(1) I do not assent to any notion that consciousness exists as an entity distinct from the universe, in its entirety or the parts that make it up, (as affirmed by Deism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Panentheism, and so on) or to any notion that consciousness exists within the universe without a material substrate to generate it (as affirmed by Classical Pantheism). This effectively covers all notions of a god that are not just weasel-wording ("What about the extraterrestrials, huh?" ).

(2) I know a bit about Christian doctrine, including the four ideas you mentioned. Whether I would be able to give a proper representation of them really depends on what you consider proper, because I can generally give the same kind of descriptions as the believers in those doctrines give, but I don't think that I could make them seem reasonable.

(3) I have thought about the possibility of infinite regresses many times, and I have not reached any conclusion, for the truth or falsity of the notion seems equally astounding to me.

(4) There are absolute truths.

(5) When I think about my own death, the rational part of me concludes that I have nothing to fear, but the emotional part of me does not care what the rational part of me thinks and fears death anyway. Our brains are constructed by our genomes to fear death, no matter what, and I am not an exception.

(6) I do not rule out any gods on account of their alleged character.

(7) I do not believe that morals are relative.

1. That invisible friend you deist morons have is what I mean by 'god'. It tends to change depending on the circumstances.

2. I am not that knowledgeable on the topic of pulmonary circulation yet I am able to breathe.

3. No.

4. Depends.

5. The manner of my death may be cause for concern (wouldn't want to suffer) but death will be just like before I was born.

6. Evidence proves he did not exist, my feelings are immaterial.

7. The actions of god in the OT were reprehensible. It's just as well it's only a piss-poor story, eh?

It's up to the believer to define God.  One of my reasons for rejecting god-belief is that there doesn't seem to be any coherent definition of the term.

Not bad.  Better than most Christians, I expect.  I was practically raised in church, have read the Bible several times (yes, the whole thing), and attended a post-secondary Bible college for a few years.  When I was still a Christian, I read quite a bit of C.S. Lewis.

Yes, with the proviso that there isn't a single universally accepted understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity among Christian denominations.

Yes, I'm familiar with the belief that Jesus was both fully divine and fully human.

Yes, of course.

Yup.

Yes.  It boggles the mind but I don't see that it is logically impossible.

I think mathematics is an example of a universal truth.

I have no more fear of death than I have of my non-existence prior to my birth.  I'm not too keen on dying, though, as it is often a painful and messy affair.

That depends on what you mean by God.  If you mean an omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good God, then I do not think that the existence of such a being is consistent with the God portrayed in the OT, assuming that we consider goodness to include concepts such as justice and mercy, as implied by much of the Old and New Testaments (if we ignore the parts of the Bible that a contradictory to the parts that preach justice and mercy).

If we're discussing the morality of what God is described as doing in the OT, then what I believe about morality is irrelevant.  What is relevant is the supposed nature of that God and what good means in the context of Christian doctrine.

I believe the term is used for many things as such I wait until someone gives me their definition.  However I think that in doing so the term itself is meaningless. I don't believe in deities or intelligent universe creators.

Some.

I don't think all Christians even agree on these.

Not really sure.

Sure why not.

Fear is a strong word. I don't want it to happen to me.  Why? I like existing.

No. Hitler did things I didn't like, but there is at least evidence he existed.

I believe morals are a strategy to survive and prosper.  Morals are beneficial actions that we use to help build a more stable society.  It has evolved over time as our knowledge and social structure improves. 

I do not buy any claim by any name of magical invisible super brains that have no body. I don't buy the Muslim claims of invisible brains in that of Allah, and I  don't buy yours.

I also don't buy claims of magical births or deaths.

The ancient Egyptians used to believe that big orange ball in the sky was a thinking being with a super brain. They used to pray to it believing it was involved in their affairs.

Humans have always made up fictional super heros and fooled themselves into believing them to be real. Your claim is NOT special, and your holy book is a book of myth, just like stories of Ra, Osirus and Horus were to he Egyptians. Your myth is simply currently popular. But so are other myths like Allah and Vishnu and Buddha.

Neither you or I, the Pope or Obama or Pat Robertson will be remembered 50 billion years from now, and neither will your gods or myths.

There is no need for any made up super hero with super powers.

BTW, you spoke of the Trinity. Would you care to know what Thomas Jefferson thought of 3 headed monsters? He wasn't an atheist, but you'd be suprised at what he says about the magical claims in the bible.

The christian, islam, hindu, norse, greek, roman, mayan, etc, etc, etc god(s) or goddess(es), basically any and all deities invented by man to explain the unknown at the time, such but not limited to, the universe, earth, life, man, stars, etc, etc, etc. As well as illogical defintions of such beings....to which at this point in time is all of them.

De Doctrina Christiana written by st. augustine de hippo? yes, as well as the catholic, now of course there is the sects of chrsitianity that has different takes on the christian doctrine, such as the christadelphians.

from the catholic point of view sure (grew up with catholics, have lots of family that are catholics so, yes I can) of course there are sects that have different view on this, latter day saints for example on the holy trinity, unitarism as well. The hypostatic union of course fully divine and fully human. C and D as well I can talk about if you like.

philisophically speaking sure, however it does not need to be so, as in quantum level it's possible to have an effect without a prior cause. So god (as described by many being the uncause cause.) is not required.

Sure there are absolute truths, gravity always attracts is an absoute truth. However for the most part in regards to most human events truth is relative.

Not since I was declared dead on the operating table, ever since then I have had no fear, then again it could be because it was exactly what I expected........nothing, no lights, no god, no hell no nothing, just nothing. Although I am not looking forward to it, I don't fear death, however I do fear dying. I didn't like the process the first time.

Nope, that does not prove he does not exist, the lack of evidence, the illogical descriptions and well basically the lack of evidence for god shows to me that he doesn't exist. I don't like george bush, pat robertson, hugo chavez, stalin, hitler, mao, pot pol, and various other people, that doesn't stop the fact they exist...then again there is evidence for their existance.

yes morals are, laws however are meant to be enforced, even the enforcers are not above the law, however in the bible god is untouchable. so doesn't matter.

Not much in regards to absolute morals in the bible as they are all broken at one point or another. Even the laws are broken on a whim.

1) Wow, a theist asking this question. Awesome. Here's the problem: We're not entirely sure. That is at least part of the problem. Some theist tells us to believe in this thing they call god, but none of them can describe this god in any logical or meaningful way. We can hardly believe in something that we can't see and makes no sense.

2) To a degree, but as I have rabidly avoided poisoning my mind with religious texts, I'd have to draw upon the memes and stories that christians have swamped the entertainment industry with in order to force their beliefs on others. So I doubt I'd do it to your satisfaction.

3) Perhaps. Perhaps not. We don't know for certain.

4) Varies. A rock in Alberta in 1984 is a rock in Alberta in 1984 regardless of subjective perspective. If you get more complicated than simple fact, then it's all relative.

5) No.

6) No, it would just prove he's an asshole not worth my devotion.

7) Yes, and yes. However, an omnipotent and omniscient being has no claim to such an argument.

I have no idea.  I've yet to encounter a meaningful definition of God.

Yes.  I was raised in a variety of Christian denominations.  I'm familiar with everything from Roman Catholic to Southern Baptist to Church of Christ.  I'm as good an apologist as you're ever going to meet.

It depends on the nature of time.  I suspect so.

Some things are true regardless of belief.  Nature is what it is, and your belief about it doesn't matter, so yes.  Some things are absolutely true.

Nah.  I'm not looking forward to it, but I'm not afraid of it.  I'm much more afraid of dying than I am of being dead.  Dying probably hurts in a lot of cases.

No.

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/2009/02/02/morality-absolute-and-subjective/

It is up to the claimant to define the proposition. You have to define what "God" is; then, I can tell you whether I believe in it or not.

There are many different definitions of God and God beliefs. My position varies depending on the God in question, but so far, I have yet to encounter any that is not incoherent, trivial, and/or unsupported by evidence.  

No. 

Maybe. No. Maybe. Maybe.  

Mathematically, yes. Within our universe, probably not. Outside of our universe or before our universe, I don't know.

Yes, there are absolute truths. P is P, and Q is Q. If P and Q contradict, then only P or Q can be true (exclusive), and whether P or Q is true is not 'relative' or a 'matter of opinion.'

I fear dying in a painful way, but I don't fear death. I was dead since the beginning of time before I was born, and it didn't bother me the slightest. I see no reason why it would bother me after my life. 

No.

There is no absolute truth in morality, in the sense that nothing is objectively right or wrong unless we start with some necessary assumptions. It is my belief and the position of most of the members of this forum, that morality is a human concept, so to ask whether something is inherently right or wrong is ultimately meaningless. It's often said that we can't derive an "ought" from an "is." We can conclude, partly from this premise, that there is no 'oughtness' at all, because in nature, there is no 'ought.' There simply 'is.'

If there is no absolute morality, then we are left to rely, somewhat axiomatically, on our instincts and logic for guidance i.e. we decide what is right based simply on what we want and what we think is right. So, why don't atheists just all just go outside and starting fornicating, pillaging, and slaughtering gleefully? Well, why should they? 

I'm not sure what 'morally permissible' means.

But, certainly, the OT is morally repugnant, to me.

Broadly: Any being claimed to be capable of creating the universe.  Narrow:  Any being claimed to be capable of creating the universe and who has a special interest in human affairs.

I will say no, purely because any Christians I know can't agree on the understanding of these subjects and they differ greatly from what I was taught growing up as a catholic.  Very loosely:

• the trinity states that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all God but they are not each other
• Hypostatic Union is the idea that aspects of divinity and humanity co-existed in Christ
• Salvation by Grace is the idea that salvation is a gift from God and is not something that can ever be earned.  We have been given grace through Christ... if we have faith and live through christ his grace will shine on us.  Which sounds an awful lot like earning something.  But you're not earning it.  You're being given it because you did something....
• Christ took upon himself the sins of the world and, by dying, paid the ultimate price for man's sin.  His humility in this sacrifice bought him - and the rest of humanity - entry into heaven by the aforementioned grace of god.

We can't be sure.

There are absolutes.

Yes and No.  I fear death only so far as it means I'm not alive and I don't get to eat, drink and have sex.  Like Hamby I think the process of dying will suck.  As for actually being dead?  I survived perfectly well not existing before I was born.  I imagine not existing after I'm dead will be much the same.

Of course not.  Nothing can prove he doesn't exist.  That's not the point though.  I don't believe in "God" because there's no evidence for his existence.

Absolutely to the first half of this question.  Morals are a social construct.

No to the second half.  God doesn't get to claim moral relativism while we're expected to follow moral absolutes espoused by the church and which come from the same part of the book.

The definitions offered by all religions and/or believers about their deities. But in a broad sense, I would say the concept of a sentient, all powerful entity that willfully created and/or maintained the universe.

This question is incorrectly phrased. It should read "Christian doctrines"  since there are quite a lot of christian denominations, all with their own, often contradictory doctrines. Even if you were to grant that they base this doctrines from the same source (the bible) and even if you also grant the unifiying use of this single sourse (no diferent versions, no different translations, etc.) they still have quite different interpretations of it. Their exegesis differs, often in abismal ways.

So in answer to your question, I would have to ask in turn: The doctrine of which christian denomination?

Im guessing this question is aimed to inquire our knowledgable capacity to justifiably dismiss/refute the claims of the doctrines you exemplify. If this is correct, I would then also have to ask you: are you knowledgable with Jewish doctrines? Islam? Buddists? Induists? and so on ad infinitum.

I dont know.

I exist. There are indeed absolute truths. Is the Great Gazoo dark green or turquoise? there are also relative things too.

I do not fear the concept of death, anymore than I fear the concept of my non existance previous to my birth. My death, on the other hand, is something I do fear, simply because I, as many have responded before me, like to exist.

No it doesn't. I do not like what Dr. Moreau did on his little pet zoo island either, yet my opinion of his actions also bear no relevance whatsoever in his existance.

Killing is immoral, yes or no? what if the person you kill had both means and intention to kill your loved ones?

But heres the real meat to this question: Is global infanticide immoral? Even if you did it in order to cleanse a corrupt world? What if you were, lets say, all powerful, and could achieve the same goal without drowning every child on the planet?

Is the needless sacrifice less immoral if you only reduce the death tally to 1? Lets say, your own son?

The christian god, in both OT and NT, is the most immoral character that humans have ever being able to pluck out of our nightmares.

It's generally a bad sign when you start talking about yourself that way...

You will say something righteous and worthwhile for a change.

(1) "What do you mean by God?"

It's your belief, don't you know?  An entity who is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, who is invisible and unknowable AND can produce matter with a word, who is all powerful and free of all error, well I suppose that would qualify.

(2)Holy Trinity - Father Son and Holy Spirit unified in one Godhead.

Hypostatic union - Jesus as both fully man and fully God.

Salvation - Christian belief that humans need to be saved from the terrors of Christian beliefs. 

Resurrection of Christ - Christian claim that what Christians claim actually occurred because Christians claim it did. (Ref. Nonsense)

(3)"Is an infinite regress of cause and effect possible?"

When you don't know an answer anything's possible. It's just that not everything is true. There are limits to what we "know," you see. There is some good bit of information lacking on this particular question as of yet, and some of it may be beyond our grasp entirely. "I don't know" will have to serve until such time as we have enough information to make those sorts of judgements, if ever.

(4) "Are there absolute truths or is everything relative?"

There are physical limits which we refer to as the "laws of physics." Everything else is an opinion. 

(5) "Do you fear death?  If so, why?"

The process of dying is a bit worrisome, I must admit. It's not always a pleasant experience, or so I've noticed. I've also noticed that a person's religious beliefs, or lack thereof, have no apparent impact on whether a person dies peacefully, or dies a painful degrading death. And everyone dies, don't they! As for being dead, why would anyone fear that? Dead is dead. Game over man. There is no more "you" to generate fear, or anything else.

(6) Even if you do not like what God did in the Old Testament, does that prove that He does not exist?

 Here's what proves that "He" does not exist, insofar as it is even possible to ever "prove" a negative. In 1905 Albert Einstein published an article on mass-energy equivalence in which he unveiled his famous equation E=mc2 for the first time. The real revelation is that matter and energy are THE SAME THING. Matter is made up of certain types of energetic particles which clump together due to their positive and negative attraction. Matter IS energy. In the 1860's, before Einstein was even born, British scientist James Clerk Maxwell developed the First Law of Thermodynamics. Better known as the Law of Conservation of Energy, it tells us that ENERGY CAN NEITHER BE CREATED OR DESTROYED. Are you paying attention here? The universe IS energy, and energy can neither be created or destroyed. According to the laws of physics, and all experimentation and observation, the universe COULD NOT HAVE BEEN CREATED. Could science be wrong about this conclusion? Certainly. Science is a human endeavor, and like all human endeavors it is subject to the possibility of error. (Humans are manifestly NOT Gods). Maxwell's Law has stood up remarkably well to all experimentation and observation for the last 150 years however.

(7) Do you believe morals are relative?  If so, then wouldn't the actions of God in the OT be morally permissible in certain situations?

 Morality is an opinion (See #4). Is genocide ever morally acceptable? NEVER, in my opinion. And anyone who argues that it is for any reason, is repugnant, in my opinion.