Are you an atheist or a theist, Veeky Forums?

I don't have imaginary friends

They're friends of friends, but you have them.

somewhat related but I absolutely love Joe Rogan's interview of Henry Rollins. It (kinda) inspired me to read more and start working out

Seconded.

You seem like you might be biased

That's not true at all. Think about the formation of the words. Gnosticism, from the Greek "to know" or "to have knowlge" - agnosticism - "to not know". So, someone who's agnostic does not know whether God exists or not.

Theos: "God". Atheos: "No God". Atheism: "The belief of there being no God"

You might notice I used two different words when describing the two concepts "knolege" and "belief" and that's because there is a difference. You can very well believe in something without knowing it - in fact, that is the difference between "knowledge" and "belief". Atheism is the BELIEF that there is no God, but no Atheist knows it for sure (how could we? It's an proposition that cannot be tested). So, in fact, every Atheist IS Agnostic, and those who preffer the seccond label most likely just don't want the associations that come with the first. However, more than likely, their views on the existence or not of God do not differ.

Only secular morality is possible

Morality put in terms of the eternal God is just opportunism.

I cannot either, yet. Still thinking it through, but I feel Im getting close

I voted no on secular morality. Religion is part of the natural law.

...

>Is secular morality possible?

hobbes answered this

Yes, because Leviathan sets out such a moral state.

Virtues don't depend on divine morality, read Aristotle.

It depends if by 'morality' we mean, as is usually implied, slave morality.

Yes, they depend on teleologically ordered biological metaphysics continually set in motion by the unmoved mover.
Which is to say they depend on God, but not in a direct way.

I'm open to the idea of God existing, whereas Atheists believe God does not exist. So I still opt out of the poll.

Meaning, there's no real difference in any relevant way, except how you label yourself.

>Are you an atheist or a theist, Veeky Forums?
I usually say "sure"
if that doesn't work, I usually default to athiest

The difference lies in what the person believes. Theists believe god is real, atheists do not. Agnostics lie in a grey area.

Agnosticism is a grey area. Any thinking man has to agree that there is a possibility, however slim, that God may not exist. This does not denude the moral precepts of Jesus, and a degree of belief in God gives them greater weight.

Glad we could come to an agreement.

So the essence of this argument is to say that God's decisions are "arbitrary"?
That's rich.

Does God decide what is moral or is He Himself enforcing some larger objective morality that exists regardless of His endorsement?

If the answer is the former, than God could make rape and murder morally correct on a whim, which is ethically problematic. If the answer is the latter, than God is only an enforcer of an inherent truth larger than Himself, which makes Him essentially irrelevant in the argument of morality.

>different people at different times have understood this one thing in many ways
>therefore it is not one thing, but many things!
kek when will relativist brainlet learn?

God is the Summum Bonum, the Highest Good. He is the source and standard of all morals. He cannot arbitrarily make an intrinsic evil good which is contrary to the nature of His own goodness.

>Any thinking man has to agree that there is a possibility, however slim, that God may not exist.

Once you understand that God is the one source and summit of all being, it becomes just as absurd to doubt your own existence as to doubt the existence of God. Which is proven by the fact that those that deny the existence of God do in fact end up denying that they exist, e.g. Buddhists or materialists who say that the "self" is an illusion.

Reminder that Agnostics are even more atheistic than atheists for not even believing in their beliefs.

In other words, those that deny the existence of God, in the end, end up denying all existence. If you follow the logic you will end up either as a theist who understands that all beings exist in he supreme being God, or as a nihilist who thinks that all existence is some kind of illusion and that nothing really exists.

>If the answer is the former, than God could make rape and murder morally correct on a whim, which is ethically problematic
This is an irrelevant argument, the morality defined by God is a permanent eternal one, since it is inherently good and what he decides as inherently good does not change. Since God is eternal and omniscient, why would he decide to change the morality he has set upon us? He has no reason to, therefore the idea that morality is temporary is wrong.

If you just change "could make" to "could have made" in the other user's post I very much doubt that you have solved his problem.

And anyways, how much of a victory is it to say that there is, somewhere, some set of things that are the correct interpretation of good? You yourself use the term "inherently good," as does ; why not cut out the middle man and go directly to your inherent good, which has nothing to do with God? (Or shouldn't without being circular)

Because God created everything, including the notion of an objective good which we must follow. To deny God would also be denying the idea of an objective good.