Answer to atheists

[Cyrrylia]

Your first problem is you treat Kant as if though he's actually correct. Your second problem is you don't know Kant. Kant argued that God existed because morals exist, and that man is drawn to some form of a moral imperative because God has programmed it within man. The problem is you are reviewing Kant's epistimology, not his argument for morality. The two are different.

Keep in mind that Kant developed a posteriori and a priori. He distinguished between experience and base worldviews; beliefs based on experience were after the fact whilst belief based upon reasoning were before the fact. In other words, judgements based on our senses can be rejected without a contradiction really occuring. In other words, if I have a bad experience with a white person and subsequently judge the entire white race on this experience, that can be rejected right out because it's based solely on experience. If, however, I use logical analysis (which is what a priori is) then it cannot be rejected outright, because it has used logic absent of experience. I can deny the experience, but I cannot deny the logical conclusion without offering up another logical conclusion that is mutually exclusive to the one I am countering. This is his belief on epistimology.

If we want to link this to morality, we still see that you are not interpreting Kant correctly. Morality, according to Kant, is knowable to a certain extent. Now philosophies that have come sense Kant have taught an unknowable epistimology applied to morality, but Kant himself never taught this. To understand Kant's moral position, you really need to read "Grounds of the Metaphysics of Morals" and "Critique of Practical Reason." In this we see that to Kant morals must be based solely on reason and not on experience. In other words, killing is not wrong because it could potentially harm me but instead for another rationalistic explanation absent of experience. This is where we see Kant's dichotomy come into place; there is a distinct seperation in what we experience and what is rationally true. Morals, to Kant, fall under rational decisions and not experience. Since this is the case, Kant is teaching that we can know the source of morals and what is moral based upon rationalism. He calls this the "Categorical Imperetive" which he also translates to mean "God." In fact, he argues that true morality will bring us to true happiness and that God is the one regulating all of this.

I think you are getting Kant confused with Keirkegaard or Neitzsche.

Wow. For once, you are right, and I realy am wrong. Good job.

I understand you...the problem is you don't know what you're posting and can't justify it. Case in point:

You're saying you never said that athiests can have morals and can use Kant to justify it. Yet, we look to your post:

"And you can have absolute morality "without acknowledging a transcendent Author of morality." Kant is one of many who created a self consistent system of absolute morality withought a higher power."

You are saying people do not need to use a higher power in order to justify morality. That is why my reply works. You won't respond to this because, just like in the other topic, you can't, you don't know how.

And then you fall off the cliff.

You are right, I do not know how. Because you get what I say so wrong. How am I supposed to respond to something that realy is not responding to me?

My first statement says we can have morality withought a higher power. The second statement does not matter. You do not need "Kant" to have morals, you need a self consistent moral philosophy. That is it. That is what I said. I did not say you needed Kant. That is just crazy talk.

[Kabowd]

You are right, I do not know how. Because you get what I say so wrong. How am I supposed to respond to something that realy is not responding to me?

My first statement says we can have morality withought a higher power. The second statement does not matter. You do not need "Kant" to have morals, you need a self consistent moral philosophy. That is it. That is what I said. I did not say you needed Kant. That is just crazy talk.

1. He very adequately showed that he got what you said very clearly.

2. He also very adequately destroyed what you stated and showed that you did not know what you were talking about.

3. Regarding your statement above that I put in bold, you're in denial. This is your exact quote earlier:

That too is wrong. A government is not the only thing that stops them. People can have morals withought a god or other highter power.

And you can have absolute morality "without acknowledging a transcendent Author of morality." Kant is one of many who created a self consistent system of absolute morality withought a higher power.

Not only is what you're advocating absolutely incorrect, AK also showed that your usage of Kant as a reference for what you state was also incorrect. It's pointless to keep denying what you stated when a first grader could scroll up and see it in black and white. Fact is, you're in over your head. Perhaps you should avoid discussions on philosophy and theology until you've done some further study. Google won't provide you with an adequate education on these things.

[apothanein kerdos]

Your first problem is you treat Kant as if though he's actually correct. Your second problem is you don't know Kant. Kant argued that God existed because morals exist, and that man is drawn to some form of a moral imperative because God has programmed it within man. The problem is you are reviewing Kant's epistimology, not his argument for morality. The two are different.

Keep in mind that Kant developed a posteriori and a priori. He distinguished between experience and base worldviews; beliefs based on experience were after the fact whilst belief based upon reasoning were before the fact. In other words, judgements based on our senses can be rejected without a contradiction really occuring. In other words, if I have a bad experience with a white person and subsequently judge the entire white race on this experience, that can be rejected right out because it's based solely on experience. If, however, I use logical analysis (which is what a priori is) then it cannot be rejected outright, because it has used logic absent of experience. I can deny the experience, but I cannot deny the logical conclusion without offering up another logical conclusion that is mutually exclusive to the one I am countering. This is his belief on epistimology.

If we want to link this to morality, we still see that you are not interpreting Kant correctly. Morality, according to Kant, is knowable to a certain extent. Now philosophies that have come sense Kant have taught an unknowable epistimology applied to morality, but Kant himself never taught this. To understand Kant's moral position, you really need to read "Grounds of the Metaphysics of Morals" and "Critique of Practical Reason." In this we see that to Kant morals must be based solely on reason and not on experience. In other words, killing is not wrong because it could potentially harm me but instead for another rationalistic explanation absent of experience. This is where we see Kant's dichotomy come into place; there is a distinct seperation in what we experience and what is rationally true. Morals, to Kant, fall under rational decisions and not experience. Since this is the case, Kant is teaching that we can know the source of morals and what is moral based upon rationalism. He calls this the "Categorical Imperetive" which he also translates to mean "God." In fact, he argues that true morality will bring us to true happiness and that God is the one regulating all of this.

I think you are getting Kant confused with Keirkegaard or Neitzsche.

Wow. For once, you are right, and I realy am wrong. Good job.

I understand you...the problem is you don't know what you're posting and can't justify it. Case in point:

You're saying you never said that athiests can have morals and can use Kant to justify it. Yet, we look to your post:

"And you can have absolute morality "without acknowledging a transcendent Author of morality." Kant is one of many who created a self consistent system of absolute morality withought a higher power."

You are saying people do not need to use a higher power in order to justify morality. That is why my reply works. You won't respond to this because, just like in the other topic, you can't, you don't know how.

And then you fall off the cliff.

You are right, I do not know how. Because you get what I say so wrong. How am I supposed to respond to something that realy is not responding to me?

My first statement says we can have morality withought a higher power. The second statement does not matter. You do not need "Kant" to have morals, you need a self consistent moral philosophy. That is it. That is what I said. I did not say you needed Kant. That is just crazy talk.

You just went back and defended what you admitted you were wrong on. Again, do you even read what you post?

[Cyrrylia]

1. He very adequately showed that he got what you said very clearly.

No he did not.

2. He also very adequately destroyed what you stated and showed that you did not know what you were talking about.

Yes he did.

Not only is what you're advocating absolutely incorrect, AK also showed that your usage of Kant as a reference for what you state was also incorrect. It's pointless to keep denying what you stated when a first grader could scroll up and see it in black and white. Fact is, you're in over your head. Perhaps you should avoid discussions on philosophy and theology until you've done some further study. Google won't provide you with an adequate education on these things.

Wooooooooooo.

You just went back and defended what you admitted you were wrong on. Again, do you even read what you post?

No, I did not. Do you read English? You said I said that atheists just need Kant. What I realy said was Atheists just need a self consistent system. You just...invented Kant somewhere within that statement.

[Kabowd]

1. He very adequately showed that he got what you said very clearly.

No he did not.

LOL! You've mastered the art of denial. Why are you even responding here? This is getting comical now....lol

No, I did not. Do you read English? You said I said that atheists just need Kant. What I realy said was Atheists just need a self consistent system. You just...invented Kant somewhere within that statement.

Can you quote where he said this?

[apothanein kerdos]

Look, it's obvious you got in over your head and now you're acting like a tuckus.

No, I did not. Do you read English? You said I said that atheists just need Kant. What I realy said was Atheists just need a self consistent system. You just...invented Kant somewhere within that statement.

This proves even further that you have no clue who Kant is. You stated, and I quote:

And you can have absolute morality "without acknowledging a transcendent Author of morality." Kant is one of many who created a self consistent system of absolute morality withought a higher power.

That is saying that athiests can use Kant. I said they can't. I proved my position. You agreed to it. End of story.

[apothanein kerdos]

Now bringing this back:

As Kant taught, you cannot hold to an absolute moral standard without an absolute. Thus, athiests lack proper justification when they declare an absolute. In fact, if we follow Kant's teachings, only we remove God from Kant's epistimology applied to ethics and morals, we are left with an inadequate measure. We must inevitably follow a form of post-modernism if we are to be truly rationalistic. In other words, without an absolute to draw absolute morals from, there is no longer absolute morals. Morals then become subjective to the time period they are within.

For instance, an absolute moral means that no matter the time period, place, people involved, circumstances, etc., a certain action will always be right or will always be wrong. There are no exceptions. At the moment we make an exception we have moved away from an absolute stance and into a relativists stance. Athiests suffer on this point because they claim absolutes and live absolutes but at the same time cannot justify this. If they get upset at a murder then they have violated their own worldview. Though they can claim absolute morality, they cannot justify it. The reason is they run into the problem of epistimology. They cannot provide a substantial justification for why they interpret a moral as such and why action should be taken on that moral.

Before you say, "No, you're wrong," I challenge you to show how this doesn't work and how it's wrong. Provide a justification for absolute morals without God.

[Kabowd]

Now bringing this back:

As Kant taught, you cannot hold to an absolute moral standard without an absolute. Thus, athiests lack proper justification when they declare an absolute. In fact, if we follow Kant's teachings, only we remove God from Kant's epistimology applied to ethics and morals, we are left with an inadequate measure. We must inevitably follow a form of post-modernism if we are to be truly rationalistic. In other words, without an absolute to draw absolute morals from, there is no longer absolute morals. Morals then become subjective to the time period they are within.

For instance, an absolute moral means that no matter the time period, place, people involved, circumstances, etc., a certain action will always be right or will always be wrong. There are no exceptions. At the moment we make an exception we have moved away from an absolute stance and into a relativists stance. Athiests suffer on this point because they claim absolutes and live absolutes but at the same time cannot justify this. If they get upset at a murder then they have violated their own worldview. Though they can claim absolute morality, they cannot justify it. The reason is they run into the problem of epistimology. They cannot provide a substantial justification for why they interpret a moral as such and why action should be taken on that moral.

Before you say, "No, you're wrong," I challenge you to show how this doesn't work and how it's wrong. Provide a justification for absolute morals without God.

Very well put. This is why we see many who hold to such philosophies end in despondency, nihilism (or fatalism/defeatism). There is no hope, as they cannot reconcile what they've believed with what they've experienced (cognitive dissonance).

[deershot]

If the atheists are right and me as a christian am wrong and there is no God, I have nothing to lose, I have enjoyed

every second of my christian life. I am not saying it was easy, I am saying I have enjoyed it. The peace and joy in my heart.

What if the christian is right and there is a God, what do the atheists have to lose? an eternal life with the Lord Jesus Christ,

a mansion in heaven, street of Gold, a place where there is no pain, no suffering, to tears, no devil.

Thank you Jesus for saving my soul.

psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart there is no God......

[nebula]

From their end, they see it as mindless pestering.

Afterall, "What if [they] are right and it is all false?" Then you are just preventing them from enjoying the short life they have to the fullest. How could you possibly bother them like that?

I just wanted to show how they see it...

They really are obsessed with this "enjoying life to the fullest."

So what if it's all about selfishness, or if it means others are left in misery. "I'm happy, and that's what matters."

And then when they do give of themselves to others, it's because, "It makes me feel good."

"Me, me, me."

Well, one, if there was no God, and they are right, then they have the right idea. Two, I feel you overgeneralize them to be a bunch of selfish evil people who can not possibly be nice.

You do a very, very good job arguing the atheistic perspective. Too good.

Would you mind, just so we know where you stand, what Jesus means to you?

Also, questioning one's motives doesn't mean someone cannot be "nice." Your statement indicates to me you have failed to understand Biblical servanthood and how it is different from "good deeds."

Would you clarify please?