Smoking Gun, Oh Atheists?

[Jeremiahcp]

So

1. Though shall not steal.
2. Though shall not murder.
3. Though shall not commit adultery.
4. Though shall not covet thy neighbors' possessions.
5. Do not be greedy.
6. Do not be an idolater.
7. Do not be a drunkard.
8. Do not be a swindler.
9. Do not become sexually impure (this one alone would have prevented millions of STD deaths and saved billions).
10. Do not slander.

etc...... Are all bad and silly, so we should replace them with all that is left if God does not exist, moral relativism or might makes right? No wonder no society in the history of mankind has used social Darwinism as the foundation for law. The closest we came was Hitler's Germany.

Are you suggesting all those are necessarily dogmatic?

"No wonder no society in the history of mankind has used social Darwinism as the foundation for law."

The concept Social Darwinism (a misunderstanding of Darwin's theory; used mainly to support early American racism) arose long after the "foundation of our laws". Our laws are largely rooted in English Common Law (what the colonist brought over with them), which came from all over the place, but the bulk of it descents from Ancient Roman law which was influenced by the Greek culture. So the "foundation" goes much father back than Darwin.

I mean really your statement makes no sense, and I am not sure you know what social Darwinism is.

 

[1robin]

We've not had any nations that are driven by an atheist agenda or dogma.

Well, that is a tricky issue. Communist utopias similar to Stalin's USSR include among others an atheistic foundation. It's kind of complex, dictators want to remove all allegiance to anything but themselves or their group of elites. They absolutely have to eradicate faith in any transcendent authority. Only once you destroy the foundation for objective moral values and duties can you then make the relative. Relative to themselves. Without God that is the only place you can wind up, might makes right if God does not exist.

 

[1robin]

The nature of morality should not depend on or care if there is a god or not. Are people really so pathetic they need a book and a god to tell them to take care of each other? To not steal, kill, and cause undue harm? Is having ourselves and each other, to help provide for and to be provided for, to care for each other and be cared for, who honestly needs a religion to tell them these things?

What you are describing are merely actions. Your talking about moral epistemology, I was talking about moral ontology. With God morality is objectively true, without God there is merely 6 billion relative moral systems and since none of them can be compared to an objective ideal they are all equally valid. A race that has knows 300 years out of the last 5000 without major wars is morally insane and should not feel it's self a competent moral authority.

Yes, such as when I point out Genesis, as long as it's not interpreted in a literal 24-hour seven days, it does kind of go along with the theory of evolution in how we see the gradual appearance of different species. Many a Christian though do not like to hear this.

So when you say no Christian has ever presented you with the evidence for God's existence, what you actually mean is that they answered every question you may have to your satisfaction. That is not how things like this work. The only burden faith has is the absence of a defeater, however I raise my debating burden to an inference to the best conclusion. No Christian knows how to interpret every verse in the bible. In all subjects we take the evidence we have and determine what the best conclusion is for that evidence.

If you wish to start another threat with that as the topic.

That is the topic I have been discussing, and that is consistent with the OP. What you brought up is related but not the same topic.

It should be apparent that I am not a Christian.

Not from the two sentences in your post alone.

I've seen some try, but they don't present evidence, they present speculation and/or Biblical passages, which are self-contained and thus not evidence.

I do not know how to respond to generalized declarations concerning "others", but if you ask me a question and I will respond.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What an utter parcel of bitter gutted ignorant nonsense. You couldn't hit your butt with a hand full of sand. You truly have no idea of what you are trying to talk about. Go back to spray painting bathroom walls

"Bitter gutted ignorant nonsense"? You seem to be decompensating lately. Are you OK?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Bwaaaaha ha ha. ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzZZ

Is there anything I can do to help here? I have experience working with people having so-called nervous breakdowns. Running in circles with your hair on fire is not the image you want to project when arguing on behalf of your faith. Relax.

Doesn't your Bible promise a peace that passeth all understanding?

Philippians 4:7 KJV - "And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus."

Was that a false promise? Where is your share?

Raging at unbelievers belies that promise. Those upon whom you vent don't seem to be experiencing the same dysphoric emotional lability as you are.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Your standards are deeply flawed, if you refuse to use the established standard for 2,000 years, then you are just another person looking to the actions of other people to validate your prejudices. I have no remit to try and defend every person that you quote or throw up in your jihad. My remit is to defend Christianity as it was established. Find someone else for your political concerns, and your opinion driven, hack jobs, I am just not interested

Jihad? LOL.

Political? Nope. I'm not a political animal.

And what else have you offered but opinions? I've offered evidence.

Your values, agenda, and methods for evaluating reality and truth are not mine. You're here to defend faith, and apparently, you've reached your wall. You appear beleaguered now. I suggest that you consider a break from this activity. There is no need for emotional responses. You're attacking others left and right now.

If this stuff makes you angry, you should examine yourself to discover why. It isn't making me angry.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I agree, Jeremiah!

But the OP doesn't involve the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the rape act, rather, it's morality and it's absolute nature.

Is rape inherently wrong or subjectively wrong?

PS. "Wisdom" is knowledge applied, it is immaterial. I thought atheists don't believe in immaterial things like wisdom (the absolute rightness of an action)?!

You thought that atheists don't "believe in" wisdom? Where on earth could that possibly have come from? You don't know us at all, but still take the liberty to judge and demean us.

Wisdom is not knowledge applied. Many fools apply knowledge.

"Is rape inherently wrong or subjectively wrong?" What is the meaning of a question the answer to which indicates nothing and changes nothing? Rape is wrong. Nuff said.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Own what you believe. Do you believe in evolution? IT MADE RAPE, didn't it?

Own what you believe. Do you believe in an omniscient, omnipotent god? It made rape, didn't it?

Please don't tell me that you're going to invoke a double standard here and blame a blind process but not a god.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Only if God exists do objective moral values and duties exist. Without God all you have left is preference to base subjective ethics on. The is no actual right to do or evil to avoid if God does not exist.

If it is true, everything.



Please explain to me how any act is actually right or actually evil without appealing to a transcendent objective standard. No nation has ever based it's laws on the reaction of a third party. If any had it would be opium for everyone.

Only if God exists does the following exist: Malum in se (plural mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct.

Without God the best you can hope for is the following: Malum prohibitum (plural mala prohibita, literal translation: "wrong [as or because] prohibited") is a Latin phrase used in law to refer to conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute.
Malum prohibitum - Wikipedia

Without God all you have is might makes right.

I can't recall a single atheistic humanist saying that might makes right. That's more consistent with Christian philosophy - divine command theory. It's right because a god that cannot be questioned or challenged says it is.

What you are repeating here are the Christian talking points recited from one Christian to another about what atheists are and believe, which is almost always incorrect.

And illegal and immoral are only tangentially related. Without god, or more properly, without a large scale god belief, we can hope for a more rational and compassionate society. The data confirm it. Have you seen any of it?

 

[1robin]

I can't recall a single atheistic humanist saying that might makes right. That's more consistent with Christian philosophy - divine command theory. It's right because a god that cannot be questioned or challenged says it is.

I didn't say anything about what people call anything. I said that might makes right is all you have left if God does not exist.

There is no moral foundations in atheism, it has no moral doctrines. However Christianity does have moral doctrines and foundations, which are all based on God's sovereign and eternal nature. Murder will always be wrong because God's nature never changes. The ethics of atheism changes relative to whoever is in power at the moment.

What you are repeating here are the Christian talking points recited from one Christian to another about what atheists are and believe, which is almost always incorrect.

I made no epistemological claim, my claims were ontological, and both my definitions were secular.

And illegal and immoral are only tangentially related. Without god, or more properly, without a large scale god belief, we can hope for a more rational and compassionate society. The data confirm it. Have you seen any of it?

See my two definitions again. You can have legality at the point of a gun without God, but you can't have any actual objective moral foundations to base laws upon unless he exists. There are no moral fixed points on atheism.

 

[Ben Avraham]

Smoking Gun Or Atheists?

What's the difference?

 

[ChristineM]

I didn't say anything about what people call anything. I said that might makes right is all you have left if God does not exist.

There is no moral foundations in atheism, it has no moral doctrines. However Christianity does have moral doctrines and foundations, which are all based on God's sovereign and eternal nature. Murder will always be wrong because God's nature never changes. The ethics of atheism changes relative to whoever is in power at the moment.

I made no epistemological claim, my claims were ontological, and both my definitions were secular.

See my two definitions again. You can have legality at the point of a gun without God, but you can't have any actual objective moral foundations to base laws upon unless he exists. There are no moral fixed points on atheism.

Morality is a human trait, despite what you would wish, atheists are human.

Human morality is the seed of civilization, without civilization there would be no religion. Religion (immorally) stole the concept of morality and used it to ostracise those who did not steal.

If i needed a religion to know what is morally right or wrong i would gladly have myself sectioned for public safety.

 

[Revoltingest]

On the other hand, as the victim of child sexual and physical abuse -- almost to the death -- I tend to disagree with that last bit. It took a while, but I've wound up essentially pretty healthy, emotionally. And enjoying it!

Good for you!

 

[shmogie]

I'm not angry, just

Jihad? LOL.

Political? Nope. I'm not a political animal.

And what else have you offered but opinions? I've offered evidence.

Your values, agenda, and methods for evaluating reality and truth are not mine. You're here to defend faith, and apparently, you've reached your wall. You appear beleaguered now. I suggest that you consider a break from this activity. There is no need for emotional responses. You're attacking others left and right now.

If this stuff makes you angry, you should examine yourself to discover why. It isn't making me angry.

a waste of time to engage someone who chooses "his own standards", sorry friend, you reached a wall, me. LOL I am neither beleaguered nor emotional, nor attacking anyone. Are those the best you can do, when you really want to let loose ? No matter, the rule is "don't cast pearls before swine". A person who chooses to judge a comprehensive set of beliefs and principles, based upon cherry picked examples of people WHO SAY, they follow the standard, but obviously do not, makes one, as in the parable, a metaphorical pig. Pigs cannot grasp nor want to grasp, what is patently obvious. They choose their mud to root in, there is nothing for me in conversing with a pig blinded by the mud he chooses, finito.

 

[Revoltingest]

I expect most people who would express that they hold such a view, probably haven't survived any woes nearly as awful as they'd like to affect.

For those keen on victimhood, it's the ultimate street cred...
They get to carp about a fate worse than death, without
enduring death or comeuppance objections from the dead.

 

[shmogie]

lly

Morality is a human trait, despite what you would wish, atheists are human.

Human morality is the seed of civilization, without civilization there would be no religion. Religion (immorally) stole the concept of morality and used it to ostracise those who did not steal.

If i needed a religion to know what is morally right or wrong i would gladly have myself sectioned for public safety.

Do you really KNOW what is morally right or wrong ? A generation ago there were people who KNEW it was morally right to eat another human. Today we have people who KNOW it is morally right to have slaves, and to compel women to be totally uneducated. So, is morality a relative concept, or absolute ? What you are really saying is that you give yourself permission to know what is right and wrong, and select options in the framework of your self determined moral reality. If you haven't, I suggest you read " Lord of the Flies": Humanist morality is based upon doing the least to mask human wilfullness, greed, decadence, and animal behavior. When the conditions are right, this sliding scale of morality ceases to exist, and humans become savages.

 

[shmogie]

I again refer you to what atheism actually is:

- an absence of a belief in theism

For something to be "intertwined" as you've invested the time in explaining, you don't seem to have much of an understanding of it.

Hitler and Stalin had moustaches; was the moustache to blame?

Your reasoning is faulty. I am not trying to "blame" anyone for anything. I am simply stating that atheism was the ideal of the founders of communism for the reasons I have laid out. I have met very moral upstanding atheists, and immoral alleged Christians. To choose to believe in God, or not, is the free right of anyone.

 

[ChristineM]

lly

Do you really KNOW what is morally right or wrong ? A generation ago there were people who KNEW it was morally right to eat another human. Today we have people who KNOW it is morally right to have slaves, and to compel women to be totally uneducated. So, is morality a relative concept, or absolute ? What you are really saying is that you give yourself permission to know what is right and wrong, and select options in the framework of your self determined moral reality. If you haven't, I suggest you read " Lord of the Flies": Humanist morality is based upon doing the least to mask human wilfullness, greed, decadence, and animal behavior. When the conditions are right, this sliding scale of morality ceases to exist, and humans become savages.

So Christians used to eat people? Or are you sewing straw men?

Still morality gave rise to civilization and morality holds it together despite your slurs.

The babble teaches sex slavery, subrogation, child abuse, land theft etc are all godly and moral. You want to play silly word games then go for it.

What a load of sanctimonious ignorance you spout about humanity.

 

[shmogie]

So Christians used to eat people? Or are you sewing straw men?

Still morality gave rise to civilization and morality holds it together despite your slurs.

The babble teaches sex slavery, subrogation, child abuse, land theft etc are all godly and moral. You want to play silly word games then go for it.

What a load of sanctimonious ignorance you spout about humanity.

Slurs, what slurs ? Honeypie, I have seen more of humanity at it's best and it's worst than you ever will. In my almost 70 years I have stood in a Police line to face the very savages I spoke of. I saw unspeakable horrors perpetrated on children, baby's. I have seen people cut into pieces, and tried to deal with a woman gang raped by at least twelve men. I climbed on a roof to save someone from jumping, a month later they shot themselves. You may think civilization is moral, but I spent decades seeing how sick society really is. Your vaunted civilization is just a thin veneer, with the beasts just under it. Don't bother me anymore, you can't understand what is written, and you substitute your own thoughts for what is written. Adieu

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I do not shy away from the horrific things done in the name of Christianity, but I do challenge you to show me what part of the bible grounded those horrific actions. A teaching is judged by those who practice it, not by those that defy it.

We outsiders judge Christianity by its actions, not scripture.