Just Addressing Yet Another Absurd, Dishonest Atheistic Argument

[Thumper]

Will you stop reading if I assume "wrong and right" instead? Because you have no objective standard underlying these concepts as an atheist.

My standard of right and wrong is based on ethics, yours is based on authority of a book that includes slavery, female subservience, killing witches, etc. You should consider Euthyphro's dilemma.

You want to claim an "objective standard" which is unavailable to non-theists -- Can you name one ( 1 ) moral precept that can be shown to originate from religion, any religion? Just 1 foundational moral principle which would not exist without religion?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

When one puts the label of Atheism on one, affirms to it, and goes further to defend it that means one is has the positive evidence of one's "no-god" position non/position.
Regards

Atheism needs no defense, and no evidence that there is no god is required to be an atheist.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I don't care what you believe. You can nail a chicken to your bedpost and dance around it naked for all I care.

LOL. Have you seen this? :

"It's fine with me if you want to dip a chicken talon in goat's blood, hammer it to a post, and dance around it all night in the nude while howling at the full moon and shaking a stick affixed with jingly bells if that's what centers you, gives your life meaning, moral grounding, and a framework for understanding the universe. Just don't insist that I comply with what you think the scary chicken on the jingly stick commands me to do."

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I see the dictionary. Caring for an enemy (rescuing them from drowning) is not loving an enemy (giving them your place on the life raft).

You have some pretty strange ideas.

Speaking of saving the drowning, I've got an ethical problem I'd like you to consider. Admittedly, it's a little dated now. This test, which features a fictional situation, is one in which you will have to make a difficult decision. It only has one question, but a difficult one. Your answer should be spontaneous - given within a few seconds of reading the question. By giving your most honest answer, you will discover where you stand on the moral spectrum.

Ready? Begin!

You're in New Orleans in 2005, and there is chaos everywhere around you caused by hurricane Katrina and the resultant flooding of major proportions. You are a photojournalist working for a major newspaper, caught in the middle of this great disaster. The situation is overwhelming, and you're trying to shoot career-making photos, as houses and people swirl in the great vortex around you, some disappearing under the water.

Then you see a man in the water fighting for his life, trying not to be swept away with the debris by the raging current. You move closer. Somehow the man looks familiar. Suddenly, you know who it is ... it's George W. Bush! At the same time you notice that the swirling waters are about to take him under, forever

You have two options. You can save him, or you can take the most dramatic photos of your career. You can save George W. Bush's life, or you can shoot a sure Pulitzer Prize winning photo of him dying.

Here's the dilemma: Color, or would you rather go with the classic simplicity and aesthetic value of black and white?

 

[Thumper]

LOL. Have you seen this? :

"It's fine with me if you want to dip a chicken talon in goat's blood, hammer it to a post, and dance around it all night in the nude while howling at the full moon and shaking a stick affixed with jingly bells if that's what centers you, gives your life meaning, moral grounding, and a framework for understanding the universe. Just don't insist that I comply with what you think the scary chicken on the jingly stick commands me to do."

No that's funny there. I don't care who you are, that's funny.

The scary part is that's is also so very, very true.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Will you stop reading if I assume "wrong and right" instead? Because you have no objective standard underlying these concepts as an atheist.

I probably won't stop reading no matter what you do.

No objective moral standards are possible or needed.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I'm not bigoted regarding atheists and persecutors, but rather, I'm a realist.

The gospel is offensive. Do you want me to offend you out of a fiery furnace or wish you well inside?

No, you're a bigot. You have demeaned all atheists. I think that we already reviewed its scriptural roots.

What you call well wishes are not well wishes. It's just preaching faith based ideas without foundation that are of no value to me and can do nothing to improve my life, and calling it well wishing.

You've never wished me well. Nor I you once I knew what you think about atheists. Like I have said repeatedly, the best you can hope for from a person like me who you have written about in such a demeaning manner is that I remain indifferent to you.

You really should abandon this avenue. We judge your motive for ourselves based upon what you reveal in your posting, not what you claim about yourself.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Really--you are defaming the Bible, saying it's hate speech--Jesus says "I love you" and dies on the cross, so calling that hate speech shows you don't understand what hate speech is.

But at this point, I see you have wrong and right switched around in general.

I make those judgments for myself. I don't take advice on right and wrong from those that defend a god that tortures gratuitously.

I notice that you haven't bothered to try to defend your Bible from the claim that it contains atheophobic hate speech. Good choice.

 

[viole]

The gospel is offensive.

True.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Curious George]

I see the dictionary. Caring for an enemy (rescuing them from drowning) is not loving an enemy (giving them your place on the life raft).

You are aware that you would be rescuing them from drowning if you gave them your place on the life raft.

But if your wondering about self-sacrifice, sure. I would do that for my enemies as well.

 

[paarsurrey]

I don't care what you believe. You can nail a chicken to your bedpost and dance around it naked for all I care.

I don't demand evidence for your god or anybody else's, unless you want me to believe that your god is more than made up bull.

One's thoughts as expressed in the above post do not resonate well with "Humanism". Do they?
Any or many Humanists to please express their polite views, please.
Regards

 

[BilliardsBall]

I don't care what you believe. You can nail a chicken to your bedpost and dance around it naked for all I care.

I don't demand evidence for your god or anybody else's, unless you want me to believe that your god is more than made up bull.

At the risk of you accusing me of ad populum, since most people--ancient and modern--find God self-evident, and One God at that, how did you come to choose "made up bull"? Why the aberrant opinion, I'm asking?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I'm not calling you dishonest; I'm saying that I suspect you're being dishonest.

I'm also open to the possibility that your story is sincere, but skewed. Or maybe it really did happen the way you described, despite the red flags that suggest otherwise.

What would be my motive for lying about taking abuse for being a Christian? You seem overly suspicious, at least, I suspect you in this.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Totalitarians of any belief are awful. And the Bible says that all of them are in power because they've been appointed by God.

If the Bible implies that God created atheism, this would be ridiculous... but it would be more of a problem for Bible-believers than for atheists. The atheists aren't the ones who have to accept the ridiculous implication.

Of course, all authorities derive from God. He could have toppled Hitler or hit you or me with a lightning bolt. I hope you're not going to be atheist number umpteen, however, who uses "suffering" as a reason to reject God. Life sucks? News flash, the Earth revolves around the Sun, not you or I, and God is enthroned.

 

[BilliardsBall]

My standard of right and wrong is based on ethics, yours is based on authority of a book that includes slavery, female subservience, killing witches, etc. You should consider Euthyphro's dilemma.

You want to claim an "objective standard" which is unavailable to non-theists -- Can you name one ( 1 ) moral precept that can be shown to originate from religion, any religion? Just 1 foundational moral principle which would not exist without religion?

The answer to the dilemma is that the pious and ethical and moral derives from God's nature, not God's love for the pious. We learn love from a Heavenly Father just as earthly fathers make impressions on us.

I didn't claim my objective standard is unavailable to non-theists. On the contrary, the many universals we hold is more evidence of a Creator. I'm absolutely sure. (Ha-ha.)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Of course, all authorities derive from God. He could have toppled Hitler or hit you or me with a lightning bolt.

So God is responsible for Hitler: God put Hitler in power and chose not to remove him, despite being able.

I hope you're not going to be atheist number umpteen, however, who uses "suffering" as a reason to reject God.

Of course not. The conflict between the Christian notion of a loving god and the purported actions of this god are just one in a long, long list of reasons not to accept the existence of your god or the truth of your religion.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I probably won't stop reading no matter what you do.

No objective moral standards are possible or needed.

You are correct in living your life! You can be a juror in a rape case and convict a rapist because you "currently feel" rape is wrong.

Rape IS wrong (the IS represents an absolute). So go ahead, and please tell all of us reading these posts why rape isn't always, objectively, wrong.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No, you're a bigot. You have demeaned all atheists. I think that we already reviewed its scriptural roots.

What you call well wishes are not well wishes. It's just preaching faith based ideas without foundation that are of no value to me and can do nothing to improve my life, and calling it well wishing.

You've never wished me well. Nor I you once I knew what you think about atheists. Like I have said repeatedly, the best you can hope for from a person like me who you have written about in such a demeaning manner is that I remain indifferent to you.

You really should abandon this avenue. We judge your motive for ourselves based upon what you reveal in your posting, not what you claim about yourself.

But you are adding the subtext of forum postings not showing nonverbals and my heart. I'm a sweetheart in person.

I'm not bigoted so much as I know how full of baloney certain atheists are . . . on forums.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I make those judgments for myself. I don't take advice on right and wrong from those that defend a god that tortures gratuitously.

I notice that you haven't bothered to try to defend your Bible from the claim that it contains atheophobic hate speech. Good choice.

Where in the Bible does it say Hell is eternal torture rather than eternal separation or eternal punishment? You have medieval ideas.

Why would I defend the Bible based on perjorative speech warning atheists (scant enough in the Bible, since there were fewer atheists in those days, people being smarter overall)? I would rather defend the Bible by saying it 100% predicts how atheists on this forum, think, behave, live . . . with each successive post you demonstrate the issues with atheism and that the Bible is true.

 

[BilliardsBall]

True.

Ciao

- viole

It is offfensive to hear we're not as good as we claim to be. It is offensive to hear we need a Savior. I get it.