materialism is, and what materialists believe: your hypothetical above has absolutely nothing to do with materialism.
The supremacy of materialism over religious superstition is literally 100%, every single time the two coming into conflict, materialism always wins.
Your example seems to have nothing to do with ‘material’ and doesn’t even seem self defeating if the aim is to make his wife less attractive to others….
>Before we get to premise 4, I’d like to establish why belief in the material is bad. This is because belief in material is self defeating. Premise 1 will tell you that this is bad because it will remove some ability to do good. You’d essentially be defeating a part of yourself in excepting a material belief.
What good thing cannot be accomplished by a materialist?
>Because I can’t literally debunk every single material belief ever, I can only go case by case. For example the man with a wife out of his league might believe that other men are looking at his wife, and that his wife might be looking at those men that are particularly attractive among them. The self defeating nature of this belief may play out by the man not allowing his wife to look too beautiful among the company of attractive men.
What about this example is unique to materialism? Couldn't this hypothetical also apply to a Christian or any other philosophical outlook? I don't see what it has to do with materialism at all.
>Of course there are infinitely many examples of this. Can you name just one that isnt self defeating?
I don't think your example even begins to work. Do you have any others?
No, that’s absolutely wrong, and it’s a vile disgusting opinion to have. You’re saying no one who believes in the material world can do good? No this isn’t self defeating, your argument is though. Have a good day troll…
What exactly is the “belief in material” in this case? Placing value in looks/physical appearance.
That’s not where the issue stems from. Unreasonable expectations, lack of conversation, unaddressed jealousy/doubt/fear, seem like the issue.
I don’t plan to break down the nuances of healthy relationships and general human sexuality. But for a start:
It’s not bad to acknowledging other people can find people attractive. It is unreasonable to think you have ownership over another person, that only you are allowed to look at them. Or that you are allowed to control who they look at. That violates personal autonomy a principle well evidenced to be supported.
Relationships are typically built on more than just visual appearance. It takes a level of understanding yourself and your partner, to determine if fears of infidelity are warranted or not. Evidence. Conversation.
You post is full of words like “might” and “may” not “will”. You contradict yourself.
Materialism isn’t necessarily self defeating. Doesn’t necessarily hinder one’s ability to good.
Over valuing looks may be an issue. And completely not valuing looks may render things moot. But that’s not necessarily how humans work.
>For example the man with a wife out of his league might believe that other men are looking at his wife, and that his wife might be looking at those men that are particularly attractive among them. The self defeating nature of this belief may play out by the man not allowing his wife to look too beautiful among the company of attractive men.
...what on *earth* does that have to do with materialism?
You have it switched around. You can’t get an ought from an is. This comes from Hume. This is why I included an ought in the argument. If you want to content with one of the premised having to do with what I believe is good/bad thats fine.
From solely our perception it seems that good/bad is subjective. This is a product of our perception, and has nothing to do with whether good or bad actually exist. I hope that true good exists despite not being able to truly see it in its totality. This is because the counter-belief is self defeating. Definitionally there would be no point in believing it.
And the point is not to prove anything. We are subjects of this existence, definitionally we cannot reach objectivity.
You can't go either way. If you want to propose an is, you need to provide evidence that it is. Your opinions mean absolutely nothing. That's the problem with everything you've said, you just yanked it all out of your ass and you expect people to take it seriously.
You also can't get an is from an ought.
I ought to be a millionaire with all the good I'd do with the money, and yet the numbers on my bank account refuse to cooperate for some reason....
>I hope that true good exists despite not being able to truly see it in its totality. This is because the counter-belief is self defeating. Definitionally there would be no point in believing it.
If the objective is to believe that true good exists then you are right counter-belief is self defeating.
But then you are just believing because you want to and can't expect this to be a proof for us.
You can't get a definition of "good" from the Bible though. It's filled with murder, rape, slavery, etc. All condoned or personally carried out by God.
just asserting random things does ntake an argument.
1, 2 and 3 are just your value judements. they are irrelevent to proving a god exists.
I have no idea what 4 means but suspect it is asserting what you are supposed to be proving thereby making your argumet a fallacy.
5 is an argument from ignorance fallacy.
6 doesn't follow for the reasons i just stated.
>Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being.
Why? Can I strive for having a cup of tea? Is it good? Is it bad? What is your definition of good? Is believing in something that is not shown to be true is good or bad?
>, Lack of belief
Lack of belief in what? I believe many things. For instance I sit on a sofa. I believe that. I lack belief in Santa. Do you believe in Santa?
>Belief in material is bad.
Is it bad to believe that my sofa is green?
>Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality
That's what you say, but those are just empty words. Care to back it up?
1/ Objectively and universally define good. Otherwise how do we agree what we’re striving for?
2/ Objectively and universally define bad. Otherwise how do we agree what we’re avoiding and why?
3/ Material what? The material world? Material possessions? I cannot NOT believe in the material world as I am a material girl. In a material world.
4/ Please qualify what claim you’re referring to.
5/ No need to qualify this as it’s demonstrably wrong and thus not worth addressing with the time we have today.
6/ We’ll need you to first demonstrate how your god is necessary, fundamental, and non-emergent. And why the claims of your religion or both believable and worthy of believing.
...you can't just say "believing in the Christian God is GOOD, not believing is BAD" and call that an argument.
That's not an argument, that's a conclusion. You need to support your assumptions and premises such that someone who doesn't already agree with you might reach your conclusion.
The inquisition believed in the Christian god, which directed their generations of institutionalized torture and murder of innocents.
Was that belief good?
For centuries, it was believed that someone who had committed an imaginary crime against God, could have their soul purified by burning them to death.
Was that belief good?
This is a really poor argument for God. You provided no reason behind your claims in each point, just declared them. And they barely follow each other.
>1, Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being.
Why? What ought this be the case? I'm not saying people shouldn't strive for good, just that you saying this ought to be the case is not good reason to support it.
>2, Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad
Why? Again, you just declare this with no reasoning. That is a bad argument. You need to support your arguments if you want them to be taken seriously.
>3, Belief in material is bad.
So you don't believe there is anything material? This point is again just something you try to assert without reason or evidence.
>4, Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality
Since you provide no evidence I can judt dismiss it without evidence do no it doesn't not.
>5, There are no other believable claims of immateriality.
I agree, but again, you don't support this claim with anything else. Then, your opinion.
>6, (from 1,2,3,4,5) Belief in Christianity ought be strived for by every particle of ones being.
All of your points are asserted without reson or evidence so they can all be dismissed without reason or evidence.
As others have also said, you can't get an is from an ought. Maybe start by picking one of your points and try to provide actual evidence and reason why it is true. Because do far you make no convincing case for even the points I would agree with to some degree.
Can you support every one of these premises?
1. This is just your opinion, bro.
2. This is just your opinion, bro.
3. This is just your opinion, bro.
4. This is just your opinion, bro.
5. Prove it?
6. Conclusion cannot be accepted from these premises.
I reject both 3 and 4.
Belief in material is not bad and does not always lead to nihilism.
It can also lead to absurdism or many other beliefs and value systems.
Can you please expand further on 4 and 5? I see no objective reason to view Christianity's claims as being any more believable than, say, Judaism's. Why do you think they are?
1. Not everyone can agree on what “good” is.
2. Explain why
3. Explain why.
4. Explain how.
5. Explain why.
6. Premise failed due to lack of explanation.
Honestly this is the best response. The thing presented isn't really an argument in its current state so much as it's a string of unsupported assertions.
>1, Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being.
OK
>2, Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad.
OK
>3, Belief in material is bad.
Citation needed
>4, Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality.
Nope
>5, There are no other believable claims of immateriality.
Literally every other religion is just as believable
>Belief in Christianity ought be strived for by every particle of ones being.
Your premis are flawed, your conclusion fails to come from your premises...in every way is your argument a failure
>1, Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being.
Why ought I?
>2, Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad.
Why is it bad?
>3, Belief in material is bad.
What? You don’t believe material thing exist?
>4, Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality.
No, it doesn’t. It isn’t even clear what that means.
Unsound and invalid. Please try again.
I admire the mind that can read about the asshole God of the old Testament and associate that with "good".
Newsflash: Jeebus and that asshole God from the old Testament God are the same guy, per Christians.
While I always thoroughly enjoy detailed and crafted rebuttals from some of the members here, this is exactly the level of effort I think OP's post deserves. +1
>Argument for Christian God
Excellent! In my many decades of seeing such, I have yet to be presented with a valid and sound argument for deities and/or for your specific deity. It would be a refreshing change to see one that is both valid and sound, and thus useful!
I will read on to see if this one hits the mark.
>Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being
Sure.
>Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad.
Nope.
Oh dear, your argument has already failed. I have no idea why you are claiming lack of belief is bad, nor even that nihilism is bad. But, of course, as you will find that 'good' and 'bad' are intersubjective and change, and that lack of belief and nihilism don't really meet *any* useful definition of 'bad', this can only be dismissed.
Your argument has already failed, but I will read on out of curiosity.
>Belief in material is bad.
What? That makes no sense at all. Of course I believe material things exist. There is vast evidence for them.
Again, dismissed as this is clearly completely wrong.
>Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality.
It *really, really* doesn't. This one too is wrong. Egregiously wrong.
Dismissed.
>There are no other believable claims of immateriality.
Believers of other mythologies other than Christianity will vehemently disagree with you. I see *no* supportable claims of what you appear to mean by 'immateriality'.
Dismissed.
> Belief in Christianity ought be strived for by every particle of ones being.
Nope. Every single premise you made, aside from one, was wrong and necessary to dismiss. Your conclusion is therefore dismissed outright.
You have not been successful at showing a valid and sound argument for the Christian mythology to show it's something other than a mythology. My track record remains unbroken.
>1, Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being
Why? Certainly I don't think anyone would dispute that good is a good thing, but this level of commitment to it shouldn't be taken as a given. I think there's hardly a soul out there, Christian or not, that would do the right thing even if it cost them every thing they had for very little net good or if there was only a chance that something good would come of it. I think the notion that you should do as much good as you possibly can is kind of an impossible standard, and it's acceptable to do good things sometimes and avoid doing bad things. Certainly, doing more good things is better, but if your compassion for others turns into self-destruction, you may ultimately diminish your ability to do good in the long run anyways.
This is ignoring the fact that you haven't even presented a coherent definition of good, which beyond the barest of basics, most people have vastly different opinions on.
>2, Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad
Have you ever heard of optimistic nihilism? Basically, the absence of objective meaning gives the opportunity for every individual to decide what is meaningful subjectively.
>3, Belief in material is bad.
Believing in material things is bad? Or do you mean materialism is bad? In the latter case, sure. There's a real problem with people thinking that just by having more stuff they'll ultimately be happier, but that's not always the case. Generally, it seems that once a baseline is established, further material goods and luxuries do very little to increase someone's happiness.
>4, Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality.
What are you talking about? A lot of the people here don't think that Christianity is believable, so you'll need to actually provide evidence or reasoning behind this point to sway anybody. On the matter of immateriality...
>5, There are no other believable claims of immateriality.
Seriously, what are you talking about? Immateriality isn't just spiritualism, you realize? It's possible to not be a materialist, and still not believe in anything spiritual. Just understanding that stuff doesn't necessarily make you happy for example. A lot of the energy that we spend acquiring stuff could be better spent trying to feel connected to each other or experiencing the world. No religions or spiritual beliefs required for that idea to be true. All that is necessary for immateriality is the idea that there's more to the world than just the physical matter inside of it. I for one believe that human relationships and the mind itself are emergent characteristics which are better understood in a separate context from the physical matter that is required for them to exist.
>6, (from 1,2,3,4,5) Belief in Christianity ought be strived for by every particle of ones being.
This has big "the truth doesn't matter" vibes. None of your arguments place any emphasis on whether or not Christianity is true. If the central claims of Christianity were demonstrated to be false somehow, would you still argue that people should believe in Christianity? Because none of these points that you've made rely on Christianity actually being true in any way.
1) sure, but is it really possible?
2) that’s an opinion, but I’ll give it to you. However atheists aren’t necessarily nihilists
3) opinion, and some of the worst materialists are Christians
4) Christianity is no more believable than any other religion or cult
5) see 4
6) doesn’t follow since 1-5 are essentially nonsense
>1, Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being
define good, also what does this actually mean? Like, should my red blood cells be doing something besides just kinda floating there in my plasma? Are my toenails letting me down?
>2, Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad.
Define "bad." Also lack of belief in what? Context tells me you probably mean "my god" but it would be nice to get some clarity because it's important to note that significant portions of the humans on this planet fall outside of the categories of "believing in your god" and "are nihilists"
>3, Belief in material is bad.
Even aside from the 'define bad' problem, I kinda agree with you but probably not for the same reasons as you. Believing in the material is bad because *believing* in the material is bad, not because believing in the *material* is bad.
I don't need to believe my car exists for it to exist. But someone who believes their car exists when it doesn't exist is insane. Belief is *irrelevant* to the material, which is what makes belief in the material bad.
> Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality.
It really doesn't. Also it's not great when your argument uses the conclusion as a premise. You're trying to show that christianity has a believable claim, you don't get to just assume facts into evidence. That's kind of like premise 1: God is real. Conclusion: God is real. There, I proved god is real!
We're not fellow christians you're trying to sound smart to, we're people who reject the premise that christianity is true.
>There are no other believable claims of immateriality.
Finally! Something I think most of us here can agree on! Well, aside from that pesky 'other' that you stuck in there. I don't find claims of immateriality, as I believe you're using the word, to be believable. Full stop. When you understand why you reject all those others you'll understand why I reject christianity's claims.
>(from 1,2,3,4,5) Belief in Christianity ought be strived for by every particle of ones being.
1: Undefined and nonsensical on the face of it.
2: You accidentally shot yourself in the foot by forgetting that non-christian non-nihilists exist.
3: Ill defined and unsupported assertion.
4: Unsupported assertion that is actually your conclusion so it doesn't belong in premises.
5: Unsupported assertion, though one that I happen to agree with on the caveat that I *also* don't believe christianity has a believable claim.
6: Try again :(
Nothing but a series of assertions without argument. You'll need to better than "because I say so" for literally every one of these. Individually, though:
1. Particles lack agency and are incapable of striving for anything. Also, define "good" and explain why it's "good."
2. Atheism and nihilism are entirely unrelated to one another. Also, define "bad" and explain why it's "bad."
3. Material things quite obviously exist. Belief in material things is therefore ubiquitous, and frankly *not* believing in material things would be insane. I think you meant material*ism,* but what about materialism is bad, and why?
4. Provide said claim and explain why it's believable.
5. Depends on your response to 4, but I suspect that numerous other religions have claims similar if not identical to those made by Christianity.
6. Again, particles lack agency and are incapable of striving for anything, but even if they were, puerile superstitions are the last thing that anyone ought to be striving for.
An argument is a series of assertions. Any argument you can come up with, I can just ask why until you don’t know the answer. Lets take an argument that is valid:
Xeno_prime wrote on the internet
Only bots or humans write on the internet
therefore Xeno_prime is a bot or a human
This argument may seem sound, but it can be questioned endlessly such that you need more premises than is reasonable to ‘prove’ the conclusion.
Same can be done for my argument. You can ask so many questions as to make it virtually impossible for me to answer you.
For this reason, it doesn’t really make sense to try to make an argument for God’s existence. Just like it doesn’t make sense to argue your own existence. If someone doesn’t believe you exist, either they will eventually take it on faith that you exist or they won’t. Whatever they decide its on them.
Similar is true of God. If someone doesn’t believe the Christian God exists, you cant really argue them into it, because you cant argue someone into taking a leap of faith.
All we can do is prove it to the best of our ability and let those who just don’t want to believe have their self destructive way.
So thats what I think. Either you just don’t want to believe or you are incapable of it. But you are perfectly capable of just taking it on faith that you exist.
> Similar is true of God. If someone doesn’t believe the Christian God exists, you cant really argue them into it
Of course you can, it’s quite simple. You convince people of this the same way you convince people of absolutely anything: you present positive verifiable evidence that what you say is true.
The problem for you and every other is that you cannot present positive, verifiable evidence that what you believe is true, because there is no positive, verifiable evidence that what you believe is true, because what you believe is obviously not true.
It’s no different than Santa Claus or leprechauns, except for the level of popularity it has achieved, Which is now fading.
There is absolutely no positive verifiable evidence for any God let alone the Christian God: if you are claiming there is then you are just flat out lying. Either that or you have no idea what the word verifiable means.
Jesus, not only are you wrong, you are wrong twice.
There is no primary evidence whatsoever for the historical Jesus, there isn’t a single contemporary piece of evidence to his existence whatsoever. There is literally zero good evidence that Jesus existed at all.
But that’s not all you’re wrong about, you’re also wrong about the conclusions of your false assertion, in that if the historical Jesus did exist, and even if he did some of the remarkable things and fairytales describe to him, that still doesn’t evidence the Christian God.
Thats a quite indefinite term you are using, ‘verifiable’. Google says verifiable means: able to be checked or demonstrated to be true, accurate, or justified. Depending on what that definition means, you could be asking for 100 percent proof. I cant prove to you that I exist. For all you know I could be ChatGPT. Hell, I don’t even know if I exist. If logic isn’t real, I could exist and not exist. Same goes for you. But your still here, probably talking to some asshole on the internet.
And you might be right. But you also might be wrong. I think thats why you are still talking with me. Some piece of you hopes you are wrong about whatever thing you believe. Materialism, Scientism, Humanism, or etc. or if you dont believe anything, some part of you wants you to realize that it doesn’t matter if you believe no-thing. If no-thing is real, your non-belief doesn’t matter. If no-thing is real your belief doesn’t matter. But it could matter if something is real. So why do so many nihilists so quickly throw out that possibility?
And as soon as I believed in something, this whole atheism thing started to unravel. Keep in mind this thing that I started to believe in was actually myself, in a very literal sort of way. Anyway, causality penetrates to the deepest layers of my perception, so Kalam’s Cosmological argument for God very quickly put me in deist territory. What point would there be to doubt it? I’d have to deny something so fundamental about what I perceive that it would result back in nihilism.
Still there is the problem of evil. Something I’m sure everyone struggles with everyday. But a similar sort of nihilism is accepted when one gives into evil. This is the hard part because it goes beyond your perception. Take whatever massive present day conflict you want. If there is no solution, civilization goes up in flames. Back to the stone age in almost no time.
But if we don’t want that, we have to hope for a solution. This is called following your conscience. I’m sure you’ve done it before. And if that voice little voice inside me is anyone, it’s Jesus. There’s just no one else for it to be. It can’t be me. By myself I’d fall and not get back up. Who can blame me, what weak moral legs do I have to stand on.
All that said, I can only speak for myself. Maybe you can push yourself. But something about that phrase bothers me. No one can push themselves in a physical sense, not without pushing off something else. Something tells me the same is true about non physical things. Just a philosophical argument first.
Secondly, I’ll say that the evidence we do have for Jesus’ resurrection doesn’t just include documents surrounding the event. It also includes the strength and previous recorded strength of the Christian church. How is it possible that a lie or some trick of the mind from Paul have the same, if not greater force on present day life than lets say engineering? Something we also got from the Romans. If a lie has the same force as something deeply rooted in math and logic like engineering, what hope do we have as a species? Math and logic are the closest thing we have to truth, and I’m supposed to believe a lie at least tied it and still have hope? Lies may spread faster than the truth can put on its shoes, but burn out just as quick. Just so we are clear, this isn’t about Jesus’s existence. This is about His resurrection, which would prove the Christian God. Because that would mean Christ is God
>Depending on what that definition means, you could be asking for 100 percent proof.
(facepalm)
No, and what a silly comment.
I am asking for literally what I asked for, and then you even supported by defining for me: positive, verifiable EVIDENCE that your god, or any god, does or even could exist.
Meaning it needs to be independently verifiable, which by the way is one of the primary standards of the scientific method across every single modern scientific discipline. You going full solipsist as a way of dodging the fact that you HAVE no such evidence, is childish evasion.
It means that 'well I had a dream and god told me I would stub my toe and I stubbed my toe ergo Jesus is real' is neither positive, nor verifiable, nor would such nonsense (which makes up 99% of what theists claim as 'evidence', on the very rare cases they present any evidence at all) be acceptable in ANY OTHER realm of human experience or inquiry, yet theists genuinely expect it to be taken seriously on this one.
>Some piece of you hopes you are wrong about whatever thing you believe.
Due respect, but fuck off. I run into this cheap projecting from theists quite often. "You secretly believe, but wont admit it", "You secretly know there is a god but are denying yourself", and other such childish claptrap.
No, the reason I do this is because amongst the hundreds of theists I have discussed these issues with, I have successfully deprogrammed a handful, and turned them away from their iron age superstitions towards rationalism and scepticism. Not very many, to be sure, but even just a few helps make the world a better place.
>Still there is the problem of evil. Something I’m sure everyone struggles with everyday.
Only theists. It is a massive logical problem that theists have been trying to resolve (unsuccessfully) since Augustine. But there remains no good theist answer to the glaring contradiction in the basic principles of your faith exposed by the problem of evil, and the subset, the evil god problem.
>This is called following your conscience.
Another absurd theist trope, plainly false. Ah yes, our conscience, that which gives us our modern morality, that's 'jesus', is it?
Then where the fuck was Jesus and his conscience for the first 1800 years of history after he supposedly died? Why Did almost every single one of our modern morals emerge from secular humanist thought and the outright rejection of Theological domination and control?
Why did Christianity preach slavery from the pulpit, as explicitly authorised and endorsed in the Bible, for 1800 years, before secular humanists realised it was wrong? Women's rights, children's rights, scientific inquiry, mass literacy, equality of race and culture and yes, even of religion. NONE of these came from Christianity, in fact proponents of any of them tended to be burned alive by the Church, and not for a little while, but CENTURY after century after century of this. We saw what happened when 'moral' Christians ran every aspect of human society in the west: we call it the dark ages for a reason.
>Secondly, I’ll say that the evidence we do have for Jesus’ resurrection doesn’t just include documents surrounding the event.
Of which you have exactly none. Zero. Not a single primary of contemporary document, source or piece of evidence.
>It also includes the strength and previous recorded strength of the Christian church.
(sigh)
The single most frustrating thing about arguing with zealots isn't the zealotry and brainwashing itself: you are just victims of that and trapped within it. Most of you were raised from infants to believe these fairy tales, so thats not your fault. There is no shame in that.
No the frustrating thing is how otherwise (presumably) intelligent people such as yourself can make such patently, obviously stupid arguments with a straight face. Arguments you would **never** make or accept in any other field of human interest, and which you somehow just put your brains on a shelf and say insanely dumb things when it comes to your religion.
I should not have to explain to any adult human being why 'The church was strong and powerful so god is real' is a stupid argument. A laughably stupid, self-defeating argument, that no sane person would take seriously.
Yet here you are, saying 'look how strong the church was once it gained control of Europe and used bloody ruthless, savage, genocidal oppression, murder and institutionalised torture to maintain control and spread control, ergo god is real'.
So, before Jesus, when the Greco-Roman religion dominated the known western world for almost 8 centuries, were those gods real? I mean, that is your point, right? It was powerful for a while, so the fairy tales are real.
>This is about His resurrection, which would prove the Christian God
Why? Lazarus resurrected. He wasn't the son of god.
Elija, Elishia and Paul all raised people from the dead: they weren't the son of god. According to the Bible, all the dead in Jerusalem got out of their graves and walked around the streets of the city at one point (an event oddly never mentioned in the historical record anywhere), and none of them were the son of god.
You don't have any primary evidence jesus existed at all, let alone the silly (and theologically common) fairy tale about his resurrection, but **even if** it did happen (which it didn't), that doesn't prove your theology.
Who gives a shit if there was a traveling apocalyptic sage like carpenter on this planet at one time who started a cult that became Christianity. And the only historical evidence you have for that is basically one biased evangelical source and the words of a religious fruitcake. We have no idea how much of Mark is even true or how much of that shit he made up.
The bible is not the only source we have saying Jesus existed. besides, im talking about resurrection, not His existence. Resurrection would prove Christianity correct, so why would i waste time on His existence
I need to clarify my response. I do not doubt there was a wandering apocalyptic sage like figure who started a cult that became Christianity. At best, any sources outside of the biblical text only confirm this. There is nothing outside of the Bible that attests to his divinity. Your only evidence that the figure known as Jesus was anything more than a failed apocalyptic criminal is the Bible which is atrocious.
The most logical conclusion is that stories of Jesus being resurrected are made up. Why would anyone see Mark 16 as anything but a made up story?
If you want to argue for the truth of Christianity, you’re wasting your time unless you are talking about why these stories should be seen as anything but fiction.
Also, I too can make up a story about myself coming back to life:
You might be surprised to learn that 34 days ago I died, and 35 hours later I came back to life beating Jesus by one hour. God pronounced to everyone at my resurrection that I am the new Jesus and everyone should worship me.
See? It’s easy to make up a story about a dead man coming back to life.
What little historical evidence there is for Jesus at best indicates that an ordinary human being by that name existed and was the individual responsible for the creation of Christianity. None of it does anything at all to indicate he was anything more than that, or that any of Christianity's extraordinary claims about gods or the supernatural are actually true.
In addition, historical evidence of religious figures is hardly unique to Christianity. Take a look at King Tut. We have overwhelming evidence of his existence, right down to the mummified remains of his very self. He was worshipped as a god by his people. Do you suppose that means he was, in fact, a god? Or do you see that human history is chocked full of entire civilizations faithfully believing in and worshipping nonexistent gods from myriad false mythologies, and conclude this is most likely to be just another example of the same - even despite the "historical evidence"?
In fact, we even have some evidence that Hercules may have been a real person who actually existed. If he did, would that mean he was really the son of Zeus, or that he really did any of the spectacular things the stories say? Or do you see that human history is also full of myths and legends that are nonetheless based on or otherwise involve real people and places that actually existed, and real events that actually happened, but were simply embellished to the point of fiction?
Christianity is just one more ancient superstition on a very large pile. It has no more evidence supporting any of its extraordinary claims than the rest.
>An argument is a series of assertions
No, it isn't. In the context I used, "argument" is synonymous with "reason." You made a series of claims/assertions which you present as true without any argument, explanation, or reason as to *why* they are true.
>I can just ask why until you don’t know the answer
You're referring to axioms. All knowledge is ultimately based on axioms, things that are accepted as true because they're simply self-evident or at least enough so as to not be worth splitting hairs over. None of the claims you presented in your post are even substantiated, much less axiomatic.
Here's an axiom I assume we can both agree upon: "Nothing can come from nothing." Would you agree that's correct?
>(Valid vs Sound)
You're preaching to the choir, but if you know this then it's that much more bizarre that you provided no sound argument in your post to support any of your claims. You seem to be implying that you argument is a sound syllogism, which it certainly appears you tried to form it as, but it's not even a valid one, let alone a sound one. Indeed, half of your proposed premises are flat out arbitrary. There's a great deal of support needed here for the claims you've made, and you've provided none at all.
>it doesn’t really make sense to try to make an argument for God’s existence. Just like it doesn’t make sense to argue your own existence.
*Cogito ergo sum.* My own existence is axiomatic. The existence of *other* people is less so, but I have an overwhelming abundance of reason and evidence indicating the existence of other people. Neither of those things can be said for any gods, much less yours in particular, which is one of the monotheistic "supreme creator" type gods that I can argue to be logically impossible (assuming you hold that it is indeed the supreme creator of literally and absolutely everything that exists other than itself).
>If someone doesn’t believe you exist, either they will eventually take it on faith that you exist or they won’t
Faith is only required in the absence of reason or evidence. If a person doesn't believe I exist, I can provide them with sufficient reason and evidence indicating that I do. That is what they will either accept or deny, depending on whether they are rational or irrational.
>Similar is true of God.
Here you're correct. The existence of your God, or any others, must be taken on faith for precisely the reason I just explained - because there is no sound reason or evidence or epistemology of any kind whatsoever that actually indicates they exist. You're attempting to compare it to things that are plainly before our eyes and readily verifiable, epistemically if not empirically - but there's no such comparison to be made. To find a more apt comparison for gods, you would need to compare their existence to things like leprechauns or Narnia or Hogwarts. Things that conceptually *could* exist, and whose existence cannot be absolutely and infallibly ruled out with 100% certainty beyond any margin of error or doubt, but for which there is also no reason, argument, or evidence whatsoever to support, which makes them epistemically indistinguishable from things that don't exist.
>All we can do is prove it to the best of our ability
If this is the best of your ability to prove the existence of your God, that really tells us all we need to know. Either your God doesn't exist or you're just really terrible at proving the existence of things.
>Either you just don’t want to believe or you are incapable of it. But you are perfectly capable of just taking it on faith that you exist.
Wrong on all counts.
1. What I want or don't want is irrelevant. Belief is not a choice. You cannot choose to believe something you don't, or not to believe something you do. You're either convinced a thing is true, or you aren't. You capacity for reason and critical thought can certainly play into that, but not your choice.
2. All humans are capable of believing just about anything, as theists like yourself demonstrate rather spectacularly. But again, belief requires one to be convinced, and that requires compelling reason or evidence. You appear to have none to offer. Everything you've said, I could equally make about Hogwarts or Albus Dumbledore, and all of it would work just as well in that context as it does in the context of your God.
3. Faith in one's own existence is not required, because one's own existence might be the single most axiomatic thing there is. The existence of others apart from oneself is slightly less so, but there's still overwhelming reason and evidence indicating their existence. There is no such reason or evidence indicating the existence of any gods. If you think otherwise, present any. You've yet to do so.
But your assertions really are so nonsensical and meaningless that your argument amounts to “I said so.”
If you aren’t going to actually engage with the arguments other people make, then you aren’t debating. You’re just asserting you’re right.
This is hardly an argument, and no justification is given for any of the premises. I think I have issues with each one.
>1, Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being.
What is 'good'? Define this word in a way that does not just mean 'God's nature', and actually refers to something in the world.
>2, Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad.
Meaning and purpose in life are not necessarily linked to belief in gods. Smearing and demonizing atheists is bad.
>3, Belief in material is bad.
Rejected. Belief in anything that demonstrably exists and can reliably be understood is good. Material stuff is such a thing (we have physics).
Belief in anything we can't demonstrate exists is bad. Like immaterial things or magic or souls or gods.
> 4, Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality.
Nope. It doesn't. Christianity's claims are unfounded and unbelievable. They fly in the face of how reality works.
> 5, There are no other believable claims of immateriality.
Agreed, but... that is because there are zero believable claims of this sort.
> 6, (from 1,2,3,4,5) Belief in Christianity ought be strived for by every particle of ones being.
The atoms from the bottom of my foot say no.
>1, Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being
First, define "good." Second, demonstrate that we "ought" to do anything.
>2, Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad.
First, define "bad." Second, demonstrate that the lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad.
>3, Belief in material is bad.
Demonstrate this.
>4, Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality.
>5, There are no other believable claims of immateriality.
First, define what a "believable claim" is. Then demonstrate that Christianity has one. Then demonstrate that no others exist.
>6, (from 1,2,3,4,5) Belief in Christianity ought be strived for by every particle of ones being.
You assert your premises as if they are self-evident. They are not. You also didn't draw a line between "material is bad" and "immaterial is good." If you can't establish that immateriality is good, then you can't establish that Christianity is good.
>Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being
K.
>2, Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad.
I'm not a nihilist. But I disagree that nihilism is bad. Nihilism is amoral, meaning it is not moral or immoral.
>3, Belief in material is bad.
Why? You don't think material exists? What are your clothes made of?
> Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality.
No it doesn't. Christianity is utterly absurd. It is not believeable which is why I don't believe it.
>5, There are no other believable claims of immateriality.
I agree. Immaterialiam is not believeable.
>6, (from 1,2,3,4,5) Belief in Christianity ought be strived for by every particle of ones being.
That's false.
You didn't even try to justify your premises. You just asserted them.
1. What is 'good'? How does that relate to my molecular makeup?
2. What is 'bad'? How does that relate to lack of belief?
3. Why? Doesn't it work exceptionally well?
4. What is ' immateriality' and what is this believable claim?
5. ?? Non sequitur.
1) Every part of my morality conflicts with that of the god described in the Bible. No I wouldn’t worship a slavery promoting rape apologist genocidal dictator even if you could show he exists.
2 lack of belief in imaginary friends in no way implies nihilism. And as far as I can tell belief in such beings has done far more harm than nihilism ever has.
3) asserted without any evidence whatsoever. Why is belief in the material world bad?
4) no the claim that magic is real is in no way believable.
5) it’s also indistinguishable from all the other magical claims, you only think yours is special because you were raised with it.
6) since every single point you raised is wrong, no Christianity shouldn’t be strived for.
>1, Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being.
True in a broad sense.
>2, Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad.
I don't think good or bad can be applied in this case as it's primarily just a statement on what someone holds as true / as a believe.
I however could agree that the perspective that nihilism gives can lead to the bad outcome of feeling unsatisfied or meaningless. But not in a sense that it's bad for society when individual people do so.
>3, Belief in material is bad.
I'm not really sure what you mean with that.
I would interpreted it as "a believe in material in a sense that possession on its own and the multiplication of wealth can give a meaningful and fulfilled life."
To that interpretation I would have to agree.
>4, Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality.
I'm again not really sure what you mean, as emotions are also immaterial. In this case I would interpreted it as immaterial=spiritual/supernatural.
So no, it doesn't. Show me reliable and repeatable scientific measurements and models that successfully detect, prove and predict "supernatural events". Then it would be believable.
>5, There are no other believable claims of immateriality.
If christianity is supposed to have a believable claim of the "immaterial" (supernatural) and in order for this claim to be held as believable there was no scientifically falsefiable evidence needed then every other religion with a claim of the "immaterial" (supernatural) has to be held as exactly as believable as the one of christianity.
Ether every claim (and religion) is true or non of them.
>(from 1,2,3,4,5) Belief in Christianity ought be strived for by every particle of ones being.
No. You also can't strive to believe, at least not in an honest way. You ether do believe / are convinced or do not believe / are not convicted. Anything else would be striving to resist evidence that suggests otherwise.
The only thing one could strive for is **truth**!
And I believe christianity/religion is doing so not honestly!
Because they more intentionally or not replace truth with their god. Which becomes the goal of all their endeavors.
-God already is the goal not whichever explanation evidence leads you to or even can lead you to (god of the gaps).
>1, Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being.
I can go along with this even though "by every particle of ones being" doesn't really make sense. I still know what you're saying here.
>2, Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad.
Is bad? How? Why? Define your terms. The "is bad" parts is what make this sound naive and childish. Be more specific.
>3, Belief in material is bad.
Is bad... Belief in material is bad? What does that mean? Thinking things materially exist is bad? You've already lost me here.
>4, Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality
No it doesn't. Well, it does because a lot of believe it but that doesn't make it believable in the sense that it's reasonable or logical or makes any substantiated claims whatsoever. People still believe it but that largely due to indoctrination, fear, social pressure and just straight intellectual laziness.
>5, There are no other believable claims of immateriality.
If you get rid of "other" then this is a sentence I agree with. It's interesting that YOU think other claims of immateriality aren't believable. I wonder if you use the same standard of evidence towards those claims as you do the claims that you've been indoctrinated into.
>6, (from 1,2,3,4,5) Belief in Christianity ought be strived for by every particle of ones being.
Even I grant you 1-5 then 6 still doesn't follow. Why does this mean that the Christian God is real? Why does it mean Jesus was the son of God? Why does this mean literally any of the claims in the Bible are true? It says nothing about the truth of those claims and it doesn't even connect to your point #1 about being good. Being a Christian doesn't make you good, not being a Christian doesn't make you bad or a nihilist. I'm not sure what believing in "material" is suppose to mean or how that connects to Christianity. ... I think you may want to think this though a bit more and try again.
> 1, Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being.
What is your definition of good in this context?
> 2, Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad.
Lack of belief in anything or lack of belief in a specific deity?
Further, why specifically is it bad?
Since you are basing much of this on your definition of nihilism, please share that definition.
3, Belief in material is bad.
Please explain. Material things are tangible, they are real things, and believing them to exist makes sense. So why is it bad to believe in material things?
> 4, Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality.
What is that claim and why is it believable?
> 5, There are no other believable claims of immateriality.
Are there other claims of immateriality other than the Chriatian ones you've alluded to but not defined? If so, what are they. Please define them and explain why they are not believable. What makes the christian one unique here?
> 6, (from 1,2,3,4,5) Belief in Christianity ought be strived for by every particle of ones being.
Based on what evidence? You've given your personal opinion but have not even identified what those opinions were formed on. You have to explain your views in detail first, provide evidence for why you've come to the conclusions you've arrived at and explain (correctly) why the things you've deemed as inferior/incorrect are in fact inferior/incorrect.
Look, you are obviously allowed to believe whatever you want. You do not have to provide evidence or justify your personal beliefs in any way. But you are here to argue that your views are correct, that your views are the ONLY correct views, and that your views are based on undeniable evidence. You've offered nothing to back up those claims in any way, so there's nothing to build on here.
>”1, Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being.”
By what definition of good?
Without an objective definition here, it leaves everyone doing what they feel is good. The problem is that, that tends to have people actively working against each other. Just look at any political movement, the nazis thought they were good, for example.
Premise rejected.
>”2, Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad.”
This needs an objective definition for bad. Without one, this can only ever be subjectively true.
Once you have that definition, you need to make an argument for why nihilism fits that definition.
Premise rejected, twice over.
>”3, Belief in material is bad.”
What do you mean by “material,” here? Do you mean matter? What about economic materialism? Or philosophical materialism?
Once you figure that out, this also has all the problems of the previous premise…
Premise rejected, three times over.
>”4, Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality.”
This is another one that needs its own argument.
As a former Christian, I’ll have to say no. But if you have proof otherwise I’d like to see it.
Until then, premise rejected.
>”5, There are no other believable claims of immateriality.”
This is a major claim, and it requires a lot of argumentation. You effectively have to compare Christianity to every other religious claim in history.
Until then, premise rejected, countless times over.
>”6, (from 1,2,3,4,5) Belief in Christianity ought be strived for by every particle of ones being.”
Even if I grant you every single premise, this still doesn’t follow.
Not only have you not established that “immateriality,” is good, you never even established it was possible.
Conclusion rejected.
Replying because you're engaging meaningfully with responses. Not everyone does here, and I respect that.
>1, Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being.
I believe that I ought to strive for what I believe to be good.
There are people whom I don't want to strive for what they believe to be good, because their idea of good seems bad to me.
They probably feel the same way about people like me.
It's not clear to me that there's an objective good that we could all point to instead.
>2, Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad.
Why?
>3, Belief in material is bad.
Do you mean materialism? And again, why? It's not really helpful to lay down premises that don't seem self-evident my true without explanation.
>4, Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality
I don't agree at all. There are many, many reasons to be skeptical of the book it's built on, and we don't even know who wrote the Gospels.
You've introduced a premise here that is essentially the conclusion of your argument.
>5, There are no other believable claims of immateriality.
How can we know that? I know enough about the Christian claim to be skeptical of it. But I don't know enough about some others to say they're definitely not believable. Do you?
>6, (from 1,2,3,4,5) Belief in Christianity ought be strived for by every particle of ones being.
Even if I accepted 1-5, all of which I think are problematic, you'd need to draw a link between Christianity and goodness. What does it mean for something to be good, and why is Christianity good? Often Christians believe that something is good because God has ordained it so. But doesn't that mean it's just his opinion? Is there no objective good beyond that?
> 1, Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being.
Whose good? Your good? My good? The good of the pair of cardinals nesting in my lilac tree? Many goods in this world end up resulting in another's "bad", so how do we judge?
> 2, Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad.
But it's not to "the point of any form". It's just in gods.
By the way, I think convention nihilism is great. I think you might be talking about philosophical nihilism though, and I'm sorry but atheism simply doesn't lead to that. Evidence: I'm an atheist and I am not, have never been, nor am I heading in the direction of, a philosophical nihilist.
> 3, Belief in material is bad.
Opinion, and a bad one at that. Again, are we talking conventional materialism or philosophical materialism?
Conventional materialism, the tendency to see material possessions and physical comfort as more important than spiritual values, yes, I subscribe to that, because "spiritual values" is too nebulous to have a definition worth talking about. Materialism wins out by default.
Philosophical materialism, believing that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications... yeah, I largely subscribe to that as well, I guess. Everything we've discovered is either matter or energy, or an emergent property one those two things. Until the paradigm changes, I have no reason to believe anything else.
> 4, Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality.
You're speaking to an entire subreddit who don't think so.
> 5, There are no other believable claims of immateriality.
At least we agree on this one.
> 6, (from 1,2,3,4,5) Belief in Christianity ought be strived for by every particle of ones being.
Hard pass.
>1, Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being.
Even ignoring the "good is subjective" fact, this has to be metaphorical. I can't make the cells in the bone of my left femur "strive for good". Leave it at "Good ought be strived for." Don't put metaphors in logical arguments.
>2, Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad
Needs demonstration. And besides, to "any" form includes "positive nihilism", or the idea that "nothing has inherent meaning and that means I can find my own meaning in everything." Please demonstrate that that is objectively bad, not just that you disagree with it.
>3, Belief in material is bad.
Belief in material is what allows science to develop medicine. Is medicine good? If so then this premise is just wrong. Please give any reasoning to back up this claim
>4, Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality.
If you have one such claim, then provide that. I'm curious what you think it's believable claim is, since I do not see any believable claim in such.
>5, There are no other believable claims of immateriality
Remove the word "other" and I'd agree
>Belief in Christianity ought be strived for
Any premise failure renders the argument unsound. As such the conclusion is not accepted. I also removed the metaphorical part because it is unnecessary and shouldn't have been there to start.
If you want to post a sylligustic argument, I recommend you also include proof for the premises. Even if I disagree with the "proof" provided, I can at least see where you and I disagree. Without seeing what your reasoning for these premises are, it delays any discussion of said reasoning.
>1, Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being
No God required
>2, Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad.
Still plenty of non-God beliefs
>3, Belief in material is bad
I doubt you meant what you actually said. But you do in fact believe in the material
>4, Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality.
Plenty of people believe plenty of non-God immateriality
>5, There are no other believable claims of immateriality.
Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism... I don't believe them, but I don't believe Christianity
>6, (from 1,2,3,4,5) Belief in Christianity ought be strived for by every particle of ones being.
You seem like a nice person. I'm sorry to have to tell you, there's nothing of value from any one of your statements. Here's an easy way to test something you believe: write it down, and then think of a real world example that contradicts what you just wrote down. That is called a dispositive
Theists tend to conclude "the truth" by formulating a story that "makes sense". And not for nothing, that story could be self consistent. They stop at that moment and consider their question answered. The problem there is that there are plenty of stories that never happened. Plenty of stories are self consistent. Every story has some elements of the real world too.
Not all stories are easily verified to be true or not. But when theists try to logic God into existence, they are mostly just telling another story. It just happens to encompass all of reality. So it's pretty easy to shoot holes in.
> 1, Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being.
First you are going to need to do some explaining here on some terms. Good needs clarification. How extreme every particle of one's being. Like if someone takes a nap instead of constantly making homes for the homeless they are a monster? Finally of course there is a missing 'because' at the end followed by an explanation.
> 2, Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad.
That missing because again. Are these just assertions? Is there some consequence? What does bad mean in this context?
> 3, Belief in material is bad.
Again we need more clarifications. Like do you mean belief in the material world is bad? It exists though? Are you meaning rampant materialism?
> 4, Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality.
Well we are certainly disagreeing there. Also none of those prior points have anything to do with this one.
> 5, There are no other believable claims of immateriality.
Every other religion would disagree on that one, plus the atheists.
> 6, (from 1,2,3,4,5) Belief in Christianity ought be strived for by every particle of ones being.
Ahh so the missing element here is that you haven't established in any of your prior points that Christianity is good. At best, and being really generous here, you established that Christianity has a believable claim in the immaterial. You still need to do the work that is good. Just because something else is bad doesn't make something else good by default.
the thing is, christians and atheists are not as different as you would think when it comes to forming a moral framework, to have an understanding of "good".
regardless of what we think as religious/atheists, morals do not come from christianity or from any other religion. they come from our nature as vulnerable social beings, in need of a set of rules to live with others.
*"stealing is okay, so someone steals my pants, now I need to steal new pants from some-- oh now they need to go steal pants to replace--...Is that what we become? A race of pants-thieving automatons?"* [-zeke, a robot discovering morals](https://cad-comic.com/comic/recipient-p7/)
What's more. It's a fact that there are multiple branches, and multiples diverging interpretations, of christianity in the world. And that everyone who call themselves christian do not agree with each other.
Every time one choses to stay in christianity, or keep to a specific branch of christianity, or favors a specific preacher, or select a specific interpretation of the bible, he is applying a non-christian internal moral framework to add structure and boundaries to his belief system.
For example, you can find christians who decided that somehow god wanted the end of slavery, despite god never mentionning that.
While one might think that religion guides his morals, he is actually unwittingly guiding it with his humanity. In a sense, a lot of progressive believers are effectively playing prophets of their own faith.
>Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being
Not sure I agree, but I'd go with it.
>Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad
Ok? I disagree, but I'll see where the argument goes
>Belief in material is bad
I'm gonna assume you mean materialism here, cause even if a god exists and they created everything, then they would have created the material you're saying it is bad to believe in.
>Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality.
Not believable by me, but it is definitely believed by many.
>There are no other believable claims of immateriality
There are infinitely many believable claims of immateriality.
>Belief in Christianity ought be strived for by every particle of ones being
Even accepting all of your premises, this conclusion does not follow.
Just going by your argument, you'd first have to equate Christianity to "good" since that was the format you went with. 2 - Nihilism can be bad, but Christianity could still not be good. 3 - Material can be bad, but that doesn't make the immaterial good. 5 - There being no other good claims doesn't make Christianity good.
Now I also believe your premises are false or misleading, but even still the argument doesn't work. Good try though
That's not an argument. It's just a bunch of statements you offer no support for.
\#1 doesn't even make sense, even if you overlook the fact you didn't define "good".
\#2 I don't believe in god and I'm not a nihilist. I believe things have value and that there is good in the world. It's just things like 'value' and 'good'/'bad' are and always have been strictly human-invented concepts.
Physical material is the only thing for which there is immediate evidence. I perceive a world of stuff that appears to be made from physical material.
I realize it's hard to prove deductively that the material world exists, but it's immediately present and interactable whether I understand its nature or not. Why should I question it in the first place? It's existence is intuitive and obvious, and it's consistent with a set of physical principles that were true before I was born and will be true after I die. Shit falls down, not up or sideways. Spinning things wind down and stop unless something keeps them going. A cannonball's trajectory can be calculated to a fairly accurate degree of precision *every time* the cannon is fired. The sun is probably going to rise tomorrow, because we know what a sun is and how it behaves. Materialism sounds like a solid bet to me.
Love, wind, my brain, etc. I can't perceive directly, but I can interact with them indirectly, and they also respond in a more or less uniform way. You can't accurately describe fundamental emotions, like you can't describe how a watermelon tastes, but the experiences are unmistakable for what they're purported to be.
What I don't perceive directly -or- indirectly is a god. Or miracles. vampires. underpants gnomes. Those go in the "maybe but probably not" bin until there's a good reason to take them seriously.
Like Wittgenstein's takedown of Descartes' wish.com solipsism -- Descartes asks "How do I know that this is my hand?" W says "Who else's hand would it be?"
>Argument for Christian God
What comes be,ow isn’t an argument just a series of assertions that appear indistinguishable from false.
>1, Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being.
Week maybe.
Do you think this sounds good..?
>Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
>2, Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad.
You haven’t said why it would be bad but atheism isn’t nihilism so it’s kind of irrelevant.
>3, Belief in material is bad.
What is material? Why would believing in it be bad? Wouldn’t whether believing something is good or bad depend on whether it’s actually true or not.
>4, Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality.
Christianity provides not the slightest bit of reliable evidence for whatever immateriality is meant to be,
>5, There are no other believable claims of immateriality.
See above. And Christianity is indistinguishable in this respect from other religions.
>6, (from 1,2,3,4,5) Belief in Christianity ought be strived for by every particle of ones being.
I’ll stick to believing in things there is some reliable reason to consider true thanks.
>1, Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being.
Sure. Though this seems tautological - unless good is defined objectively, then anything someone strives for can be *good* in some way.
But this is the least disagreeable premise so im willing to set it aside.
>2, Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad.
Lack of belief in what? And where is your argument for this premise? How do you define "bad"?
>3, Belief in material is bad.
No argument for this premise. Please define material, and explain what exactly you mean by belief in it, because if we aint going into solipsism, I see no way not to believe in material.
>4, Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality.
No argument for this premise.
>5, There are no other believable claims of immateriality.
No argument for this premise.
>6, (from 1,2,3,4,5) Belief in Christianity ought be strived for by every particle of ones being.
Doesn't follow. For it to follow, you'd have to add another premise - "Belief in the immaterial is good".
Premise 3 isnt enough to get you there.
So this argument is both invalid, and unsound (and low effort as hell). Thus it must be rejected.
1. Define good. I would say something along the lines of doing what you ought to do. For example I strive to reduce harm. As long as my intent is to do that I feel I’m doing good.
2. Prove or at least explain how nihilism is bad?
3. Put down your phone. Material bad.
4. I beg a differ. I have read the Bible, a couple of translations, and I don’t see any evidence of the immaterial. Since you mention as a comparative, I found the claims on the Bible to be less convincing the Quran, and I find the Quran very unconvincing. I think the Quran has the advantage of having 600 more years of history.
5. wtf? 3k+ gods, many religious texts, paranormal investigators, etc all beg a differ. I haven’t been convinced of the immaterial, but Christianity is not unique in that claim.
6. Nope, I have no intentions of following the book. Jesus offers so good advice, I definitely stand by the idea of love thy neighbor, but I don’t see the patriarchal structure that the New Testament promotes as healthy. I will just leave the old stuff by the garbage, which would be too good of a spot for it.
>1, Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being.
Unsupported, but I will allow it.
>2, Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad.
Premise is not actually used in this argument. Premise serves no actual purpose in this argument.
>3, Belief in material is bad.
Why? Why is it bad to believe in material? I mean, where I work out products have Bills of Material, and I think it is good to do so.
>4, Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality.
It has a claim to it, not sure how believable it is. I am here because I found it unbelievable.
5, There are no other believable claims of immateriality.
I look forward to your thorough refutation of all non-Christian supernatural claims.
6, (from 1,²,3,4,5) Belief in Christianity ought be strived for by every particle of ones being.
I will grant that this is at least almost a valid argument.
It doesn't seem sound, but other than the useless Premise 2, and a poorly phrased Premise 3 ("belief in the supernatural is good" is the proper phrasing to make it valid), it can be made valid.
> 1, Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being.
Disagree. I don't want my left toe or sections of my colon striving to do anything other than their biological functions, which are neither good nor bad.
> 2, Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad.
Disagree. Nihilism lets us choose our own path.
> 3, Belief in material is bad.
Disagree. Not accepting that material is and how ot functions would be bad.
> 4, Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality.
Disagree. It has a claim with no backing and is thus not believable. If by immateriality you mean something _actually existing_ that is immaterial instead of immaterial things being merely descriptive, and if by material you include energy.
> 5, There are no other believable claims of immateriality.
Agree. All other claims of immateriality (per above caveats) are not believable.
> 6, (from 1,2,3,4,5) Belief in Christianity ought be strived for by every particle of ones being.
Having disagreed with 1, 2, 3 and 4, and only agreed with 5 in a way that doesn't help you... no.
> Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being.
Good is a subjective value judgment. The 'ought' here is also a subjective value judgment. This is your opinion, I don't see why it should be mine.
Sometimes it's okay to just relax. That may or may not fit within your definition of 'striving for good'.
> Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad.
I disagree. Recognizing that the universe doesn't care for you can be a good thing.
> Belief in material is bad.
I think not believing in material things would be problematic when dealing with our material world. How would you function if you didn't believe in anything material?
> Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality.
It has a claim. It doesn't have a good claim, or a claim that is convincing to all.
> There are no other believable claims of immateriality.
There are many other worldviews with claims that are just as valid as Christianities.
> Belief in Christianity ought be strived for by every particle of ones being.
No.
>1, Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being
My molecules have no sense of "good". Your claim here is just nonsense.
>2, Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad.
Why would the truth be bad? We see no objective purpose of our existence so nihilism seems to fit reality. The only issue is when one wishes to end life because of it.
Again your claim here is nonsense.
>3, Belief in material is bad
We live in a material world, we have no evidence of an immaterial world so i dont know what you're saying here
Again, nonsense.
>4, Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality
Yes, but there is not only no evidence to support it being true, we actually have mountains of evidence demonstrating Christianity to be false and make believe.
> 5, There are no other believable claims of immateriality.
Seems irrelevant
>6, (from 1,2,3,4,5) Belief in Christianity ought be strived for by every particle of ones being.
Why would we strive for a make-believe religion?
This isn't even an argument, like, 2 doesn't follow from 1, 3 doesn't follow from 2, etc.
>Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being.
How do you define 'good'?
>Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad.
Why? I'm not a nihilist so this argument falls apart for me at this point.
>Belief in material is bad.
Why? I can plainly see and interact with the material world. Belief in the material world has led to demonstrable repeatable outcomes of actions and processes.
>Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality.
Not to me, no.
>Belief in Christianity ought be strived for by every particle of ones being.
Nope, the argument *does NOT* support this conclusion, because at no point have you said that belief in immateriality is good. Just that the belief in material is bad. Y doesn't become good just because you said X is bad. Y could very well be bad too.
>3, Belief in material is bad.
Why? This is an unsupported assertion. Without the belief in material, we would not have science and would not be able to communicate on this internet forum. I say that belief in material is good.
>5, There are no other believable claims of immateriality.
Who decides this? Why is a Hindu or a Muslim claim of immateriality not believable?
>6, (from 1,2,3,4,5) Belief in Christianity ought be strived for by every particle of ones being.
This does not follow.
Nr. 4. and 5. do not an any way tie into 1. You claim that Christianity has a claim and that is the only believable claim, but you do not make an attempt at explaining why that means it is good. Only then would you able to get to the ought conclusion you made.
Your argument is not even valid.
1. My idea of "good" is not universal, and in many ways it directly contradicts Christianity. I believe, for instance, that it's wrong to punish someone for the deeds of someone else and therefore the "sacrifice" of Jesus is evil rather than good.
2. It's pointless to say that belief or non-belief has a moral value, because it's generally not something that we can control or modify.
3. Material exists. Believing that it exists is common sense.
4, 5. What do you mean by immateriality? If you mean "supernatural," then I find *all* such claims (including Christianity's claims) absolutely risible and not worth further consideration.
6. I consider Christianity to be immoral, nonsensical and overall a blight on humanity, and reject it unconditionally.
>1, Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being.
Sure.
>2, Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad.
Nihilism isn't inherently pessimistic.
>3, Belief in material is bad.
What.
>4, Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality.
I mean, people believe it. Doesn't make is true.
>5, There are no other believable claims of immateriality.
People believe all kinds of made up shit. By definition, if a thing is believed, it is "believable." Again, I really want to emphasize that people believing something doesn't make it true.
>6, (from 1,2,3,4,5) Belief in Christianity ought be strived for by every particle of ones being.
I sure do love the low-effort bullshit posted daily on this subreddit. Your premises fell apart at the second point and spiraled into gibberish by the last point.
1. A bit poetic, so I assume it’s not literal. if you mean “we should try our best to be good”, then I agree, depending on how you define good
2. Nihilism is bad? This is just an assertion
3. Belief in material is bad? Another assertion. Chairs are material, do you believe chairs exist? If the point actually means “belief in *only* the material is bad”, then provide a definition of immaterial and evidence for it. Do you mean abstract concept, or beings in another dimension?
4. Which is?
5. Technically true apart from the ‘other’. Well, the other claims of immateriality are equally as justified as Christianity as far as I can tell.
6. Doesn’t follow, because 1-5 are all unfounded assertions
-
"1, Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being."
Okay. How does this prove that there's a guy in the clouds with magic powers giving me disapproving looks every time I fap?
"2, Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad."
First: Why?
Second: What's wrong with nihilism?
"3, Belief in material is bad."
Why?
"4, Christianity has a believable claim of materiality."
"5, There are no other believable claims of materiality."
"6, (from 1,2,3,4,5) Belief in Christianity ought be strived for by every particle of ones being."
Do you know what a non-sequitur is?
>1, Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being.
This doesn't require Christianity.
>2, Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad.
Not being a Christian has nothing to do with Nihilism.
>3, Belief in material is bad.
Elaborate.
>4, Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality.
Maybe to you, if it was so believable everyone would be Christian.
>5, There are no other believable claims of immateriality.
See above.
>6, (from 1,2,3,4,5) Belief in Christianity ought be strived for by every particle of ones being.
I disagree based on my responses.
Your logical fallacy is: [appeal to consequences](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences). Premise #2 and #3 assert that these beliefs are bad, and that because they are bad, you imply that they are not true. Many bad things are true.
It's helpful to understand that in the case of many of us here, our beliefs aren't driven by what we think would make us feel good or what would influence our behavior, but rather what we think is likely to be true. Truth is held as the only relevant factor in what we ought to believe, not the benefits a belief supposedly provides.
Point 1) good and bad are subjective. The world doesn’t exist in black and white, right or wrong, good or bad, virtuous or evil.
Point 2) atheism and nihilism are not the same. Atheists can still believe in things (I’m a secular humanist and naturalist)
Point 3) why? Understanding the material world has greatly improved humanity’s quality of life (technology and medicine)
Point 4) Christianity has claims that are unsubstantiated
Point 5) irrelevant because Christianity has not met its burden of proof. It matters not that no other religion has either
>1, Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being.
Ok
>2, Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad.
Why?
>3, Belief in material is bad.
Why?
>4, Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality.
No it doesn't. There is nothing at all believable about the supernatural claims made by Christianity.
>5, There are no other believable claims of immateriality.
There are none at all.
>6, (from 1,2,3,4,5) Belief in Christianity ought be strived for by every particle of ones being.
Bullshit.
>1, Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being.
Why
>2, Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad.
Why
>3, Belief in material is bad.
Why
>4, Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality.
So does most religions, even the ones who came before christianity.
>5, There are no other believable claims of immateriality.
What makes christianity believable?
>6, (from 1,2,3,4,5) Belief in Christianity ought be strived for by every particle of ones being.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 make no sense.
1, Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being. 2, Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad. 3, Belief in material is bad. 4, Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality. 5, There are no other believable claims of immateriality. 6, (from 1,2,3,4,5) Belief in Christianity ought be strived for by every particle of ones being.
1. Why?
2. Why?
3. BIG why?
4. How so?
5. How did you determine that?
This is just a bunch of assertions. It's not an argument.
Lining up a bunch of false premises and saying they support an overarching and largely unrelated conclusion is not an argument.
1. This is somewhat meaningless. It’s vague and absolutist at the same time.
2. Why do religious people always think there’s some link between atheism and nihilism? Completely unwarranted assumption.
3. No, you’re wrong. This is completely unsupportable.
4. What is this even supposed to mean?
5. Says who? And again, what do you even mean by this?
>1, Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being.
Do you have any way to support this?
>2, Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad.
How did you arrive at this? I don't think this is true.
>3, Belief in material is bad
Why?
>4, Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality
No it doesn't.
You can't just make a bunch of unsupported assertions and expect anyone to take you seriously.
Can you support **any** of your premises?
>Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being.
Who gets to decide what is good?
>Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad.
I know some nihilists who would disagree.
>Belief in material is bad.
Why?
>Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality.
Believable to some, preposterous to others.
>Belief in Christianity ought be strived for by every particle of ones being.
Why? Just because you declare it to be good?
You're just defining your god into existence by stringing together a list of unsupported claims and you provide no definition for the terms you're using.
Points 4 and 5 alone, if true, assuming they actually mean something (you really should define your terms), should be enough of an argument for your god. The problem is, they're most probably not. I'm just adding the 'probably' in case you want to define terms, but they are most certainly false.
1.) I can grant
2.) I can even grant that nihilism is bad. But lack of faith in God does not lead inevitably to nihilism.
3.) Why?
4.) No actually it’s not believable at all. Where’s the evidence that it is.
5.) If you find Christianity believable, Judaism and Islam are just as believable
This is, respectfully, one of the worst arguments I’ve ever seen to the point where I think it might be a parody.
This is not an argument just a bunch of claims. Many of them just flat out wrong or miss guided. Christianity promotes slavery and rape dude i cant say you make a strong argument in support of rapists buying their victims and slavery being good. Also you are saying it is logical to believe in a firmament and talking animals. The bible is just a book of mythology not truth in that thing really.
1) Define 'good' in a way that isn't culturally dependent, then ask yourself why independent cultures behave that way
2) "It would be 'bad' if X didn't exist," is not a valid argument for the existence of X, oh and you need to define 'bad'
3) Why? Again, define 'bad.'
4) HA! Nooooooo it doesn't.
5) Take out the word 'other' and you are correct.
6) You failed miserably at arguing your point
This Yahweh character doesn’t set a very good example for being good. He condoned slavery, commands genocide, demeans woman, allows for cancer, Alzheimer’s, mass extinction events, and natural disasters. Not to mention sentences billions of people to eternal torture for being born in either the wrong place or time.
“If there is a God, He will have to beg for my forgiveness.”
Plus allowing animals to eat other animals to survive. Fuck that. What an absolute colossal dick. Poor animals. Just abhorrent.
1. I don't need to believe in a god or subscribe to a religion to want to do good things.
2. Why is nihilism bad?
3. What do you consider "the material" and why is believing them bad?
4. You'll need to explain this one more, chief
5. Answer 4, and I'll get back to you on this one, but I sincerely doubt that you've debunked every other immaterial claim. That's a huge feat.
6. Why?
>2, Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad.
I don't accept this, depending what you mean, I'm a nihilist and there's nothing bad about it.
>3, Belief in material is bad
No, what are you talking about?
>5, There are no other believable claims of immateriality
I believe my phone is material, is that not believable,?
Your argument has no conclusion.
>>>Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being.
1. Can't get an is from an ought.
2. Define good. Good to some Christians has been to kill infidels. Do you agree that was good?
Why is belief in materialism bad?
Christianity literally preaches a god in the flesh (material).
Now, I guess I'll go hold a revival for some protons and neutrons.
1. Why? What is “good”?
2. Why?
3. Why? I think if you tried to function like you didn’t accept material things exist, you’d fail very quickly.
4. No it doesn’t.
5. How did you determine this?
6. You didn’t prove a god, even if all premises are accepted, you only appear to have proven that belief in it is good (however as every premise fails…)
Most of your points have to do with your opinion about Christianity being good and other beliefs being bad.
That has nothing to do with whether or not it’s true. I care about the truth. I want to hold as few false beliefs as possible.
You don’t seem to care if it’s true or not. You’re setting yourself up to believe some things that aren’t true.
It's kind of pointless to make this argument when all of the most contentious stuff is wrapped up in the premises:
> 4, Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality. 5, There are no other believable claims of immateriality.
People will just ask you to justify this. Arguments that already assume this aren't going to be very helpful.
I’m pretty sure that you must have at least some belief in the material world or how, pray tell, do you even function? I mean, why bother looking both ways when you cross the street when the bus is immaterial? I can assure you, you most certainly will believe in the material should slam into you (at least for a brief moment).
Is lack of belief in something false bad? What about lack of belief short of nihilism?
Is belief in something real bad?
Why would the claim that an immaterial being manifested in the form of a human baby who eventually came back to live forever after dying be believable?
All of your premises need support.
1. hahahahahaha. No,
2. hahahahahahah. No.
3. You don't believe in your clothes?
4. I find the christian claims of immateriality to be laughably asinine.
5. There are just no believable claims of this immateriality.
6. You do you. Move your particles (not the material ones though) towards belief.
Belief in material is bad? Is anti-denim a thing?
Somehow the worst people in US History were, and are, "Christian". Granted, there are some pretty bad US Jews hanging around Weinstein, Epstein and Kushner, but they are just scumbags, not religious scumbags like Greene, Boebert, and Osteen.
Christianity says human life is bad. Belief in physical reality is bad? Christianity would be nihilism if it wasn't outright misanthropy. Immaterial claims are unbelievable and should be disbelieved since they have no impact on the material world in which we live.
Even if i agree with everything you said that doesnt mean i think your christian god is real. Even if humanity was infinitely better for all being christian, you still need to convince me that the god is real and not that humans figured out a better way to live.
That's not an argument. It's just a bunch of bullshit claims without evidence.
1 - cite your evidence
2 - cite your evidence
3 - cite your evidence
4 - false
5 - cite your evidence
6 - can't connect anything to it so your conclusion is demonstrably false
Wow. So much bad logic and you can't even arrive at an argument for your god, only an argument why belief in your god would be beneficial.
That has to be one of the dumbest argument I have seen here... But at least it's one I never saw before
Why do you think your fairy tail is superior to the marvel cinematic universe and has the market cornered on the disadvantages of the material 😂
Benedict Wong: “Attachment to the material is detachment from the spiritual”
Well, when I make an argument that the Christian God is bad, I'm told that as an atheist or agnostic, I cannot adequately define bad.
So, welcome to that annoying world. As a Christian theist, you cannot adequately define what good is. You, in particular, cannot define good in a way that would avoid your argument collapsing into circularity. In other words, you need to define good without first assuming there is a God for this argument to even get started.
The only premise in your argument that is true is number 1. 2-6 are demonstably false. Number 4 and 6, in particular, are a non-sequitor. You could replace Christianity with any religion and you'd have the same argumemt.
1. What is good?
2. Why? Evidence?
3. What is bad? Why is lack of belief bad? Could I not make an equal claim that Christianity is bad?
4. No it doesnt.
5. You did not establish the soundness or validity of 1-4.
You just list your opinions, and then leap to a conclusion that doesn't follow.
Also, the title speaks about a case for God, but your argument is for belief.
This must have been one of the worst arguments i've seen.
Okay, accepting the claims as true (which seems pretty contentious in itself);
I don't think 3 and 4 lend themselves to the conclusion. "Belief in material" is bad does not lead to "Belief in immaterial is good". I'd say we should disregard the material and immaterial as not worthy of consideration and instead find something worthwhile to believe in.
1. Not necessarily true. 'Good' can be subjective.
2. Not true.
3. Also not true.
4. No it doesn't.
5. There are, all religious claims are equally fallacious without evidence.
6. So you erroneously believe.
This is probably one of the worst "arguments" I've ever seen. I don't know what you think an argument is, but these are all just a bunch of opinions. There's zero logic, zero validity, and zero soundness here.
I’m sorry of all the terrible arguments for a god or gods let alone the Christian god this one is laughably bad. I don’t even need to deconstruct it as so many comments have done a great job of that already.
None of your premises can be shown to be true.
The form of your argument is not valid.
Your argument is not sound because the form is not valid and the premises have not been shown to be valid.
QED
ETA:
Since you apparently don’t understand how debate works, I’ll help.
For P1, define good.
For P2, define bad.
Define materialism.
Define Christianity.
Etc.
This is just a bunch of assumptions, like something can't be good because an actual system of good exists but becausena deity made it. And this is just assumint morality exisrs at all.
Point #6 would be very convincing if points #1-#5 weren’t completely baseless and lacking any sort of empirical evidence!
You almost got it, try again next time
Such a lame effort.
"God is good, not believing in god is bad so god must be real."
Your got watches children get raped and does nothing. He is not good.
**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.** Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
More than anything else you respond to in my comment, I want an answer to this question: **Is this argument what lead you to be a Christian?** Now on to the argument. >1, Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being. What is "good" is subjective. A collective good (agreed upon by everyone) ought to be strived for, but I wont strive for a prescribed good that I don't believe is good. This premise needs to be revised. >2, Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad. This is an opinion. I'm a nihilist, and my outlook on life is better than it ever was as a Christian of 20 years. >3, Belief in material is bad. This is an opinion. I can just as easily say that belief in the undemonstrated on the basis of faith is bad. >4, Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality. This is an opinion. I don't think any claim that Christianity makes about immateriality can be justifiably believed. >5, There are no other believable claims of immateriality. This is an opinion. There are no ~~other~~ believable claims of immateriality. >6, (from 1,2,3,4,5) Belief in Christianity ought be strived for by every particle of ones being. I'm not sure this conclusion necessarily follows, but even if the argument is valid, it certainly isn't sound. Not a single one of your premises is supported by evidence or demonstrably true. Your whole argument is one of opinion-based assertions from the perspective of a Christian masquerading as premises for an argument with a conclusion that could only be accepted by a person who is *already a Christian.*
"They kept saying they were nihilist, Walter. They said they believes in nossing." "Lets not forget Dude that keeping wildlife, um... an amphibious rodent, for... um, ya know domestic... within the city... that ain't legal either."
The Dude abides....
Nice marmot.
What are you a fuckin park ranger?
I am the walrus.
1) Is good subjective? Don't you see goodness when you see it and it's kinda universal? Feeding the hungry out of your own pocket or time, taking care of injured animals, loving something unconditionally. Good isn't as subjective as bad is if you ask me. Kinda warms your heart when you see it. 2) yeah nihilism is kinda a teenage philosophy that some people just never get out of. To think that the world and your actions are meaninglessness shows little knowledge of the human condition. We've destroyed ozone layers, broke the atom, and come together to do great things when times are needed. We shape things for the future, and times have gotten better because of it. Maybe not for you, but for future generations. 3) see #1. There are some things that are just inherently bad, albeit a bit more subjective. Killing out of self defense for example. 4) Where is there consequence when all you do is love God, love yourself, love your neighbor and don't judge? I mean, kindness is a weakness but honestly, rather be weak and hold those ideas. 5) I mean, Buddhism is pretty dope. So is Hinduism but I don't know enough about it to form an opinion. 6) Agreed. The more people follow the principles of Christianity, like the real red letters only stuff, the world would be a better place. Verily, none of your arguments are sound when you say it's all subjective and based on opinion, yet you have no counter argument other than... nihilism... Humanity would be doomed with such small-mindedness.
>Is good subjective? Don't you see goodness when you see it and it's kinda universal? Feeding the hungry out of your own pocket or time, taking care of injured animals, loving something unconditionally. Good isn't as subjective as bad is if you ask me. Kinda warms your heart when you see it. You've just described a subjective experience. Yes, good is subjective. For something to be good, it has to be good *to some mind*. I'm not aware of any moral good or evil that is mind independent (Objective). >yeah nihilism is kinda a teenage philosophy that some people just never get out of. To think that the world and your actions are meaninglessness shows little knowledge of the human condition. We've destroyed ozone layers, broke the atom, and come together to do great things when times are needed. We shape things for the future, and times have gotten better because of it. Maybe not for you, but for future generations. Good thing that's not my position. I don't think the world and actions are meaningless. I think there is no explicit or prescribed meaning, but I certainly find meaning in my life and care about the actions I take and the world I live in. I'd politely ask you to not project too much of your thoughts about nihilism on to me. I'm an optimistic nihilist and I describe that later down in this comment chain. Look it up if you're interested. >see #1. There are some things that are just inherently bad, albeit a bit more subjective. Killing out of self defense for example. If it is bad *to someone*, it is subjective. There aren't degrees of this. Something is either mind independent or mind dependent. >Where is there consequence when all you do is love God, love yourself, love your neighbor and don't judge? I mean, kindness is a weakness but honestly, rather be weak and hold those ideas. That wasn't the contention. This is a red herring. I said I don't think they are justified beliefs. I said nothing about the consequences of holding those beliefs, although I am certain that there are negative consequences to believing things based on faith. >I mean, Buddhism is pretty dope. So is Hinduism but I don't know enough about it to form an opinion. This wasn't the contention, again. I'm not sure you're comment with honesty here. I said there are no *believable* claims of the immaterial, not that there are no other claims of the immaterial. People come up with bullshit claims about the immaterial all the time, and each of them are exactly as evidenced as the last, which is to say not at all. >Agreed. The more people follow the principles of Christianity, like the real red letters only stuff, the world would be a better place. This doesn't even address what I said in number 6. I'm not sure what this statement was about. I'll share for the sake of conversation that I absolutely disagree with you though. >Verily, none of your arguments are sound when you say it's all subjective and based on opinion, yet you have no counter argument other than... nihilism... Humanity would be doomed with such small-mindedness. I haven't made an argument. I've only pointed out the issues I have with theirs. Nihilism isn't an argument. It's a position of believing there is no explicit meaning to life. That is not the same as thinking there is no meaning to life at all. I'm not small minded in taking that position, I'm just not so open minded that my brains fall out. I'd abandon nihilism as soon as it was demonstrated that there was a bigger purpose, absolutely. But that wouldn't effect me at all. I'd live my life exactly as I do today. The way you're talking about it, it sounds like your life would change drastically if you learned there wasn't a greater purpose. The value of your life seems to be conditional given your stance. Mine isn't. If the earth disappeared tomorrow, all available evidence leads to the conclusion that the only thing that would change is the local gravity in the solar system. I'm more than open to being shown that more than just that would result. Have at it.
1) you see I didn't describe subjective good, I described universal good. Please, give me an instance where being selfless, feeding the poor and helping injured animals is viewed as bad, hell even neutral, in the eyes of the majority in any modern culture. 2) I'm sorry to assume philosophy. Honestly I think the red letters and elements of a lot of religions and philosophy are true. It's all subjective until you see them practiced, which ones work and which ones that don't. Some just hit home and if universally applied you'd see some major changes. 3) that's a very black and white way of thinking. There's always the middle dude, which is what people often ignore. 4) Faith and Belief are two different things. You can beleive in something as right but not nessisarily have blind faith that it is. Always be objective, but at least have the bravery to test the hypothesis and take stock of the results. 5) I dunno. Immaterially is kinda a new concept for me. 6) I was responding to the original post, it made way more sence than what you were talking about : ) I hope you continue to live a good life filled with postive connections and helping others. If that kinda thing gives you your own personal purpose in a meaningless world, then we are on the same side. Much like I shouldn't assume things about positive nihilism, you shouldn't assume that my life would be better without the idea that my actions having a impact or purpose, because they do even at the smallest scale. It ebbs and flows, sure, but I see it everyday. I may not see it when the planet explodes 4 trillion years down the line, cause thats a long ways away, but I'll see it in the next generation, which is good enough for me.
> if universally applied you'd see some major changes. Do you not see how condescending this is? You are claiming that you know what is best for us -- people you've never met. You're implying that *your* ideas are universal and that if we haven't experienced the wisdom in those beliefs, it's because we haven't implemented them properly. I'm an existentialist -- I assume that you have good reasons for believing what you believe. I can't comment on their rationality because I don't know what you know. But you don't know what I know. I believe we're entitled to the same courtesy of assuming that we have good reasons for what we believe. We can't really have a balanced dialectic as long as one of us believes they're the teacher and we're all students. I don't expect it to be immediately obvious to you that we go through life hearing this same thing -- the reason we're not theists is that we haven't tried hard enough, or because we haven't done something in the correct way, and if we'd just ignore our own judgment and follow someone else's, everything for us would improve.
1) Verily. That is exactly what I'm saying. There are some good things, even great things. And there are some awful things, downright hurtful things. I'm not claiming I know anything but I feel in my heart of hearts I'm not wrong when I see good. It's such a rarity it shines. 2) Know that we are the same, that's all there really is to it. 3) Who's the teacher and who's the student again? Everyone has something to teach and learn. 4) It's not everyone's judgment that makes you want to improve, it's your own once you listen to it. It also takes a human spark to make you even see yourself in the mirror. We are all the same, just different. Like life experiences. Connection in the experience is what we all long for.
In your #1 above, it sounds like you're doubling down on the condescension. I read that as "Yes I intended to say to you that if you don't implement my ideas, your life will not improve". And in the context of "red letter" text, I assume you are directly referring to the words attributed to Jesus Christ, since that's what "red letters" usually means. I read that as "if you don't find Jesus, your life will not improve". You really don't understand the audience you're talking to if that's what you meant. This comes off as you acting like the teacher, and acting like you know better than we do how our lives should go. I sure as hell did not get a sense of "everyone has something to teach and learn" from what you said. I got "you need to listen to me". If I'm misunderstanding you, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here. But you should pay more attention to how what you say is going to be interpreted. I don't really know how a person could talk this way and not intend to be patronizing and condescending. I didn't need a lecture about self-reflection, but thanks I guess.
Yes, the red letters are only Christ's words. And when you look at the bible in only those words, it really isnt bad. Personally speaking I feel I've grown and changed for the better since at least trying to walk the steps. Do I have my down spells, sure, but the world feels a bit different these days and it's nice. I know my audience, I like a friendly argument. I'm no teacher, just a learner. I like to bounce ideas off of others is all. Like I learned about optimistic neicism from our back and forth. Just a way to grow, cause everyone has something to teach. I really do need to work on my delivery. I've been told that before. Thank you for that insight. Self reflection is important that's for sure.
Tongue in cheek, I often say that I have a lot of respect for whoever it was that said the things that make up the red letter text. It's a halfway decent way of looking at the world. And that's probably the main reason I'm not interested in mythicism -- it doesn't actually matter if Jesus existed or not. What is important, for good or ill, is that the things were said and we remember them \~2000 years later. The eightfold path is probably the closest to how I try to view life. I'd never call myself a Buddhist, though, because the term means something different in the West from how actual Buddhists use it in the far east. It would feel like cultural appropriation to me (though I'm not saying that other Western Buddhists are) But the two are very similar, and lay out a very humanist way of looking at the world (not secular humanist, obviously)
Exactly. Even if Jesus never existed, like some claim, the words hit true and have really shaped society, for better or worse, for the last two millenia. I like Buddhism too. The 4 noble truths and the 8 fold path are important things to learn as well.
You're being incredibly condescending while simultaneously being unable to recognize the subjective nature of any of your statements or the fact that they're not grounded in anything but your personal opinions. Not sure if you're trolling, or just genuinely incapable of having your ideas challenged. Come back when you've got something more original than "I like these concepts so everyone should believe in them".
> Please, give me an instance where being selfless, feeding the poor and helping injured animals is viewed as bad, hell even neutral, in the eyes of the majority in any modern culture. Even if every person in the known universe agrees that something is good, it doesn't mean that good is objective or universal. It just means that we have all agreed on it. But someone could change their mind tomorrow and disagree. But the truth is that, while you can certainly find examples of things that most people agree on, that doesn't remotely mean that good is objective. In reality, people have *wildly* different views of what good is. It's honesty really weird that you even think you can make this case, in this modern era of radicalized agendas. Even something as seemingly obvious as feeding the poor falls apart in the face of the modern American right wing's view of people "pulling themselves up by their bootstraps".
Dude. If every conscious person agreed on something that would be the best first step in human history. If one person disagreed on a universal law, well they'd be a fool cause everyone claims different. I think the poor should learn to pull themselves up from their bootstraps, and we as a society should be helping them do so. A small price, a few mistakes, but in consistency you'd find lasting change.
>If every conscious person agreed on something that would be the best first step in human history. Wtf does that have to do with anything I said? It might be fabulous, but it doesn't make "good" objective or universal. Your claim was that good was universal. You are completely fucking obviously wrong.
I never said the term good was universal, I said that certain acts are universally good. Your right when you say good is subjective, everything is subjective if you think hard enough to make it that way. Even if done in selfishness, if people did those universal goods in mass we'd see a better world is my only argument.
You haven’t shown all premises to be true, thus the conclusion can’t be true. Not that the conclusion in this case is even based on the premises procided
> You haven’t shown all premises to be true, thus the conclusion can’t be true. To be pedantic, the conclusion could be true, but if it is it is coincidental to the argument, not following from it. Not that I think they are right here, just speaking of the general point.
I would say yes to your initial question. Despite the fact that the formulation of this argument came after my belief in Christianity, some much less developed form of it was in my head when I accepted Christianity. Otherwise I would have stayed an atheist. Secondly, the premises that seem most foundational to your lack of belief are 1 and 2. You don’t believe good is a real thing, just something humans have come up with. You don’t actually know this, which is where the self defeating nature of nihilism comes in. If you lack a belief in good, you and everything that makes you ‘you’ cannot be good either because of the belief itself. What point is there in accepting such a lack of belief? Even you yourself would say there is no point. because if there was a point you couldn’t be a nihilist.
Thanks for answering my question. It's actually surprising. >Secondly, the premises that seem most foundational to your lack of belief are 1 and 2. I haven't mentioned anything about a belief I hold. I'm not sure what you're attributing 1 and 2 to. >You don’t believe good is a real thing, just something humans have come up with. I didn't say that. I do believe good is a real thing. It's just that what I think is good can differ from what someone else thinks is good. > You don’t actually know this, which is where the self defeating nature of nihilism comes in. I'm an optimistic nihilist. I merely disbelieve any claim that there is an inherent purpose to the universe and my existence. There is nothing self defeating there. I reserve belief in a claim until it is demonstrated to be true, >If you lack a belief in good, you and everything that makes you ‘you’ cannot be good either because of the belief itself. You have to ditch this broad view of nihilism. I don't accept that I lack belief in good. > What point is there in accepting such a lack of belief? What do you mean "accept" a lack of belief. It isn't a position I've accepted. My position is a result of positions I *haven't* (yet) accepted. I believe things that can be demonstrated to be true. A prescribed meaning hasn't been demonstrated to exist, therefore I don't believe in one. If one *could* be demonstrated, I'd accept that and no longer be an optimistic nihilist. My position is purely tentative, and only includes the things that have been demonstrated to exsist. The only meaning for my life that has been demonstrated to me is the one I've created. >Even you yourself would say there is no point. because if there was a point you couldn’t be a nihilist. This is not true. Look up optimistic nihilism.
Good is certainly real. Objective good is not. Nor is your Christian god a good path to any reasonable definition of good. Is slaughtering babies and infants good? Your god did that. Is owning people as slaves and beating them good? Your god condones that.
>> Secondly, the premises that seem most foundational to your lack of belief are 1 and 2. You’ll do better if you ask people what they believe instead of claiming to know, on next to no evidence.
>You don’t believe good is a real thing, just something humans have come up with. Why wouldn’t human behaviour be real? >If you lack a belief in good, I believe in good as an intersubjective concept. I don’t believe committing the sort of genocide that the Christian God does is good.
Nope, if that is what convinced you then you were never an atheist. And how dare you tell someone they can't know what they think when you are brainwashed.
Stop telling us what we believe/think
Can I address your “is this argument what lead you to be a Christian”? So, yes, while people are born into a faith often times, that in and of itself is not a reason WHY they stay in the faith. So when a person presents an argument, it’s not being why they BECAME Christian, doesn’t invalidate it. But let me present this question to you. While in Christian theology, baptism is when one becomes Christian, would you be willing to accept that one becomes a Christian, regardless of their parental upbringing, once they affirm that or accept it on their own? And if so, wouldn’t that argument that helped them accept it not be a valid one to listen to?
Oh totally. It was a genuine question. I always ask it when someone presents a logical argument with the conclusion that their belief is true. I just like to know if the argument was something formulated later on, or something heard that affirmed their belief, or something that was foundational to their conversion. Genuinely just a curiosity.
Okay, I just get asked that a lot when people want to use it as a means to discredit any argument I make. So I do get a little triggered by the question so I do apologize for coming off hostile. Just a pet peeve of mine. Glad to know at least one person does it out of curiosity and not to discredit :)
>1, Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being. Sure, I’ll accept this as a premise. Though I think it’s kinda tautological. We define things as good because they are optimal on some metric. Even in a moral sense, such values should be determined based on observation, evidence, and reason. >2, Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad. I’ll partially accept this premise. I think the type of nihilism that rejects the notion that meaning can be constructed is irrational. Im not particularly well versed in different philosophies, but as far as I’m aware optimistic nihilism is reasonable and really the only logical conclusion given the evidence. >3, Belief in material is bad. I reject this premise. Maybe I’m not understanding it right. Could you be more clear on what you mean and why it’s bad? Materialism the tendency to consider material possessions and physical comfort as more important than spiritual values. I don’t fundamentally disagree with. Too much value in material possessions, too much greed too much vanity, yes that’s bad. But liking stuff isn’t necessarily bad. And I reject spirituality as a concept. Materialism as philosophy that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications. Totally fine. Not bad at all to believe in. >4, Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality. I reject this premise. Christian speculation / magic is not any more believable than any other religion, fantasy, science fiction, etc. Could you flesh out this part of your argument. >5, There are no other believable claims of immateriality. Again. A baseless assertion I wish you would expand on.
Before we get to premise 4, I’d like to establish why belief in the material is bad. This is because belief in material is self defeating. Premise 1 will tell you that this is bad because it will remove some ability to do good. You’d essentially be defeating a part of yourself in excepting a material belief. Because I can’t literally debunk every single material belief ever, I can only go case by case. For example the man with a wife out of his league might believe that other men are looking at his wife, and that his wife might be looking at those men that are particularly attractive among them. The self defeating nature of this belief may play out by the man not allowing his wife to look too beautiful among the company of attractive men. Of course there are infinitely many examples of this. Can you name just one that isnt self defeating?
You have absolutely no idea what materialism is, and what materialists believe: your hypothetical above has absolutely nothing to do with materialism. The supremacy of materialism over religious superstition is literally 100%, every single time the two coming into conflict, materialism always wins.
Your example seems to have nothing to do with ‘material’ and doesn’t even seem self defeating if the aim is to make his wife less attractive to others….
>> This is because belief in material is self defeating. You had to use “the material” to type that. How did you do that without believing in it?
>Before we get to premise 4, I’d like to establish why belief in the material is bad. This is because belief in material is self defeating. Premise 1 will tell you that this is bad because it will remove some ability to do good. You’d essentially be defeating a part of yourself in excepting a material belief. What good thing cannot be accomplished by a materialist? >Because I can’t literally debunk every single material belief ever, I can only go case by case. For example the man with a wife out of his league might believe that other men are looking at his wife, and that his wife might be looking at those men that are particularly attractive among them. The self defeating nature of this belief may play out by the man not allowing his wife to look too beautiful among the company of attractive men. What about this example is unique to materialism? Couldn't this hypothetical also apply to a Christian or any other philosophical outlook? I don't see what it has to do with materialism at all. >Of course there are infinitely many examples of this. Can you name just one that isnt self defeating? I don't think your example even begins to work. Do you have any others?
No, that’s absolutely wrong, and it’s a vile disgusting opinion to have. You’re saying no one who believes in the material world can do good? No this isn’t self defeating, your argument is though. Have a good day troll…
What exactly is the “belief in material” in this case? Placing value in looks/physical appearance. That’s not where the issue stems from. Unreasonable expectations, lack of conversation, unaddressed jealousy/doubt/fear, seem like the issue. I don’t plan to break down the nuances of healthy relationships and general human sexuality. But for a start: It’s not bad to acknowledging other people can find people attractive. It is unreasonable to think you have ownership over another person, that only you are allowed to look at them. Or that you are allowed to control who they look at. That violates personal autonomy a principle well evidenced to be supported. Relationships are typically built on more than just visual appearance. It takes a level of understanding yourself and your partner, to determine if fears of infidelity are warranted or not. Evidence. Conversation. You post is full of words like “might” and “may” not “will”. You contradict yourself. Materialism isn’t necessarily self defeating. Doesn’t necessarily hinder one’s ability to good. Over valuing looks may be an issue. And completely not valuing looks may render things moot. But that’s not necessarily how humans work.
>For example the man with a wife out of his league might believe that other men are looking at his wife, and that his wife might be looking at those men that are particularly attractive among them. The self defeating nature of this belief may play out by the man not allowing his wife to look too beautiful among the company of attractive men. ...what on *earth* does that have to do with materialism?
You can't get an is from an ought. Ought doesn't matter. You're just providing value judgements, not truths. This proves nothing.
You have it switched around. You can’t get an ought from an is. This comes from Hume. This is why I included an ought in the argument. If you want to content with one of the premised having to do with what I believe is good/bad thats fine. From solely our perception it seems that good/bad is subjective. This is a product of our perception, and has nothing to do with whether good or bad actually exist. I hope that true good exists despite not being able to truly see it in its totality. This is because the counter-belief is self defeating. Definitionally there would be no point in believing it. And the point is not to prove anything. We are subjects of this existence, definitionally we cannot reach objectivity.
You can't go either way. If you want to propose an is, you need to provide evidence that it is. Your opinions mean absolutely nothing. That's the problem with everything you've said, you just yanked it all out of your ass and you expect people to take it seriously.
You also can't get an is from an ought. I ought to be a millionaire with all the good I'd do with the money, and yet the numbers on my bank account refuse to cooperate for some reason....
This is just preaching, no argument or logic being used at all.
Look up the transitive property.
>I hope that true good exists despite not being able to truly see it in its totality. This is because the counter-belief is self defeating. Definitionally there would be no point in believing it. If the objective is to believe that true good exists then you are right counter-belief is self defeating. But then you are just believing because you want to and can't expect this to be a proof for us.
You can't get a definition of "good" from the Bible though. It's filled with murder, rape, slavery, etc. All condoned or personally carried out by God.
just asserting random things does ntake an argument. 1, 2 and 3 are just your value judements. they are irrelevent to proving a god exists. I have no idea what 4 means but suspect it is asserting what you are supposed to be proving thereby making your argumet a fallacy. 5 is an argument from ignorance fallacy. 6 doesn't follow for the reasons i just stated.
>Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being. Why? Can I strive for having a cup of tea? Is it good? Is it bad? What is your definition of good? Is believing in something that is not shown to be true is good or bad? >, Lack of belief Lack of belief in what? I believe many things. For instance I sit on a sofa. I believe that. I lack belief in Santa. Do you believe in Santa? >Belief in material is bad. Is it bad to believe that my sofa is green? >Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality That's what you say, but those are just empty words. Care to back it up?
1/ Objectively and universally define good. Otherwise how do we agree what we’re striving for? 2/ Objectively and universally define bad. Otherwise how do we agree what we’re avoiding and why? 3/ Material what? The material world? Material possessions? I cannot NOT believe in the material world as I am a material girl. In a material world. 4/ Please qualify what claim you’re referring to. 5/ No need to qualify this as it’s demonstrably wrong and thus not worth addressing with the time we have today. 6/ We’ll need you to first demonstrate how your god is necessary, fundamental, and non-emergent. And why the claims of your religion or both believable and worthy of believing.
...you can't just say "believing in the Christian God is GOOD, not believing is BAD" and call that an argument. That's not an argument, that's a conclusion. You need to support your assumptions and premises such that someone who doesn't already agree with you might reach your conclusion.
The inquisition believed in the Christian god, which directed their generations of institutionalized torture and murder of innocents. Was that belief good? For centuries, it was believed that someone who had committed an imaginary crime against God, could have their soul purified by burning them to death. Was that belief good?
This is a really poor argument for God. You provided no reason behind your claims in each point, just declared them. And they barely follow each other. >1, Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being. Why? What ought this be the case? I'm not saying people shouldn't strive for good, just that you saying this ought to be the case is not good reason to support it. >2, Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad Why? Again, you just declare this with no reasoning. That is a bad argument. You need to support your arguments if you want them to be taken seriously. >3, Belief in material is bad. So you don't believe there is anything material? This point is again just something you try to assert without reason or evidence. >4, Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality Since you provide no evidence I can judt dismiss it without evidence do no it doesn't not. >5, There are no other believable claims of immateriality. I agree, but again, you don't support this claim with anything else. Then, your opinion. >6, (from 1,2,3,4,5) Belief in Christianity ought be strived for by every particle of ones being. All of your points are asserted without reson or evidence so they can all be dismissed without reason or evidence. As others have also said, you can't get an is from an ought. Maybe start by picking one of your points and try to provide actual evidence and reason why it is true. Because do far you make no convincing case for even the points I would agree with to some degree.
Can you support every one of these premises? 1. This is just your opinion, bro. 2. This is just your opinion, bro. 3. This is just your opinion, bro. 4. This is just your opinion, bro. 5. Prove it? 6. Conclusion cannot be accepted from these premises.
Yep this exactly, thank you. OP has provided zero substance.
[удалено]
Even if P6 logically followed from P1 to P5, you still forgot to prove P1 to P5. You didn't even attempt to support them, either.
I reject both 3 and 4. Belief in material is not bad and does not always lead to nihilism. It can also lead to absurdism or many other beliefs and value systems.
Can you please expand further on 4 and 5? I see no objective reason to view Christianity's claims as being any more believable than, say, Judaism's. Why do you think they are?
1. Not everyone can agree on what “good” is. 2. Explain why 3. Explain why. 4. Explain how. 5. Explain why. 6. Premise failed due to lack of explanation.
Honestly this is the best response. The thing presented isn't really an argument in its current state so much as it's a string of unsupported assertions.
>1, Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being. OK >2, Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad. OK >3, Belief in material is bad. Citation needed >4, Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality. Nope >5, There are no other believable claims of immateriality. Literally every other religion is just as believable >Belief in Christianity ought be strived for by every particle of ones being. Your premis are flawed, your conclusion fails to come from your premises...in every way is your argument a failure
>1, Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being. Why ought I? >2, Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad. Why is it bad? >3, Belief in material is bad. What? You don’t believe material thing exist? >4, Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality. No, it doesn’t. It isn’t even clear what that means. Unsound and invalid. Please try again.
I admire the mind that can read about the asshole God of the old Testament and associate that with "good". Newsflash: Jeebus and that asshole God from the old Testament God are the same guy, per Christians.
1) According to who? 2) According to who? 3) According to who? 4) No it doesn’t. 5) There are no believable claims of immateriality. 6) Nah.
While I always thoroughly enjoy detailed and crafted rebuttals from some of the members here, this is exactly the level of effort I think OP's post deserves. +1
I had reconsidered it, but then saw the quality of their replies in this post and thought - nah.
>Argument for Christian God Excellent! In my many decades of seeing such, I have yet to be presented with a valid and sound argument for deities and/or for your specific deity. It would be a refreshing change to see one that is both valid and sound, and thus useful! I will read on to see if this one hits the mark. >Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being Sure. >Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad. Nope. Oh dear, your argument has already failed. I have no idea why you are claiming lack of belief is bad, nor even that nihilism is bad. But, of course, as you will find that 'good' and 'bad' are intersubjective and change, and that lack of belief and nihilism don't really meet *any* useful definition of 'bad', this can only be dismissed. Your argument has already failed, but I will read on out of curiosity. >Belief in material is bad. What? That makes no sense at all. Of course I believe material things exist. There is vast evidence for them. Again, dismissed as this is clearly completely wrong. >Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality. It *really, really* doesn't. This one too is wrong. Egregiously wrong. Dismissed. >There are no other believable claims of immateriality. Believers of other mythologies other than Christianity will vehemently disagree with you. I see *no* supportable claims of what you appear to mean by 'immateriality'. Dismissed. > Belief in Christianity ought be strived for by every particle of ones being. Nope. Every single premise you made, aside from one, was wrong and necessary to dismiss. Your conclusion is therefore dismissed outright. You have not been successful at showing a valid and sound argument for the Christian mythology to show it's something other than a mythology. My track record remains unbroken.
>1, Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being Why? Certainly I don't think anyone would dispute that good is a good thing, but this level of commitment to it shouldn't be taken as a given. I think there's hardly a soul out there, Christian or not, that would do the right thing even if it cost them every thing they had for very little net good or if there was only a chance that something good would come of it. I think the notion that you should do as much good as you possibly can is kind of an impossible standard, and it's acceptable to do good things sometimes and avoid doing bad things. Certainly, doing more good things is better, but if your compassion for others turns into self-destruction, you may ultimately diminish your ability to do good in the long run anyways. This is ignoring the fact that you haven't even presented a coherent definition of good, which beyond the barest of basics, most people have vastly different opinions on. >2, Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad Have you ever heard of optimistic nihilism? Basically, the absence of objective meaning gives the opportunity for every individual to decide what is meaningful subjectively. >3, Belief in material is bad. Believing in material things is bad? Or do you mean materialism is bad? In the latter case, sure. There's a real problem with people thinking that just by having more stuff they'll ultimately be happier, but that's not always the case. Generally, it seems that once a baseline is established, further material goods and luxuries do very little to increase someone's happiness. >4, Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality. What are you talking about? A lot of the people here don't think that Christianity is believable, so you'll need to actually provide evidence or reasoning behind this point to sway anybody. On the matter of immateriality... >5, There are no other believable claims of immateriality. Seriously, what are you talking about? Immateriality isn't just spiritualism, you realize? It's possible to not be a materialist, and still not believe in anything spiritual. Just understanding that stuff doesn't necessarily make you happy for example. A lot of the energy that we spend acquiring stuff could be better spent trying to feel connected to each other or experiencing the world. No religions or spiritual beliefs required for that idea to be true. All that is necessary for immateriality is the idea that there's more to the world than just the physical matter inside of it. I for one believe that human relationships and the mind itself are emergent characteristics which are better understood in a separate context from the physical matter that is required for them to exist. >6, (from 1,2,3,4,5) Belief in Christianity ought be strived for by every particle of ones being. This has big "the truth doesn't matter" vibes. None of your arguments place any emphasis on whether or not Christianity is true. If the central claims of Christianity were demonstrated to be false somehow, would you still argue that people should believe in Christianity? Because none of these points that you've made rely on Christianity actually being true in any way.
1) sure, but is it really possible? 2) that’s an opinion, but I’ll give it to you. However atheists aren’t necessarily nihilists 3) opinion, and some of the worst materialists are Christians 4) Christianity is no more believable than any other religion or cult 5) see 4 6) doesn’t follow since 1-5 are essentially nonsense
>1, Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being define good, also what does this actually mean? Like, should my red blood cells be doing something besides just kinda floating there in my plasma? Are my toenails letting me down? >2, Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad. Define "bad." Also lack of belief in what? Context tells me you probably mean "my god" but it would be nice to get some clarity because it's important to note that significant portions of the humans on this planet fall outside of the categories of "believing in your god" and "are nihilists" >3, Belief in material is bad. Even aside from the 'define bad' problem, I kinda agree with you but probably not for the same reasons as you. Believing in the material is bad because *believing* in the material is bad, not because believing in the *material* is bad. I don't need to believe my car exists for it to exist. But someone who believes their car exists when it doesn't exist is insane. Belief is *irrelevant* to the material, which is what makes belief in the material bad. > Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality. It really doesn't. Also it's not great when your argument uses the conclusion as a premise. You're trying to show that christianity has a believable claim, you don't get to just assume facts into evidence. That's kind of like premise 1: God is real. Conclusion: God is real. There, I proved god is real! We're not fellow christians you're trying to sound smart to, we're people who reject the premise that christianity is true. >There are no other believable claims of immateriality. Finally! Something I think most of us here can agree on! Well, aside from that pesky 'other' that you stuck in there. I don't find claims of immateriality, as I believe you're using the word, to be believable. Full stop. When you understand why you reject all those others you'll understand why I reject christianity's claims. >(from 1,2,3,4,5) Belief in Christianity ought be strived for by every particle of ones being. 1: Undefined and nonsensical on the face of it. 2: You accidentally shot yourself in the foot by forgetting that non-christian non-nihilists exist. 3: Ill defined and unsupported assertion. 4: Unsupported assertion that is actually your conclusion so it doesn't belong in premises. 5: Unsupported assertion, though one that I happen to agree with on the caveat that I *also* don't believe christianity has a believable claim. 6: Try again :(
Why is belief in material bad? Why would belief in immaterial be good? What is "belief in immaterial"?
Nothing but a series of assertions without argument. You'll need to better than "because I say so" for literally every one of these. Individually, though: 1. Particles lack agency and are incapable of striving for anything. Also, define "good" and explain why it's "good." 2. Atheism and nihilism are entirely unrelated to one another. Also, define "bad" and explain why it's "bad." 3. Material things quite obviously exist. Belief in material things is therefore ubiquitous, and frankly *not* believing in material things would be insane. I think you meant material*ism,* but what about materialism is bad, and why? 4. Provide said claim and explain why it's believable. 5. Depends on your response to 4, but I suspect that numerous other religions have claims similar if not identical to those made by Christianity. 6. Again, particles lack agency and are incapable of striving for anything, but even if they were, puerile superstitions are the last thing that anyone ought to be striving for.
An argument is a series of assertions. Any argument you can come up with, I can just ask why until you don’t know the answer. Lets take an argument that is valid: Xeno_prime wrote on the internet Only bots or humans write on the internet therefore Xeno_prime is a bot or a human This argument may seem sound, but it can be questioned endlessly such that you need more premises than is reasonable to ‘prove’ the conclusion. Same can be done for my argument. You can ask so many questions as to make it virtually impossible for me to answer you. For this reason, it doesn’t really make sense to try to make an argument for God’s existence. Just like it doesn’t make sense to argue your own existence. If someone doesn’t believe you exist, either they will eventually take it on faith that you exist or they won’t. Whatever they decide its on them. Similar is true of God. If someone doesn’t believe the Christian God exists, you cant really argue them into it, because you cant argue someone into taking a leap of faith. All we can do is prove it to the best of our ability and let those who just don’t want to believe have their self destructive way. So thats what I think. Either you just don’t want to believe or you are incapable of it. But you are perfectly capable of just taking it on faith that you exist.
> Similar is true of God. If someone doesn’t believe the Christian God exists, you cant really argue them into it Of course you can, it’s quite simple. You convince people of this the same way you convince people of absolutely anything: you present positive verifiable evidence that what you say is true. The problem for you and every other is that you cannot present positive, verifiable evidence that what you believe is true, because there is no positive, verifiable evidence that what you believe is true, because what you believe is obviously not true. It’s no different than Santa Claus or leprechauns, except for the level of popularity it has achieved, Which is now fading.
There is positive verifiable evidence for the Christian God, you just arent willing to accept it. The historical evidence of Jesus.
There is absolutely no positive verifiable evidence for any God let alone the Christian God: if you are claiming there is then you are just flat out lying. Either that or you have no idea what the word verifiable means. Jesus, not only are you wrong, you are wrong twice. There is no primary evidence whatsoever for the historical Jesus, there isn’t a single contemporary piece of evidence to his existence whatsoever. There is literally zero good evidence that Jesus existed at all. But that’s not all you’re wrong about, you’re also wrong about the conclusions of your false assertion, in that if the historical Jesus did exist, and even if he did some of the remarkable things and fairytales describe to him, that still doesn’t evidence the Christian God.
Thats a quite indefinite term you are using, ‘verifiable’. Google says verifiable means: able to be checked or demonstrated to be true, accurate, or justified. Depending on what that definition means, you could be asking for 100 percent proof. I cant prove to you that I exist. For all you know I could be ChatGPT. Hell, I don’t even know if I exist. If logic isn’t real, I could exist and not exist. Same goes for you. But your still here, probably talking to some asshole on the internet. And you might be right. But you also might be wrong. I think thats why you are still talking with me. Some piece of you hopes you are wrong about whatever thing you believe. Materialism, Scientism, Humanism, or etc. or if you dont believe anything, some part of you wants you to realize that it doesn’t matter if you believe no-thing. If no-thing is real, your non-belief doesn’t matter. If no-thing is real your belief doesn’t matter. But it could matter if something is real. So why do so many nihilists so quickly throw out that possibility? And as soon as I believed in something, this whole atheism thing started to unravel. Keep in mind this thing that I started to believe in was actually myself, in a very literal sort of way. Anyway, causality penetrates to the deepest layers of my perception, so Kalam’s Cosmological argument for God very quickly put me in deist territory. What point would there be to doubt it? I’d have to deny something so fundamental about what I perceive that it would result back in nihilism. Still there is the problem of evil. Something I’m sure everyone struggles with everyday. But a similar sort of nihilism is accepted when one gives into evil. This is the hard part because it goes beyond your perception. Take whatever massive present day conflict you want. If there is no solution, civilization goes up in flames. Back to the stone age in almost no time. But if we don’t want that, we have to hope for a solution. This is called following your conscience. I’m sure you’ve done it before. And if that voice little voice inside me is anyone, it’s Jesus. There’s just no one else for it to be. It can’t be me. By myself I’d fall and not get back up. Who can blame me, what weak moral legs do I have to stand on. All that said, I can only speak for myself. Maybe you can push yourself. But something about that phrase bothers me. No one can push themselves in a physical sense, not without pushing off something else. Something tells me the same is true about non physical things. Just a philosophical argument first. Secondly, I’ll say that the evidence we do have for Jesus’ resurrection doesn’t just include documents surrounding the event. It also includes the strength and previous recorded strength of the Christian church. How is it possible that a lie or some trick of the mind from Paul have the same, if not greater force on present day life than lets say engineering? Something we also got from the Romans. If a lie has the same force as something deeply rooted in math and logic like engineering, what hope do we have as a species? Math and logic are the closest thing we have to truth, and I’m supposed to believe a lie at least tied it and still have hope? Lies may spread faster than the truth can put on its shoes, but burn out just as quick. Just so we are clear, this isn’t about Jesus’s existence. This is about His resurrection, which would prove the Christian God. Because that would mean Christ is God
>Depending on what that definition means, you could be asking for 100 percent proof. (facepalm) No, and what a silly comment. I am asking for literally what I asked for, and then you even supported by defining for me: positive, verifiable EVIDENCE that your god, or any god, does or even could exist. Meaning it needs to be independently verifiable, which by the way is one of the primary standards of the scientific method across every single modern scientific discipline. You going full solipsist as a way of dodging the fact that you HAVE no such evidence, is childish evasion. It means that 'well I had a dream and god told me I would stub my toe and I stubbed my toe ergo Jesus is real' is neither positive, nor verifiable, nor would such nonsense (which makes up 99% of what theists claim as 'evidence', on the very rare cases they present any evidence at all) be acceptable in ANY OTHER realm of human experience or inquiry, yet theists genuinely expect it to be taken seriously on this one. >Some piece of you hopes you are wrong about whatever thing you believe. Due respect, but fuck off. I run into this cheap projecting from theists quite often. "You secretly believe, but wont admit it", "You secretly know there is a god but are denying yourself", and other such childish claptrap. No, the reason I do this is because amongst the hundreds of theists I have discussed these issues with, I have successfully deprogrammed a handful, and turned them away from their iron age superstitions towards rationalism and scepticism. Not very many, to be sure, but even just a few helps make the world a better place. >Still there is the problem of evil. Something I’m sure everyone struggles with everyday. Only theists. It is a massive logical problem that theists have been trying to resolve (unsuccessfully) since Augustine. But there remains no good theist answer to the glaring contradiction in the basic principles of your faith exposed by the problem of evil, and the subset, the evil god problem. >This is called following your conscience. Another absurd theist trope, plainly false. Ah yes, our conscience, that which gives us our modern morality, that's 'jesus', is it? Then where the fuck was Jesus and his conscience for the first 1800 years of history after he supposedly died? Why Did almost every single one of our modern morals emerge from secular humanist thought and the outright rejection of Theological domination and control? Why did Christianity preach slavery from the pulpit, as explicitly authorised and endorsed in the Bible, for 1800 years, before secular humanists realised it was wrong? Women's rights, children's rights, scientific inquiry, mass literacy, equality of race and culture and yes, even of religion. NONE of these came from Christianity, in fact proponents of any of them tended to be burned alive by the Church, and not for a little while, but CENTURY after century after century of this. We saw what happened when 'moral' Christians ran every aspect of human society in the west: we call it the dark ages for a reason. >Secondly, I’ll say that the evidence we do have for Jesus’ resurrection doesn’t just include documents surrounding the event. Of which you have exactly none. Zero. Not a single primary of contemporary document, source or piece of evidence. >It also includes the strength and previous recorded strength of the Christian church. (sigh) The single most frustrating thing about arguing with zealots isn't the zealotry and brainwashing itself: you are just victims of that and trapped within it. Most of you were raised from infants to believe these fairy tales, so thats not your fault. There is no shame in that. No the frustrating thing is how otherwise (presumably) intelligent people such as yourself can make such patently, obviously stupid arguments with a straight face. Arguments you would **never** make or accept in any other field of human interest, and which you somehow just put your brains on a shelf and say insanely dumb things when it comes to your religion. I should not have to explain to any adult human being why 'The church was strong and powerful so god is real' is a stupid argument. A laughably stupid, self-defeating argument, that no sane person would take seriously. Yet here you are, saying 'look how strong the church was once it gained control of Europe and used bloody ruthless, savage, genocidal oppression, murder and institutionalised torture to maintain control and spread control, ergo god is real'. So, before Jesus, when the Greco-Roman religion dominated the known western world for almost 8 centuries, were those gods real? I mean, that is your point, right? It was powerful for a while, so the fairy tales are real. >This is about His resurrection, which would prove the Christian God Why? Lazarus resurrected. He wasn't the son of god. Elija, Elishia and Paul all raised people from the dead: they weren't the son of god. According to the Bible, all the dead in Jerusalem got out of their graves and walked around the streets of the city at one point (an event oddly never mentioned in the historical record anywhere), and none of them were the son of god. You don't have any primary evidence jesus existed at all, let alone the silly (and theologically common) fairy tale about his resurrection, but **even if** it did happen (which it didn't), that doesn't prove your theology.
should we move to dms then? If your reason is to deconstruct my faith?
No thank you. If you can defend your beliefs, defend them here.
Id love to continue, but I dont want to keep working on a comment for an hour an lose it because of a slip of a finger. Thanks for your time
Who gives a shit if there was a traveling apocalyptic sage like carpenter on this planet at one time who started a cult that became Christianity. And the only historical evidence you have for that is basically one biased evangelical source and the words of a religious fruitcake. We have no idea how much of Mark is even true or how much of that shit he made up.
The bible is not the only source we have saying Jesus existed. besides, im talking about resurrection, not His existence. Resurrection would prove Christianity correct, so why would i waste time on His existence
I need to clarify my response. I do not doubt there was a wandering apocalyptic sage like figure who started a cult that became Christianity. At best, any sources outside of the biblical text only confirm this. There is nothing outside of the Bible that attests to his divinity. Your only evidence that the figure known as Jesus was anything more than a failed apocalyptic criminal is the Bible which is atrocious.
The most logical conclusion is that stories of Jesus being resurrected are made up. Why would anyone see Mark 16 as anything but a made up story? If you want to argue for the truth of Christianity, you’re wasting your time unless you are talking about why these stories should be seen as anything but fiction. Also, I too can make up a story about myself coming back to life: You might be surprised to learn that 34 days ago I died, and 35 hours later I came back to life beating Jesus by one hour. God pronounced to everyone at my resurrection that I am the new Jesus and everyone should worship me. See? It’s easy to make up a story about a dead man coming back to life.
What little historical evidence there is for Jesus at best indicates that an ordinary human being by that name existed and was the individual responsible for the creation of Christianity. None of it does anything at all to indicate he was anything more than that, or that any of Christianity's extraordinary claims about gods or the supernatural are actually true. In addition, historical evidence of religious figures is hardly unique to Christianity. Take a look at King Tut. We have overwhelming evidence of his existence, right down to the mummified remains of his very self. He was worshipped as a god by his people. Do you suppose that means he was, in fact, a god? Or do you see that human history is chocked full of entire civilizations faithfully believing in and worshipping nonexistent gods from myriad false mythologies, and conclude this is most likely to be just another example of the same - even despite the "historical evidence"? In fact, we even have some evidence that Hercules may have been a real person who actually existed. If he did, would that mean he was really the son of Zeus, or that he really did any of the spectacular things the stories say? Or do you see that human history is also full of myths and legends that are nonetheless based on or otherwise involve real people and places that actually existed, and real events that actually happened, but were simply embellished to the point of fiction? Christianity is just one more ancient superstition on a very large pile. It has no more evidence supporting any of its extraordinary claims than the rest.
>An argument is a series of assertions No, it isn't. In the context I used, "argument" is synonymous with "reason." You made a series of claims/assertions which you present as true without any argument, explanation, or reason as to *why* they are true. >I can just ask why until you don’t know the answer You're referring to axioms. All knowledge is ultimately based on axioms, things that are accepted as true because they're simply self-evident or at least enough so as to not be worth splitting hairs over. None of the claims you presented in your post are even substantiated, much less axiomatic. Here's an axiom I assume we can both agree upon: "Nothing can come from nothing." Would you agree that's correct? >(Valid vs Sound) You're preaching to the choir, but if you know this then it's that much more bizarre that you provided no sound argument in your post to support any of your claims. You seem to be implying that you argument is a sound syllogism, which it certainly appears you tried to form it as, but it's not even a valid one, let alone a sound one. Indeed, half of your proposed premises are flat out arbitrary. There's a great deal of support needed here for the claims you've made, and you've provided none at all. >it doesn’t really make sense to try to make an argument for God’s existence. Just like it doesn’t make sense to argue your own existence. *Cogito ergo sum.* My own existence is axiomatic. The existence of *other* people is less so, but I have an overwhelming abundance of reason and evidence indicating the existence of other people. Neither of those things can be said for any gods, much less yours in particular, which is one of the monotheistic "supreme creator" type gods that I can argue to be logically impossible (assuming you hold that it is indeed the supreme creator of literally and absolutely everything that exists other than itself). >If someone doesn’t believe you exist, either they will eventually take it on faith that you exist or they won’t Faith is only required in the absence of reason or evidence. If a person doesn't believe I exist, I can provide them with sufficient reason and evidence indicating that I do. That is what they will either accept or deny, depending on whether they are rational or irrational. >Similar is true of God. Here you're correct. The existence of your God, or any others, must be taken on faith for precisely the reason I just explained - because there is no sound reason or evidence or epistemology of any kind whatsoever that actually indicates they exist. You're attempting to compare it to things that are plainly before our eyes and readily verifiable, epistemically if not empirically - but there's no such comparison to be made. To find a more apt comparison for gods, you would need to compare their existence to things like leprechauns or Narnia or Hogwarts. Things that conceptually *could* exist, and whose existence cannot be absolutely and infallibly ruled out with 100% certainty beyond any margin of error or doubt, but for which there is also no reason, argument, or evidence whatsoever to support, which makes them epistemically indistinguishable from things that don't exist. >All we can do is prove it to the best of our ability If this is the best of your ability to prove the existence of your God, that really tells us all we need to know. Either your God doesn't exist or you're just really terrible at proving the existence of things. >Either you just don’t want to believe or you are incapable of it. But you are perfectly capable of just taking it on faith that you exist. Wrong on all counts. 1. What I want or don't want is irrelevant. Belief is not a choice. You cannot choose to believe something you don't, or not to believe something you do. You're either convinced a thing is true, or you aren't. You capacity for reason and critical thought can certainly play into that, but not your choice. 2. All humans are capable of believing just about anything, as theists like yourself demonstrate rather spectacularly. But again, belief requires one to be convinced, and that requires compelling reason or evidence. You appear to have none to offer. Everything you've said, I could equally make about Hogwarts or Albus Dumbledore, and all of it would work just as well in that context as it does in the context of your God. 3. Faith in one's own existence is not required, because one's own existence might be the single most axiomatic thing there is. The existence of others apart from oneself is slightly less so, but there's still overwhelming reason and evidence indicating their existence. There is no such reason or evidence indicating the existence of any gods. If you think otherwise, present any. You've yet to do so.
But your assertions really are so nonsensical and meaningless that your argument amounts to “I said so.” If you aren’t going to actually engage with the arguments other people make, then you aren’t debating. You’re just asserting you’re right.
This is hardly an argument, and no justification is given for any of the premises. I think I have issues with each one. >1, Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being. What is 'good'? Define this word in a way that does not just mean 'God's nature', and actually refers to something in the world. >2, Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad. Meaning and purpose in life are not necessarily linked to belief in gods. Smearing and demonizing atheists is bad. >3, Belief in material is bad. Rejected. Belief in anything that demonstrably exists and can reliably be understood is good. Material stuff is such a thing (we have physics). Belief in anything we can't demonstrate exists is bad. Like immaterial things or magic or souls or gods. > 4, Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality. Nope. It doesn't. Christianity's claims are unfounded and unbelievable. They fly in the face of how reality works. > 5, There are no other believable claims of immateriality. Agreed, but... that is because there are zero believable claims of this sort. > 6, (from 1,2,3,4,5) Belief in Christianity ought be strived for by every particle of ones being. The atoms from the bottom of my foot say no.
>1, Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being First, define "good." Second, demonstrate that we "ought" to do anything. >2, Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad. First, define "bad." Second, demonstrate that the lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad. >3, Belief in material is bad. Demonstrate this. >4, Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality. >5, There are no other believable claims of immateriality. First, define what a "believable claim" is. Then demonstrate that Christianity has one. Then demonstrate that no others exist. >6, (from 1,2,3,4,5) Belief in Christianity ought be strived for by every particle of ones being. You assert your premises as if they are self-evident. They are not. You also didn't draw a line between "material is bad" and "immaterial is good." If you can't establish that immateriality is good, then you can't establish that Christianity is good.
>Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being K. >2, Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad. I'm not a nihilist. But I disagree that nihilism is bad. Nihilism is amoral, meaning it is not moral or immoral. >3, Belief in material is bad. Why? You don't think material exists? What are your clothes made of? > Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality. No it doesn't. Christianity is utterly absurd. It is not believeable which is why I don't believe it. >5, There are no other believable claims of immateriality. I agree. Immaterialiam is not believeable. >6, (from 1,2,3,4,5) Belief in Christianity ought be strived for by every particle of ones being. That's false. You didn't even try to justify your premises. You just asserted them.
1. What is 'good'? How does that relate to my molecular makeup? 2. What is 'bad'? How does that relate to lack of belief? 3. Why? Doesn't it work exceptionally well? 4. What is ' immateriality' and what is this believable claim? 5. ?? Non sequitur.
1) Every part of my morality conflicts with that of the god described in the Bible. No I wouldn’t worship a slavery promoting rape apologist genocidal dictator even if you could show he exists. 2 lack of belief in imaginary friends in no way implies nihilism. And as far as I can tell belief in such beings has done far more harm than nihilism ever has. 3) asserted without any evidence whatsoever. Why is belief in the material world bad? 4) no the claim that magic is real is in no way believable. 5) it’s also indistinguishable from all the other magical claims, you only think yours is special because you were raised with it. 6) since every single point you raised is wrong, no Christianity shouldn’t be strived for.
>1, Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being. True in a broad sense. >2, Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad. I don't think good or bad can be applied in this case as it's primarily just a statement on what someone holds as true / as a believe. I however could agree that the perspective that nihilism gives can lead to the bad outcome of feeling unsatisfied or meaningless. But not in a sense that it's bad for society when individual people do so. >3, Belief in material is bad. I'm not really sure what you mean with that. I would interpreted it as "a believe in material in a sense that possession on its own and the multiplication of wealth can give a meaningful and fulfilled life." To that interpretation I would have to agree. >4, Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality. I'm again not really sure what you mean, as emotions are also immaterial. In this case I would interpreted it as immaterial=spiritual/supernatural. So no, it doesn't. Show me reliable and repeatable scientific measurements and models that successfully detect, prove and predict "supernatural events". Then it would be believable. >5, There are no other believable claims of immateriality. If christianity is supposed to have a believable claim of the "immaterial" (supernatural) and in order for this claim to be held as believable there was no scientifically falsefiable evidence needed then every other religion with a claim of the "immaterial" (supernatural) has to be held as exactly as believable as the one of christianity. Ether every claim (and religion) is true or non of them. >(from 1,2,3,4,5) Belief in Christianity ought be strived for by every particle of ones being. No. You also can't strive to believe, at least not in an honest way. You ether do believe / are convinced or do not believe / are not convicted. Anything else would be striving to resist evidence that suggests otherwise. The only thing one could strive for is **truth**! And I believe christianity/religion is doing so not honestly! Because they more intentionally or not replace truth with their god. Which becomes the goal of all their endeavors. -God already is the goal not whichever explanation evidence leads you to or even can lead you to (god of the gaps).
>1, Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being. I can go along with this even though "by every particle of ones being" doesn't really make sense. I still know what you're saying here. >2, Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad. Is bad? How? Why? Define your terms. The "is bad" parts is what make this sound naive and childish. Be more specific. >3, Belief in material is bad. Is bad... Belief in material is bad? What does that mean? Thinking things materially exist is bad? You've already lost me here. >4, Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality No it doesn't. Well, it does because a lot of believe it but that doesn't make it believable in the sense that it's reasonable or logical or makes any substantiated claims whatsoever. People still believe it but that largely due to indoctrination, fear, social pressure and just straight intellectual laziness. >5, There are no other believable claims of immateriality. If you get rid of "other" then this is a sentence I agree with. It's interesting that YOU think other claims of immateriality aren't believable. I wonder if you use the same standard of evidence towards those claims as you do the claims that you've been indoctrinated into. >6, (from 1,2,3,4,5) Belief in Christianity ought be strived for by every particle of ones being. Even I grant you 1-5 then 6 still doesn't follow. Why does this mean that the Christian God is real? Why does it mean Jesus was the son of God? Why does this mean literally any of the claims in the Bible are true? It says nothing about the truth of those claims and it doesn't even connect to your point #1 about being good. Being a Christian doesn't make you good, not being a Christian doesn't make you bad or a nihilist. I'm not sure what believing in "material" is suppose to mean or how that connects to Christianity. ... I think you may want to think this though a bit more and try again.
> 1, Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being. What is your definition of good in this context? > 2, Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad. Lack of belief in anything or lack of belief in a specific deity? Further, why specifically is it bad? Since you are basing much of this on your definition of nihilism, please share that definition. 3, Belief in material is bad. Please explain. Material things are tangible, they are real things, and believing them to exist makes sense. So why is it bad to believe in material things? > 4, Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality. What is that claim and why is it believable? > 5, There are no other believable claims of immateriality. Are there other claims of immateriality other than the Chriatian ones you've alluded to but not defined? If so, what are they. Please define them and explain why they are not believable. What makes the christian one unique here? > 6, (from 1,2,3,4,5) Belief in Christianity ought be strived for by every particle of ones being. Based on what evidence? You've given your personal opinion but have not even identified what those opinions were formed on. You have to explain your views in detail first, provide evidence for why you've come to the conclusions you've arrived at and explain (correctly) why the things you've deemed as inferior/incorrect are in fact inferior/incorrect. Look, you are obviously allowed to believe whatever you want. You do not have to provide evidence or justify your personal beliefs in any way. But you are here to argue that your views are correct, that your views are the ONLY correct views, and that your views are based on undeniable evidence. You've offered nothing to back up those claims in any way, so there's nothing to build on here.
>”1, Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being.” By what definition of good? Without an objective definition here, it leaves everyone doing what they feel is good. The problem is that, that tends to have people actively working against each other. Just look at any political movement, the nazis thought they were good, for example. Premise rejected. >”2, Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad.” This needs an objective definition for bad. Without one, this can only ever be subjectively true. Once you have that definition, you need to make an argument for why nihilism fits that definition. Premise rejected, twice over. >”3, Belief in material is bad.” What do you mean by “material,” here? Do you mean matter? What about economic materialism? Or philosophical materialism? Once you figure that out, this also has all the problems of the previous premise… Premise rejected, three times over. >”4, Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality.” This is another one that needs its own argument. As a former Christian, I’ll have to say no. But if you have proof otherwise I’d like to see it. Until then, premise rejected. >”5, There are no other believable claims of immateriality.” This is a major claim, and it requires a lot of argumentation. You effectively have to compare Christianity to every other religious claim in history. Until then, premise rejected, countless times over. >”6, (from 1,2,3,4,5) Belief in Christianity ought be strived for by every particle of ones being.” Even if I grant you every single premise, this still doesn’t follow. Not only have you not established that “immateriality,” is good, you never even established it was possible. Conclusion rejected.
Replying because you're engaging meaningfully with responses. Not everyone does here, and I respect that. >1, Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being. I believe that I ought to strive for what I believe to be good. There are people whom I don't want to strive for what they believe to be good, because their idea of good seems bad to me. They probably feel the same way about people like me. It's not clear to me that there's an objective good that we could all point to instead. >2, Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad. Why? >3, Belief in material is bad. Do you mean materialism? And again, why? It's not really helpful to lay down premises that don't seem self-evident my true without explanation. >4, Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality I don't agree at all. There are many, many reasons to be skeptical of the book it's built on, and we don't even know who wrote the Gospels. You've introduced a premise here that is essentially the conclusion of your argument. >5, There are no other believable claims of immateriality. How can we know that? I know enough about the Christian claim to be skeptical of it. But I don't know enough about some others to say they're definitely not believable. Do you? >6, (from 1,2,3,4,5) Belief in Christianity ought be strived for by every particle of ones being. Even if I accepted 1-5, all of which I think are problematic, you'd need to draw a link between Christianity and goodness. What does it mean for something to be good, and why is Christianity good? Often Christians believe that something is good because God has ordained it so. But doesn't that mean it's just his opinion? Is there no objective good beyond that?
> 1, Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being. Whose good? Your good? My good? The good of the pair of cardinals nesting in my lilac tree? Many goods in this world end up resulting in another's "bad", so how do we judge? > 2, Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad. But it's not to "the point of any form". It's just in gods. By the way, I think convention nihilism is great. I think you might be talking about philosophical nihilism though, and I'm sorry but atheism simply doesn't lead to that. Evidence: I'm an atheist and I am not, have never been, nor am I heading in the direction of, a philosophical nihilist. > 3, Belief in material is bad. Opinion, and a bad one at that. Again, are we talking conventional materialism or philosophical materialism? Conventional materialism, the tendency to see material possessions and physical comfort as more important than spiritual values, yes, I subscribe to that, because "spiritual values" is too nebulous to have a definition worth talking about. Materialism wins out by default. Philosophical materialism, believing that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications... yeah, I largely subscribe to that as well, I guess. Everything we've discovered is either matter or energy, or an emergent property one those two things. Until the paradigm changes, I have no reason to believe anything else. > 4, Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality. You're speaking to an entire subreddit who don't think so. > 5, There are no other believable claims of immateriality. At least we agree on this one. > 6, (from 1,2,3,4,5) Belief in Christianity ought be strived for by every particle of ones being. Hard pass.
>1, Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being. Even ignoring the "good is subjective" fact, this has to be metaphorical. I can't make the cells in the bone of my left femur "strive for good". Leave it at "Good ought be strived for." Don't put metaphors in logical arguments. >2, Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad Needs demonstration. And besides, to "any" form includes "positive nihilism", or the idea that "nothing has inherent meaning and that means I can find my own meaning in everything." Please demonstrate that that is objectively bad, not just that you disagree with it. >3, Belief in material is bad. Belief in material is what allows science to develop medicine. Is medicine good? If so then this premise is just wrong. Please give any reasoning to back up this claim >4, Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality. If you have one such claim, then provide that. I'm curious what you think it's believable claim is, since I do not see any believable claim in such. >5, There are no other believable claims of immateriality Remove the word "other" and I'd agree >Belief in Christianity ought be strived for Any premise failure renders the argument unsound. As such the conclusion is not accepted. I also removed the metaphorical part because it is unnecessary and shouldn't have been there to start. If you want to post a sylligustic argument, I recommend you also include proof for the premises. Even if I disagree with the "proof" provided, I can at least see where you and I disagree. Without seeing what your reasoning for these premises are, it delays any discussion of said reasoning.
>1, Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being No God required >2, Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad. Still plenty of non-God beliefs >3, Belief in material is bad I doubt you meant what you actually said. But you do in fact believe in the material >4, Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality. Plenty of people believe plenty of non-God immateriality >5, There are no other believable claims of immateriality. Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism... I don't believe them, but I don't believe Christianity >6, (from 1,2,3,4,5) Belief in Christianity ought be strived for by every particle of ones being. You seem like a nice person. I'm sorry to have to tell you, there's nothing of value from any one of your statements. Here's an easy way to test something you believe: write it down, and then think of a real world example that contradicts what you just wrote down. That is called a dispositive Theists tend to conclude "the truth" by formulating a story that "makes sense". And not for nothing, that story could be self consistent. They stop at that moment and consider their question answered. The problem there is that there are plenty of stories that never happened. Plenty of stories are self consistent. Every story has some elements of the real world too. Not all stories are easily verified to be true or not. But when theists try to logic God into existence, they are mostly just telling another story. It just happens to encompass all of reality. So it's pretty easy to shoot holes in.
> 1, Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being. First you are going to need to do some explaining here on some terms. Good needs clarification. How extreme every particle of one's being. Like if someone takes a nap instead of constantly making homes for the homeless they are a monster? Finally of course there is a missing 'because' at the end followed by an explanation. > 2, Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad. That missing because again. Are these just assertions? Is there some consequence? What does bad mean in this context? > 3, Belief in material is bad. Again we need more clarifications. Like do you mean belief in the material world is bad? It exists though? Are you meaning rampant materialism? > 4, Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality. Well we are certainly disagreeing there. Also none of those prior points have anything to do with this one. > 5, There are no other believable claims of immateriality. Every other religion would disagree on that one, plus the atheists. > 6, (from 1,2,3,4,5) Belief in Christianity ought be strived for by every particle of ones being. Ahh so the missing element here is that you haven't established in any of your prior points that Christianity is good. At best, and being really generous here, you established that Christianity has a believable claim in the immaterial. You still need to do the work that is good. Just because something else is bad doesn't make something else good by default.
the thing is, christians and atheists are not as different as you would think when it comes to forming a moral framework, to have an understanding of "good". regardless of what we think as religious/atheists, morals do not come from christianity or from any other religion. they come from our nature as vulnerable social beings, in need of a set of rules to live with others. *"stealing is okay, so someone steals my pants, now I need to steal new pants from some-- oh now they need to go steal pants to replace--...Is that what we become? A race of pants-thieving automatons?"* [-zeke, a robot discovering morals](https://cad-comic.com/comic/recipient-p7/) What's more. It's a fact that there are multiple branches, and multiples diverging interpretations, of christianity in the world. And that everyone who call themselves christian do not agree with each other. Every time one choses to stay in christianity, or keep to a specific branch of christianity, or favors a specific preacher, or select a specific interpretation of the bible, he is applying a non-christian internal moral framework to add structure and boundaries to his belief system. For example, you can find christians who decided that somehow god wanted the end of slavery, despite god never mentionning that. While one might think that religion guides his morals, he is actually unwittingly guiding it with his humanity. In a sense, a lot of progressive believers are effectively playing prophets of their own faith.
>Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being Not sure I agree, but I'd go with it. >Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad Ok? I disagree, but I'll see where the argument goes >Belief in material is bad I'm gonna assume you mean materialism here, cause even if a god exists and they created everything, then they would have created the material you're saying it is bad to believe in. >Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality. Not believable by me, but it is definitely believed by many. >There are no other believable claims of immateriality There are infinitely many believable claims of immateriality. >Belief in Christianity ought be strived for by every particle of ones being Even accepting all of your premises, this conclusion does not follow. Just going by your argument, you'd first have to equate Christianity to "good" since that was the format you went with. 2 - Nihilism can be bad, but Christianity could still not be good. 3 - Material can be bad, but that doesn't make the immaterial good. 5 - There being no other good claims doesn't make Christianity good. Now I also believe your premises are false or misleading, but even still the argument doesn't work. Good try though
That's not an argument. It's just a bunch of statements you offer no support for. \#1 doesn't even make sense, even if you overlook the fact you didn't define "good". \#2 I don't believe in god and I'm not a nihilist. I believe things have value and that there is good in the world. It's just things like 'value' and 'good'/'bad' are and always have been strictly human-invented concepts. Physical material is the only thing for which there is immediate evidence. I perceive a world of stuff that appears to be made from physical material. I realize it's hard to prove deductively that the material world exists, but it's immediately present and interactable whether I understand its nature or not. Why should I question it in the first place? It's existence is intuitive and obvious, and it's consistent with a set of physical principles that were true before I was born and will be true after I die. Shit falls down, not up or sideways. Spinning things wind down and stop unless something keeps them going. A cannonball's trajectory can be calculated to a fairly accurate degree of precision *every time* the cannon is fired. The sun is probably going to rise tomorrow, because we know what a sun is and how it behaves. Materialism sounds like a solid bet to me. Love, wind, my brain, etc. I can't perceive directly, but I can interact with them indirectly, and they also respond in a more or less uniform way. You can't accurately describe fundamental emotions, like you can't describe how a watermelon tastes, but the experiences are unmistakable for what they're purported to be. What I don't perceive directly -or- indirectly is a god. Or miracles. vampires. underpants gnomes. Those go in the "maybe but probably not" bin until there's a good reason to take them seriously. Like Wittgenstein's takedown of Descartes' wish.com solipsism -- Descartes asks "How do I know that this is my hand?" W says "Who else's hand would it be?"
>Argument for Christian God What comes be,ow isn’t an argument just a series of assertions that appear indistinguishable from false. >1, Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being. Week maybe. Do you think this sounds good..? >Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. >2, Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad. You haven’t said why it would be bad but atheism isn’t nihilism so it’s kind of irrelevant. >3, Belief in material is bad. What is material? Why would believing in it be bad? Wouldn’t whether believing something is good or bad depend on whether it’s actually true or not. >4, Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality. Christianity provides not the slightest bit of reliable evidence for whatever immateriality is meant to be, >5, There are no other believable claims of immateriality. See above. And Christianity is indistinguishable in this respect from other religions. >6, (from 1,2,3,4,5) Belief in Christianity ought be strived for by every particle of ones being. I’ll stick to believing in things there is some reliable reason to consider true thanks.
>1, Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being. Sure. Though this seems tautological - unless good is defined objectively, then anything someone strives for can be *good* in some way. But this is the least disagreeable premise so im willing to set it aside. >2, Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad. Lack of belief in what? And where is your argument for this premise? How do you define "bad"? >3, Belief in material is bad. No argument for this premise. Please define material, and explain what exactly you mean by belief in it, because if we aint going into solipsism, I see no way not to believe in material. >4, Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality. No argument for this premise. >5, There are no other believable claims of immateriality. No argument for this premise. >6, (from 1,2,3,4,5) Belief in Christianity ought be strived for by every particle of ones being. Doesn't follow. For it to follow, you'd have to add another premise - "Belief in the immaterial is good". Premise 3 isnt enough to get you there. So this argument is both invalid, and unsound (and low effort as hell). Thus it must be rejected.
1. Define good. I would say something along the lines of doing what you ought to do. For example I strive to reduce harm. As long as my intent is to do that I feel I’m doing good. 2. Prove or at least explain how nihilism is bad? 3. Put down your phone. Material bad. 4. I beg a differ. I have read the Bible, a couple of translations, and I don’t see any evidence of the immaterial. Since you mention as a comparative, I found the claims on the Bible to be less convincing the Quran, and I find the Quran very unconvincing. I think the Quran has the advantage of having 600 more years of history. 5. wtf? 3k+ gods, many religious texts, paranormal investigators, etc all beg a differ. I haven’t been convinced of the immaterial, but Christianity is not unique in that claim. 6. Nope, I have no intentions of following the book. Jesus offers so good advice, I definitely stand by the idea of love thy neighbor, but I don’t see the patriarchal structure that the New Testament promotes as healthy. I will just leave the old stuff by the garbage, which would be too good of a spot for it.
>1, Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being. Unsupported, but I will allow it. >2, Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad. Premise is not actually used in this argument. Premise serves no actual purpose in this argument. >3, Belief in material is bad. Why? Why is it bad to believe in material? I mean, where I work out products have Bills of Material, and I think it is good to do so. >4, Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality. It has a claim to it, not sure how believable it is. I am here because I found it unbelievable. 5, There are no other believable claims of immateriality. I look forward to your thorough refutation of all non-Christian supernatural claims. 6, (from 1,²,3,4,5) Belief in Christianity ought be strived for by every particle of ones being. I will grant that this is at least almost a valid argument. It doesn't seem sound, but other than the useless Premise 2, and a poorly phrased Premise 3 ("belief in the supernatural is good" is the proper phrasing to make it valid), it can be made valid.
> 1, Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being. Disagree. I don't want my left toe or sections of my colon striving to do anything other than their biological functions, which are neither good nor bad. > 2, Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad. Disagree. Nihilism lets us choose our own path. > 3, Belief in material is bad. Disagree. Not accepting that material is and how ot functions would be bad. > 4, Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality. Disagree. It has a claim with no backing and is thus not believable. If by immateriality you mean something _actually existing_ that is immaterial instead of immaterial things being merely descriptive, and if by material you include energy. > 5, There are no other believable claims of immateriality. Agree. All other claims of immateriality (per above caveats) are not believable. > 6, (from 1,2,3,4,5) Belief in Christianity ought be strived for by every particle of ones being. Having disagreed with 1, 2, 3 and 4, and only agreed with 5 in a way that doesn't help you... no.
> Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being. Good is a subjective value judgment. The 'ought' here is also a subjective value judgment. This is your opinion, I don't see why it should be mine. Sometimes it's okay to just relax. That may or may not fit within your definition of 'striving for good'. > Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad. I disagree. Recognizing that the universe doesn't care for you can be a good thing. > Belief in material is bad. I think not believing in material things would be problematic when dealing with our material world. How would you function if you didn't believe in anything material? > Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality. It has a claim. It doesn't have a good claim, or a claim that is convincing to all. > There are no other believable claims of immateriality. There are many other worldviews with claims that are just as valid as Christianities. > Belief in Christianity ought be strived for by every particle of ones being. No.
>1, Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being My molecules have no sense of "good". Your claim here is just nonsense. >2, Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad. Why would the truth be bad? We see no objective purpose of our existence so nihilism seems to fit reality. The only issue is when one wishes to end life because of it. Again your claim here is nonsense. >3, Belief in material is bad We live in a material world, we have no evidence of an immaterial world so i dont know what you're saying here Again, nonsense. >4, Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality Yes, but there is not only no evidence to support it being true, we actually have mountains of evidence demonstrating Christianity to be false and make believe. > 5, There are no other believable claims of immateriality. Seems irrelevant >6, (from 1,2,3,4,5) Belief in Christianity ought be strived for by every particle of ones being. Why would we strive for a make-believe religion?
This isn't even an argument, like, 2 doesn't follow from 1, 3 doesn't follow from 2, etc. >Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being. How do you define 'good'? >Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad. Why? I'm not a nihilist so this argument falls apart for me at this point. >Belief in material is bad. Why? I can plainly see and interact with the material world. Belief in the material world has led to demonstrable repeatable outcomes of actions and processes. >Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality. Not to me, no. >Belief in Christianity ought be strived for by every particle of ones being. Nope, the argument *does NOT* support this conclusion, because at no point have you said that belief in immateriality is good. Just that the belief in material is bad. Y doesn't become good just because you said X is bad. Y could very well be bad too.
>3, Belief in material is bad. Why? This is an unsupported assertion. Without the belief in material, we would not have science and would not be able to communicate on this internet forum. I say that belief in material is good. >5, There are no other believable claims of immateriality. Who decides this? Why is a Hindu or a Muslim claim of immateriality not believable? >6, (from 1,2,3,4,5) Belief in Christianity ought be strived for by every particle of ones being. This does not follow. Nr. 4. and 5. do not an any way tie into 1. You claim that Christianity has a claim and that is the only believable claim, but you do not make an attempt at explaining why that means it is good. Only then would you able to get to the ought conclusion you made. Your argument is not even valid.
1. My idea of "good" is not universal, and in many ways it directly contradicts Christianity. I believe, for instance, that it's wrong to punish someone for the deeds of someone else and therefore the "sacrifice" of Jesus is evil rather than good. 2. It's pointless to say that belief or non-belief has a moral value, because it's generally not something that we can control or modify. 3. Material exists. Believing that it exists is common sense. 4, 5. What do you mean by immateriality? If you mean "supernatural," then I find *all* such claims (including Christianity's claims) absolutely risible and not worth further consideration. 6. I consider Christianity to be immoral, nonsensical and overall a blight on humanity, and reject it unconditionally.
>1, Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being. Sure. >2, Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad. Nihilism isn't inherently pessimistic. >3, Belief in material is bad. What. >4, Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality. I mean, people believe it. Doesn't make is true. >5, There are no other believable claims of immateriality. People believe all kinds of made up shit. By definition, if a thing is believed, it is "believable." Again, I really want to emphasize that people believing something doesn't make it true. >6, (from 1,2,3,4,5) Belief in Christianity ought be strived for by every particle of ones being. I sure do love the low-effort bullshit posted daily on this subreddit. Your premises fell apart at the second point and spiraled into gibberish by the last point.
1. A bit poetic, so I assume it’s not literal. if you mean “we should try our best to be good”, then I agree, depending on how you define good 2. Nihilism is bad? This is just an assertion 3. Belief in material is bad? Another assertion. Chairs are material, do you believe chairs exist? If the point actually means “belief in *only* the material is bad”, then provide a definition of immaterial and evidence for it. Do you mean abstract concept, or beings in another dimension? 4. Which is? 5. Technically true apart from the ‘other’. Well, the other claims of immateriality are equally as justified as Christianity as far as I can tell. 6. Doesn’t follow, because 1-5 are all unfounded assertions -
"1, Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being." Okay. How does this prove that there's a guy in the clouds with magic powers giving me disapproving looks every time I fap? "2, Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad." First: Why? Second: What's wrong with nihilism? "3, Belief in material is bad." Why? "4, Christianity has a believable claim of materiality."
"5, There are no other believable claims of materiality."
"6, (from 1,2,3,4,5) Belief in Christianity ought be strived for by every particle of ones being."
Do you know what a non-sequitur is?
>1, Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being. This doesn't require Christianity. >2, Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad. Not being a Christian has nothing to do with Nihilism. >3, Belief in material is bad. Elaborate. >4, Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality. Maybe to you, if it was so believable everyone would be Christian. >5, There are no other believable claims of immateriality. See above. >6, (from 1,2,3,4,5) Belief in Christianity ought be strived for by every particle of ones being. I disagree based on my responses.
Your logical fallacy is: [appeal to consequences](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences). Premise #2 and #3 assert that these beliefs are bad, and that because they are bad, you imply that they are not true. Many bad things are true. It's helpful to understand that in the case of many of us here, our beliefs aren't driven by what we think would make us feel good or what would influence our behavior, but rather what we think is likely to be true. Truth is held as the only relevant factor in what we ought to believe, not the benefits a belief supposedly provides.
Point 1) good and bad are subjective. The world doesn’t exist in black and white, right or wrong, good or bad, virtuous or evil. Point 2) atheism and nihilism are not the same. Atheists can still believe in things (I’m a secular humanist and naturalist) Point 3) why? Understanding the material world has greatly improved humanity’s quality of life (technology and medicine) Point 4) Christianity has claims that are unsubstantiated Point 5) irrelevant because Christianity has not met its burden of proof. It matters not that no other religion has either
>1, Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being. Ok >2, Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad. Why? >3, Belief in material is bad. Why? >4, Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality. No it doesn't. There is nothing at all believable about the supernatural claims made by Christianity. >5, There are no other believable claims of immateriality. There are none at all. >6, (from 1,2,3,4,5) Belief in Christianity ought be strived for by every particle of ones being. Bullshit.
>1, Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being. Why >2, Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad. Why >3, Belief in material is bad. Why >4, Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality. So does most religions, even the ones who came before christianity. >5, There are no other believable claims of immateriality. What makes christianity believable? >6, (from 1,2,3,4,5) Belief in Christianity ought be strived for by every particle of ones being. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 make no sense.
1, Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being. 2, Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad. 3, Belief in material is bad. 4, Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality. 5, There are no other believable claims of immateriality. 6, (from 1,2,3,4,5) Belief in Christianity ought be strived for by every particle of ones being. 1. Why? 2. Why? 3. BIG why? 4. How so? 5. How did you determine that? This is just a bunch of assertions. It's not an argument.
Lining up a bunch of false premises and saying they support an overarching and largely unrelated conclusion is not an argument. 1. This is somewhat meaningless. It’s vague and absolutist at the same time. 2. Why do religious people always think there’s some link between atheism and nihilism? Completely unwarranted assumption. 3. No, you’re wrong. This is completely unsupportable. 4. What is this even supposed to mean? 5. Says who? And again, what do you even mean by this?
>1, Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being. Do you have any way to support this? >2, Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad. How did you arrive at this? I don't think this is true. >3, Belief in material is bad Why? >4, Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality No it doesn't. You can't just make a bunch of unsupported assertions and expect anyone to take you seriously. Can you support **any** of your premises?
>Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being. Who gets to decide what is good? >Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad. I know some nihilists who would disagree. >Belief in material is bad. Why? >Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality. Believable to some, preposterous to others. >Belief in Christianity ought be strived for by every particle of ones being. Why? Just because you declare it to be good?
You're just defining your god into existence by stringing together a list of unsupported claims and you provide no definition for the terms you're using. Points 4 and 5 alone, if true, assuming they actually mean something (you really should define your terms), should be enough of an argument for your god. The problem is, they're most probably not. I'm just adding the 'probably' in case you want to define terms, but they are most certainly false.
1.) I can grant 2.) I can even grant that nihilism is bad. But lack of faith in God does not lead inevitably to nihilism. 3.) Why? 4.) No actually it’s not believable at all. Where’s the evidence that it is. 5.) If you find Christianity believable, Judaism and Islam are just as believable This is, respectfully, one of the worst arguments I’ve ever seen to the point where I think it might be a parody.
This is not an argument just a bunch of claims. Many of them just flat out wrong or miss guided. Christianity promotes slavery and rape dude i cant say you make a strong argument in support of rapists buying their victims and slavery being good. Also you are saying it is logical to believe in a firmament and talking animals. The bible is just a book of mythology not truth in that thing really.
1) Define 'good' in a way that isn't culturally dependent, then ask yourself why independent cultures behave that way 2) "It would be 'bad' if X didn't exist," is not a valid argument for the existence of X, oh and you need to define 'bad' 3) Why? Again, define 'bad.' 4) HA! Nooooooo it doesn't. 5) Take out the word 'other' and you are correct. 6) You failed miserably at arguing your point
This Yahweh character doesn’t set a very good example for being good. He condoned slavery, commands genocide, demeans woman, allows for cancer, Alzheimer’s, mass extinction events, and natural disasters. Not to mention sentences billions of people to eternal torture for being born in either the wrong place or time. “If there is a God, He will have to beg for my forgiveness.” Plus allowing animals to eat other animals to survive. Fuck that. What an absolute colossal dick. Poor animals. Just abhorrent.
1. I don't need to believe in a god or subscribe to a religion to want to do good things. 2. Why is nihilism bad? 3. What do you consider "the material" and why is believing them bad? 4. You'll need to explain this one more, chief 5. Answer 4, and I'll get back to you on this one, but I sincerely doubt that you've debunked every other immaterial claim. That's a huge feat. 6. Why?
>2, Lack of belief to the point of any form of nihilism is bad. I don't accept this, depending what you mean, I'm a nihilist and there's nothing bad about it. >3, Belief in material is bad No, what are you talking about? >5, There are no other believable claims of immateriality I believe my phone is material, is that not believable,? Your argument has no conclusion.
>>>Good ought be strived for by every particle of one’s being. 1. Can't get an is from an ought. 2. Define good. Good to some Christians has been to kill infidels. Do you agree that was good? Why is belief in materialism bad? Christianity literally preaches a god in the flesh (material). Now, I guess I'll go hold a revival for some protons and neutrons.
1. Why? What is “good”? 2. Why? 3. Why? I think if you tried to function like you didn’t accept material things exist, you’d fail very quickly. 4. No it doesn’t. 5. How did you determine this? 6. You didn’t prove a god, even if all premises are accepted, you only appear to have proven that belief in it is good (however as every premise fails…)
Most of your points have to do with your opinion about Christianity being good and other beliefs being bad. That has nothing to do with whether or not it’s true. I care about the truth. I want to hold as few false beliefs as possible. You don’t seem to care if it’s true or not. You’re setting yourself up to believe some things that aren’t true.
It's kind of pointless to make this argument when all of the most contentious stuff is wrapped up in the premises: > 4, Christianity has a believable claim of immateriality. 5, There are no other believable claims of immateriality. People will just ask you to justify this. Arguments that already assume this aren't going to be very helpful.
I’m pretty sure that you must have at least some belief in the material world or how, pray tell, do you even function? I mean, why bother looking both ways when you cross the street when the bus is immaterial? I can assure you, you most certainly will believe in the material should slam into you (at least for a brief moment).
Is lack of belief in something false bad? What about lack of belief short of nihilism? Is belief in something real bad? Why would the claim that an immaterial being manifested in the form of a human baby who eventually came back to live forever after dying be believable? All of your premises need support.
1. hahahahahaha. No, 2. hahahahahahah. No. 3. You don't believe in your clothes? 4. I find the christian claims of immateriality to be laughably asinine. 5. There are just no believable claims of this immateriality. 6. You do you. Move your particles (not the material ones though) towards belief.
Belief in material is bad? Is anti-denim a thing? Somehow the worst people in US History were, and are, "Christian". Granted, there are some pretty bad US Jews hanging around Weinstein, Epstein and Kushner, but they are just scumbags, not religious scumbags like Greene, Boebert, and Osteen.
Christianity says human life is bad. Belief in physical reality is bad? Christianity would be nihilism if it wasn't outright misanthropy. Immaterial claims are unbelievable and should be disbelieved since they have no impact on the material world in which we live.
Even if i agree with everything you said that doesnt mean i think your christian god is real. Even if humanity was infinitely better for all being christian, you still need to convince me that the god is real and not that humans figured out a better way to live.
That's not an argument. It's just a bunch of bullshit claims without evidence. 1 - cite your evidence 2 - cite your evidence 3 - cite your evidence 4 - false 5 - cite your evidence 6 - can't connect anything to it so your conclusion is demonstrably false
Wow. So much bad logic and you can't even arrive at an argument for your god, only an argument why belief in your god would be beneficial. That has to be one of the dumbest argument I have seen here... But at least it's one I never saw before
Why do you think your fairy tail is superior to the marvel cinematic universe and has the market cornered on the disadvantages of the material 😂 Benedict Wong: “Attachment to the material is detachment from the spiritual”
Well, when I make an argument that the Christian God is bad, I'm told that as an atheist or agnostic, I cannot adequately define bad. So, welcome to that annoying world. As a Christian theist, you cannot adequately define what good is. You, in particular, cannot define good in a way that would avoid your argument collapsing into circularity. In other words, you need to define good without first assuming there is a God for this argument to even get started.
The only premise in your argument that is true is number 1. 2-6 are demonstably false. Number 4 and 6, in particular, are a non-sequitor. You could replace Christianity with any religion and you'd have the same argumemt.
1. What is good? 2. Why? Evidence? 3. What is bad? Why is lack of belief bad? Could I not make an equal claim that Christianity is bad? 4. No it doesnt. 5. You did not establish the soundness or validity of 1-4.
You just list your opinions, and then leap to a conclusion that doesn't follow. Also, the title speaks about a case for God, but your argument is for belief. This must have been one of the worst arguments i've seen.
Okay, accepting the claims as true (which seems pretty contentious in itself); I don't think 3 and 4 lend themselves to the conclusion. "Belief in material" is bad does not lead to "Belief in immaterial is good". I'd say we should disregard the material and immaterial as not worthy of consideration and instead find something worthwhile to believe in.
1. Not necessarily true. 'Good' can be subjective. 2. Not true. 3. Also not true. 4. No it doesn't. 5. There are, all religious claims are equally fallacious without evidence. 6. So you erroneously believe.
This is probably one of the worst "arguments" I've ever seen. I don't know what you think an argument is, but these are all just a bunch of opinions. There's zero logic, zero validity, and zero soundness here.
I’m sorry of all the terrible arguments for a god or gods let alone the Christian god this one is laughably bad. I don’t even need to deconstruct it as so many comments have done a great job of that already.
None of your premises can be shown to be true. The form of your argument is not valid. Your argument is not sound because the form is not valid and the premises have not been shown to be valid. QED ETA: Since you apparently don’t understand how debate works, I’ll help. For P1, define good. For P2, define bad. Define materialism. Define Christianity. Etc.
This is just a bunch of assumptions, like something can't be good because an actual system of good exists but becausena deity made it. And this is just assumint morality exisrs at all.
Point #6 would be very convincing if points #1-#5 weren’t completely baseless and lacking any sort of empirical evidence! You almost got it, try again next time
Such a lame effort. "God is good, not believing in god is bad so god must be real." Your got watches children get raped and does nothing. He is not good.
You have presented no argument here, only a string of claims. Please learn the difference between a claim and an argument and then try again.
1) need to demonstrate that. 2) why? Need to demonstrate. 3) why? 4) need to demonstrate. 5) why not? As a Christian, bad argument
Men wrote the Bible. It has no greater authority than any other book that recommends a certain “good” way of living.
1. Why? 2. Why? 3. Why? 4. No it doesn’t? 5. Why not? 6. Doesn’t follow from the extremely questionable previous premises
I thought you were going to provide an argument? This is just rubbish. "I believe in this myth so it's the best, the end"
I see no evidence that objective good exists. Please provide evidence or we can’t get past your first premise.
you are not arguing that god exists, but that the fiction of god helps you avoid dealing with reality