Me Myself
Back to my username
I think that anyone who truly can´t see a point in it, probably suffers some kind of sociophatic disorders.
I am not even kidding.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How can morality exist without god?
- Thread starter Polarbear
- Start date
I think that anyone who truly can´t see a point in it, probably suffers some kind of sociophatic disorders.
I am not even kidding.
idea
Question Everything
Whats to prevent us from saying Hitler wasnt right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question." - Richard Dawkins
Carpenter Rabbi
Member
To prevent punishment from the fellow man? To avoid offending other people? Because when there's no higher accountability, the only accountability you have is the one that already exists? Because it feels good?
McBell
Unbound
What is interesting is how this quote actually HURTS your argument.
Yet you still presented it...
1robin
Christian/Baptist
That statement is demonstrably false. Exactly what are you trying to prove by this statement? It has absolutely no explanatory power. That fact that someone can claim something has no bearing on whether it is true. To post it is meaningless sensationalism, intellectual dishonesty and deserves no rebuttal.
Last edited:
1robin
Christian/Baptist
That is nuts. It is as simple as opening the book he said he was in agreement with and seeing if he was right. This same process is done a thousand times a day in countless courtrooms. In fact his generals were tried and their actions compared to a standard not to much different than the bibles moral code. I just realised this was Dawkins saying this. Yes in atheism it can't be justified to declare Hitler was wrong.
Last edited:
1robin
Christian/Baptist
No, he never said he agreed with the statement. IMO he posted it to demonstrate the lack of any rational justification for moral standards beyond what mere opinion can produce within atheism. It is a very simple, logical, and reasonable point demonstrated by quoting an expert in atheistic philosophy who at least has enough guts to be honest about his belief system.
Alceste
Vagabond
Yeah, like Hitler was honest about his actions being based on his faith in God. Maybe atheism isn't much of a basis for moral justification, but religious faith can justify anything.
Last edited:
McBell
Unbound
Yes, you have shown that you are in favour of your opinions over truth and facts.
So your inability/unwillingness to understand that the quote actually hurts his argument is by no means a surprise.
McBell
Unbound
care to give it a shot?
Oh, and can you actually substantiate your claims?
Merely making a bunch on bold un-substantiated claims about your opinions and what you think god does and does not want is not going to "demonstrate" it false.
It is most interesting how you think your claims are somehow exempt from this statement...
Much like your post, right?
Except, you in fact, DID, rebuttal it...
idea
Question Everything
by their fruits ye shall know them...
Page 2: Who Gives and Who Doesn't? - ABC News
"
Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money: four times as much. And Arthur Brooks told me that giving goes beyond their own religious organization:"Actually, the truth is that they're giving to more than their churches," he says. "The religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly non-religious charities."
it goes far beyond charitable natures...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Apparently it was just an amazing coincidence that every Communist of historical note publicly declared his atheism … .there have been twenty-eight countries in world history that can be confirmed to have been ruled by regimes with avowed atheists at the helm … These twenty-eight historical regimes have been ruled by eighty-nine atheists, of whom more than half have engaged in democidal162 acts of the sort committed by Stalin and Mao … The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of fifty-two atheists, three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century combined.
The historical record of collective atheism is thus 182,716 times worse on an annual basis than Christianity’s worst and most infamous misdeed, the Spanish Inquisition. It is not only Stalin and Mao who were so murderously inclined, they were merely the worst of the whole Hell-bound lot. For every Pol Pot whose infamous name is still spoken with horror today, there was a Mengistu, a Bierut, and a Choibalsan, godless men whose names are now forgotten everywhere but in the lands they once ruled with a red hand.
Is a 58 percent chance that an atheist leader will murder a noticeable percentage of the population over which he rules sufficient evidence that atheism does, in fact, provide a systematic influence to do bad things?" - vox day
Page 2: Who Gives and Who Doesn't? - ABC News
"
Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money: four times as much. And Arthur Brooks told me that giving goes beyond their own religious organization:"Actually, the truth is that they're giving to more than their churches," he says. "The religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly non-religious charities."
it goes far beyond charitable natures...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Apparently it was just an amazing coincidence that every Communist of historical note publicly declared his atheism … .there have been twenty-eight countries in world history that can be confirmed to have been ruled by regimes with avowed atheists at the helm … These twenty-eight historical regimes have been ruled by eighty-nine atheists, of whom more than half have engaged in democidal162 acts of the sort committed by Stalin and Mao … The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of fifty-two atheists, three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century combined.
The historical record of collective atheism is thus 182,716 times worse on an annual basis than Christianity’s worst and most infamous misdeed, the Spanish Inquisition. It is not only Stalin and Mao who were so murderously inclined, they were merely the worst of the whole Hell-bound lot. For every Pol Pot whose infamous name is still spoken with horror today, there was a Mengistu, a Bierut, and a Choibalsan, godless men whose names are now forgotten everywhere but in the lands they once ruled with a red hand.
Is a 58 percent chance that an atheist leader will murder a noticeable percentage of the population over which he rules sufficient evidence that atheism does, in fact, provide a systematic influence to do bad things?" - vox day
waitasec
Veteran Member
Last edited:
Someone may already have covered this (I didn't read all 200-something posts), but I'm of the belief that morality has evolved as a survival mechanism in humans. We like to attach divine significance on many aspects of our lives, it's a big ego boost. But, more realistically, one could think of morality as quite the superior GENETIC trait. It fits quite well with Darwin's ideas on evolution and natural selection. A society that is "morally good" will be more likely to survive and flourish than one that had no morals. The question is, what are 'good morals' to live by? The ability of the human mind to comprehend good and evil is an amazing ability, and is part of the reason we are able to continue to survive as a species.
I get the impression that such a claim would be hotly refuted by religious people, who love the idea that humans are not animals, and that we are in fact incredibly special, wonderful and highly significant. The fact that our species might get wiped out tomorrow by a passing asteroid is proof that we're not special in the grand scheme of things. On this planet, however, indeed we are. We are the most intelligent life-form, and have evolved to the point where we can actually affect the course of life on this planet. More relevantly, we have evolved to the point where we can comprehend the concepts of doing good or doing evil. I don't see why morality needs to be seen as anything more than a key stage of evolution.
I get the impression that such a claim would be hotly refuted by religious people, who love the idea that humans are not animals, and that we are in fact incredibly special, wonderful and highly significant. The fact that our species might get wiped out tomorrow by a passing asteroid is proof that we're not special in the grand scheme of things. On this planet, however, indeed we are. We are the most intelligent life-form, and have evolved to the point where we can actually affect the course of life on this planet. More relevantly, we have evolved to the point where we can comprehend the concepts of doing good or doing evil. I don't see why morality needs to be seen as anything more than a key stage of evolution.
idea
Question Everything
Vox Day - although it doesn't matter who put all the num's together, history is the source, you can look up all the individual articles on wiki and put it together for yourself:
Here is a table Vox used, you can start going through it line by line:
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.TAB16A.1.GIF
Karl Marx "Religion is the opium of the people"
Opium of the people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Vladimir Lenin "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way..." link
"In the first five years after the Bolshevik revolution, an English journalist estimated that 28 bishops and 1,215 priests were executed.[50][51] Recently released evidence indicates over 8,000 were killed in 1922 during the conflict over church valuables" - link
"Stalin was an atheist. Stalin followed the position adopted by Lenin that religion was an opiate that needed to be removed in order to construct the ideal communist society. His government promoted atheism through special atheistic education in schools, anti-religious propaganda, the antireligious work of public institutions (Society of the Godless), discriminatory laws, and a terror campaign against religious believers. By the late 1930s it had become dangerous to be publicly associated with religion...churches had been leveled, and tens of thousands of priests, monks and nuns were persecuted and killed. Over 100,000 were shot during the purges of 1937–1938..." link
[FONT=tahoma,arial,helvetica]
In Memory Of The 50 Million Victims Of The Orthodox Christian Holocaust - link
China...
[/FONT]China sends Bible owners to labor camp - link
China: Christians Tortured While Under Arrest - link
[FONT=tahoma,arial,helvetica]despite all the killings and persecution,[/FONT]China’s state-sponsored atheism a failure - link
North Korea...Korean Reds Targeting Christians, ...A woman in her 20s executed by a firing squad after being caught with a Bible. Five Christian church leaders punished by being run over by a steamroller before a crowd of spectators who "cried, screamed out, or fainted when the skulls made a popping sound as they were crushed." - link
etc. etc. etc.
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/korean-reds-targeting-christians/23082/
Last edited:
waitasec
Veteran Member
looks like you are whining about it, rather than rejoicing in these injustices...
matthew 5:11 Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
stop complaining and wear your badge proudly.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
Already done. Posted by me "Exactly what are you trying to prove by this statement? It has absolutely no explanatory power. That fact that someone can claim something has no bearing on whether it is true. To post it is meaningless sensationalism, intellectual dishonesty and deserves no rebuttal."
If a book says to not murder and someone says they are in accord with that book and proceeds to murder 50 million people. It is as obvious as anything could be that he is not in accord with the book. Whether the book is ultimately true has no bearing in this case. Is there anything so obvious and simple that it doesn't confuse a bible critic?
I never claimed to be able to demonstrate certain claims I made were in fact true. I have repeatedly said the opposite. To apparently no avail. That is why I discuss the implications of things being true primarily and not their actual truth. That is an obvious necessity to a discussion of God. However while some of my claims may not be demostratably true. Hitler's are demostratably false.
I said it didn't deserve rebuttal I didn't say I wouldn't do it. And your statement here contradicts your first request.Much like your post, right?
Except, you in fact, DID, rebuttal it...
1robin
Christian/Baptist
No whats funny is that they should give more and they actually do so you invent a whole new requirement based on nothing and use it as evidence. Is there no claim so desperate and invalid that it won't be used by a critic?
McBell
Unbound
And yet you have not demonstrated it was false.
Not that anyone is the least bit surprised at your chasing your own tail...
Seems you are confused.
Perhaps you should go back, read the conversation line again, and give it another shot?
So, when are you going to demonstrate that Hitler's claims are false?
Or is this yet another time when you merely start back peddling, hoping no one notices?
You are either confused or should be nominated for an academy award...
McBell
Unbound
Careful, your hypocrisy is showing again.