Smoking Gun, Oh Atheists?

[Jeremiahcp]

A fine debate technique...

I liked it. Although I would have spaced the Z's in groups of three.

 

[shmogie]

A fine debate technique...

When there is no further debate, it's perfect

 

[1robin]

We outsiders judge Christianity by its actions, not scripture.

Then you are wasting your time, your going about things exactly backwards. You judge a teaching by those who obey it, not by those that defy it. However to do so you must know what the teachings are, but what you describe is to do things the other way around. Christianity is the only group I know where the entrance examine is admitting you have failed to measure up to it. And even though your standards are ridiculous, I would bet they are also inconsistent, because Christianity contains more morally exceptional actions in it's history that any similar group I can think of. For example the most generous demographic on earth is Christian conservatives. So you should already be a Christian using your own ridiculous methodology, or your not because you merely cherry pick the misdeeds in Christian history to examine the faith by.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Then you are wasting your time, your going about things exactly backwards. You judge a teaching by those who obey it, not by those that defy it.

I'm not judging a teaching. I'm judging a religion and its church. I'm judging how it manifests in daily life, not how good it's scriptures are. If most Christians disobey a teaching, what interest is it that the book contains ignored ideas?

Shmogie does this same thing : "Don't look out there at what we do, look in this book and see what it says we should do"

However to do so you must know what the teachings are, but what you describe is to do things the other way around. Christianity is the only group I know where the entrance examine is admitting you have failed to measure up to it. And even though your standards are ridiculous, I would bet they are also inconsistent, because Christianity contains more morally exceptional actions in it's history that any similar group I can think of.

A lot of big empty claims there.

Are you getting angry? It seems to be getting personal for you now.

For example the most generous demographic on is Christian conservatives. So you should already be a Christian using your own ridiculous methodology, or your not because you merely cherry pick the misdeeds in Christian history to examine the faith by.

Maybe you should re-examine what a rational skeptic is. Your unsupported claims are simply ignored. We don't believe things without a reason.

Do you agree with the following?

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens

And I'm very familiar with the generosity of Christian conservatives:

"You were hungry and thirsty, so I eliminated funding for Meals on Wheels and food banks. You were a stranger, so I vilified you and demanded that you be deported. You were naked, so I called you an evil liberal who hates conservative family values. You were sick, so I repealed your only hope for health care. You were in prison, so I tortured you." - Matthew 25: 42-43 in The Conservative Bible"

 

[shmogie]

Then you are wasting your time, your going about things exactly backwards. You judge a teaching by those who obey it, not by those that defy it. However to do so you must know what the teachings are, but what you describe is to do things the other way around. Christianity is the only group I know where the entrance examine is admitting you have failed to measure up to it. And even though your standards are ridiculous, I would bet they are also inconsistent, because Christianity contains more morally exceptional actions in it's history that any similar group I can think of. For example the most generous demographic on is Christian conservatives. So you should already be a Christian using your own ridiculous methodology, or your not because you merely cherry pick the misdeeds in Christian history to examine the faith by.

Excellent !

 

[1robin]

Yet I am an atheist, and that is not my value.

I do not think you are getting what I am saying. I do not care if every atheist who ever lived had a different term for it. The morality left in God's absence would be described as might makes right, regardless of any name you gave it. Let's say there were only ten of us that settled on another planet but had to live in the same place and for some reason had to make up our minds as to what laws we would have. How does that not end in might making right eventually?

Correct. I am an atheist. My moral foundation is elucidated int eh Affirmations of Humanism.

Ok which humanistic text and by which author are you claiming serves as the ultimate moral authority?

Belief in a god is not a foundation for anything. It may be your premise for all other beliefs, but it is founded on nothing more than a claim and the will to believe.

God is the ultimate foundation for every molecule and idea in the universe.

'Why is there something rather than nothing?
Leibniz's Argument from Sufficient Reason

Scholars have written entire libraries full of attempts to answer that question without God.

Murder is wrong to secular humanists. No god needed.

Nope, Murder is merely not preferred by some humanists. BTW in this context labeling whatever it is if it lacks God is just a waste of time. Without God no world view includes objective moral values and duties. There are no objective moral evils that exist without God. All you have left if relative ethics or social fashion.

Prove that Murder of anyone by anyone is actually wrong without appeal to the transcendent. Nature can only tell us what is, it can't ever tell us what should or should not be.

And the ethics of Christianity evolve over time.

No the ethics of some Christians may evolve over time, but the moral values and duties of Christianity have been exactly the same since from prior to this universe. They are not even dependent on time at all.

There is no ethics of atheism.

Yes there are, or at least some atheists believe there are. Ethics merely implies social fashion (legality, or might makes right), objective morality implies moral values and duties which are true independent of anyone's belief. That is why God's existence is what is relevant here, and not our belief in God. I'm am talking about moral ontology and you keep bringing up epistemology.

If you can't understand what we are and say, you needn't bother lecturing us what we are and must necessarily believe. If you do anyway, you should consider how you are perceived by those who recognize that you don't understand them.

Again, what you or I believe is not the relevant issue. How God's existence impacts the ontology of morality is the issue.

 

[1robin]

There are no morals involved in atheism just as there are no morals of theism. Specific types of theism might offer moral values, but the category "theism" does not. It implied nothing but a god belief, and no other belief including moral values.

The atheist's morals come from elsewhere - not atheism per se. I'm a secular humanist, which encompasses a set of moral values that I find consistent with rational ethics and which are consistent with my values.

That's much more than mere atheism..

You starting to trip me out. You think your countering me by making the exact points I have been making this whole time, but doing so in other words.

1. If God exists objective moral values and duties exist.
2. If God does not exist then objective moral truth can't possibly exist. Morality becomes untethered from its proper and fixed point and on atheism floats around freely to be plugged into anything you want. Without God all you have left is moral preferences, and since all subjective moral preferences are equally valid without an objective standard, to enforce a moral preference on others would require might. If you start without God you will wind up in the same actual place every time. Name me any nation of earth that does not use force to enact their ethical preferences.

 

[1robin]

I'm not judging a teaching. I'm judging a religion and its church. I'm judging how it manifests in daily life, not how good it's scriptures are. If most Christians disobey a teaching, what interest is it that the book contains ignored ideas?

I am required to defend my faith if challenged, I am not required to defend the failures to apply that faith. You really haven't read the bible that much have you. Along with every command, there is a verse about the fact that we will all fail to obey that command from time to time.

1. We are commanded to be perfect then we are told that if any man claims he is without sin he is a liar.
2. We are told what commands to obey, and then we are told that no one measures up to God's standard.
3. That is what makes a savior so necessary.
4. We have all failed and will always fall short. We have nothing to give God to make up for the misery our moral failures cause over time (even after we are dead). The bible says we are DEAD in trespasses and sins.
5. Christ did not fail, he does meet God's standard. Yet he willingly took the punishment that each of us actually deserve, and if we believe and are born again his righteousness to credited to our selves.

In those 5 brief statements Christianity has redressed every argument you have made so far. I don't think you know about the thing your rejecting.

Shmogie does this same thing : "Don't look out there at what we do, look in this book and see what it says we should do"

Is that an Ewok's name or something. You can look at us all you want but it won't help you a bit. You will find a bunch of people trying to be good, and a larger percentage of them actually succeeding than any similar group I know of, and you will occasionally find monsters. However none of that is what you need. You need to find God, not a group of faulty humans trying to do the best they can.

A lot of big empty claims there.

That is not an argument.

Are you getting angry? It seems to be getting personal for you now.

I went back and re-read it. It seems to be accurate and at least civil. Saying a methodology is ridiculous is not sarcastic, what do you refer to?

Maybe you should re-examine what a rational skeptic is. Your unsupported claims are simply ignored. We don't believe things without a reason.

Which claim do you want the evidence and reasoning for?

Do you agree with the following?

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens

I think so, but so far there has not been demonstrated any lack of evidence on my part. I can always back up my claim with scripture, reason, evidence, testimony, history, or science, etc.... However I do not always feel it justified. Only if I see that the person I am speaking with will follow reason and evidence do I provide it.

And I'm very familiar with the generosity of Christian conservatives:

Then you should have known:

And what did they find?

First, religion apparently matters. The nonreligious were far less likely to report giving ''a lot'' to groups aiding the poor than all the religious groups except low-attendance Catholics. Control for demographic factors, and the nonreligious are at the bottom of the giving hierarchy.

The degree of religiosity apparently matters, too. The more intensely religious the respondents, the more generous they were apt to be, regardless of their religious affiliation.
Beliefs; On generosity to the poor: three sociologists find some surprising results in a religious survey.

"You were hungry and thirsty, so I eliminated funding for Meals on Wheels and food banks. You were a stranger, so I vilified you and demanded that you be deported. You were naked, so I called you an evil liberal who hates conservative family values. You were sick, so I repealed your only hope for health care. You were in prison, so I tortured you." - Matthew 25: 42-43 in The Conservative Bible"

That was your last shot. The next absurdity you bring to the debate I am done with this discussion. This is what the only relevant book actually says:

40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of these my brethren, [even] these least, ye did it unto me.
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 for I was hungry, and ye did not give me to eat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink; 43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in; naked, and ye clothed me not; sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44 Then shall they also answer, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungry, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not unto one of these least, ye did it not unto me.
Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 25:30-45 - New International Version

You made up your own Christianity, I guess I shouldn't be surprised you substituted something else for it's texts.

BTW there is a group that is more generous than conservative Christians. Leftists, with other people's money, probably tops every other group.

 

[viole]

Like I said, a meaningful sense. Since you exempt yourself from the light of God, and since you don't believe He even exists, a person I commune with, your queries lack any objective (or often, sensible) meaning.

On the other hand, I used to believe in evolution and that things like morals were subjective, so my shoe (however dim my memory is of the living atrocity of being a skeptic who hates God) is helpful to our conversation.

Of course, to answer this (typical insane) question:

"So, is stoning people to death for not holding the Sabbath, something that is inherently right, if inherent right things existed?"

We must first decide if inherently right things exist. I say my statement, "rape is wrong," is inherently, objectively correct. Do you agree? Because we only need to find one point of agreement here to see if such a thing might exist in the case of the "Stoner Shabbat".

*We only need to agree that not raping is always right to move on.

*We need to find only one person in all of human history who has had contact with the immaterial or spiritual to destroy materialism and empircism as (false) doctrines.

*We need only to look to math and logic and justice and jurisprudence and love to agree we both believe in immaterial things.

Here's why you and your atheist colleagues are stuck fast:

To admit three small words, "rape is wrong", is to admit something is inherently, objectively true. Thus the door to the immaterial, absolute and divine is opened.

(Waits for Viole to tell me math and logic are material things. Holds breath.)

It could be an insane question, but you seem to be unable to answer it.

So, forget who I am, and the fact that I am not a moral realist. Suppose I am a child wanting to learn from a believer in objective morality. Like a child wanting to learn some objective and universal mathematical truths.

Is it, or is it not, objectively right to stone, or more generally execute, people who work on a Sabbath?
Or is it only objectively right sometimes? You know, like 2+2=4 being valid only under certain circumstances.

Simple yes/no/maybe.

What do you think?

Ciao

- viole

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The morality left in God's absence would be described as might makes right, regardless of any name you gave it.

Nope. Our method is called rational ethics.

Let's say there were only ten of us that settled on another planet but had to live in the same place and for some reason had to make up our minds as to what laws we would have. How does that not end in might making right eventually?

Irrelevant even if true. You're going to need to make specific arguments. Innuendo will not suffice.

Ok which humanistic text and by which author are you claiming serves as the ultimate moral authority?

Straw man. I made no such claim.

God is the ultimate foundation for every molecule and idea in the universe.

Not if this god doesn't exist.

'Why is there something rather than nothing?
Leibniz's Argument from Sufficient Reason

Scholars have written entire libraries full of attempts to answer that question without God.

Injecting a god explains nothing.

Prove that Murder of anyone by anyone is actually wrong without appeal to the transcendent. Nature can only tell us what is, it can't ever tell us what should or should not be.

A pointless discussion.Your cooperation would be required, and it will not be forthcoming.

No the ethics of some Christians may evolve over time, but the moral values and duties of Christianity have been exactly the same since from prior to this universe. They are not even dependent on time at all.

Disagree. I hope that you do'nt mind if I respond to unsupported claims as if they are irrelevant, and not rebut them.What can be offered without support can be dismossed without a counterargument.

Again, what you or I believe is not the relevant issue. How God's existence impacts the ontology of morality is the issue.

Which god? Have you established the existence of one?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I am required to defend my faith if challenged, I am not required to defend the failures to apply that faith. You really haven't read the bible that much have you. Along with every command, there is a verse about the fact that we will all fail to obey that command from time to time.

1. We are commanded to be perfect then we are told that if any man claims he is without sin he is a liar.
2. We are told what commands to obey, and then we are told that no one measures up to God's standard.
3. That is what makes a savior so necessary.
4. We have all failed and will always fall short. We have nothing to give God to make up for the misery our moral failures cause over time (even after we are dead). The bible says we are DEAD in trespasses and sins.
5. Christ did not fail, he does meet God's standard. Yet he willingly took the punishment that each of us actually deserve, and if we believe and are born again his righteousness to credited to our selves.

In those 5 brief statements Christianity has redressed every argument you have made so far. I don't think you know about the thing your rejecting.

Is that an Ewok's name or something. You can look at us all you want but it won't help you a bit. You will find a bunch of people trying to be good, and a larger percentage of them actually succeeding than any similar group I know of, and you will occasionally find monsters. However none of that is what you need. You need to find God, not a group of faulty humans trying to do the best they can.



That is not an argument.

I went back and re-read it. It seems to be accurate and at least civil. Saying a methodology is ridiculous is not sarcastic, what do you refer to?

Which claim do you want the evidence and reasoning for?

I think so, but so far there has not been demonstrated any lack of evidence on my part. I can always back up my claim with scripture, reason, evidence, testimony, history, or science, etc.... However I do not always feel it justified. Only if I see that the person I am speaking with will follow reason and evidence do I provide it.

Then you should have known:

And what did they find?

First, religion apparently matters. The nonreligious were far less likely to report giving ''a lot'' to groups aiding the poor than all the religious groups except low-attendance Catholics. Control for demographic factors, and the nonreligious are at the bottom of the giving hierarchy.

The degree of religiosity apparently matters, too. The more intensely religious the respondents, the more generous they were apt to be, regardless of their religious affiliation.
Beliefs; On generosity to the poor: three sociologists find some surprising results in a religious survey.

That was your last shot. The next absurdity you bring to the debate I am done with this discussion. This is what the only relevant book actually says:

40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of these my brethren, [even] these least, ye did it unto me.
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 for I was hungry, and ye did not give me to eat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink; 43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in; naked, and ye clothed me not; sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44 Then shall they also answer, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungry, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not unto one of these least, ye did it not unto me.
Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 25:30-45 - New International Version

You made up your own Christianity, I guess I shouldn't be surprised you substituted something else for it's texts.

BTW there is a group that is more generous than conservative Christians. Leftists, with other people's money, probably tops every other group.

No comment. Your argument began with unshared premises.

You probably know why I stoppeed reading thereafter.

 

[1robin]

Excellent !

Thanks for the sentiments.

 

[BilliardsBall]

So you are defining my opinion? What gives you that right? Honey you can take what the hell you want, it does not make it my opinion.

As for your straw man, i take it that you have never been raped? See where dictating another's mindset takes you?

My spouse was raped. I don't take the subject lightly, and I should have added disclaimers to my OP. I apologize.

 

[BilliardsBall]

There are of course no absolute morals. It is all subjective. Different morals and ethics for different societies. Rape is no different. Who is to say it is wrong to force a woman to have sex with you? It may be allowed in some societies. Or on some other planets with intelligent life. Make primates rape female primates all the time. It is a right of the alpha make in the pack. We are primates too. Maybe our rules prohibiting rape are wrong. Maybe God created women to be used as toys for men? Who knows? Our rules are simply man made opinions.

The most common female fantasy is rape. Why? Maybe it's hardwired in their brains from primeval times. Perhaps it was once considered a harmless sport. Or mating ritual.

There are no moral absolutes. Why did Lot in the Bible offer up his two teen daughters to gang rape? Just to, what? Save a couple Angels? LOL. The angels couldn't defend themselves? As God's emissary? Absurd story, btw. Obviously rape was no biggie to Lot.

Perhaps it's no biggie in other places.

The statement you made, "There are no moral absolutes," is in itself, an absolute statement. You have made an absolute statement regarding morals. Are you absolutely sure you stand behind your statement?

If there are indeed no moral absolutes, on what grounds would you convict a rapist while serving on a jury?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Where did you get that? Of course righteous is a "thing."

Righteous - "morally right or justifiable; virtuous."

You have an exceedingly low opinion of atheists. Do you consider that attitude righteous? If so, on what basis? Scripture?

I apologize if I've framed this argument inappropriately, but most of the atheists I've spoken with online and off, have made statements such as:

1. There is no right or wrong, truly--it's only a subjective, shifting, societal opinion.

2. There are ethics but no morals.

3. I repudiate the concepts of sin and holiness (perhaps I should have used holiness and not righteousness but they tend to be interchangeable terms for me).

Based on the statements above, and the dictionary definition you cited, including morals and virtues . . . you can understand what I was thinking.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I'm having a hard time understanding the focus on rape in this thread. Why is it getting more airtime than murder, or theft, or destruction of property, or slavery, or any of a multitude of other abuses of man against man?

The humanist understands that he has the same rights -- and no more! -- that he is willing to allow everyone else. The humanist understands that he has the same obligations -- and no more! -- that she is willing to demand of everyone else.

Now, if you see yourself, and your children, and the people you care about, deserving and enjoying being raped, or murdered, or stolen from, or despised, or disfellowshipped, excommunicated and what-have-you, then perhaps you might have a case to make for why any of those things might enjoy some sort of ethical validation. If you would distinctly NOT like those things happening to you, you now have a bullet-proof argument for why it would unethical for you to inflict them on others.

I do not need "God" or "10 Commandments" to figure that out.

The focus on rape in the OP has to do with your post and that of others.

1. Humanist have no objective standards. You agree in this post above.

2. I disagree vehemently, and rape is objectively wrong.

3. The bulletproof argument you cited seems to be the Golden Rule of Do Unto Others--Jesus is one person who made this rule a linchpin of ethical behavior, so perhaps there's more to the Bible than you give it credit for.

PS. How the humanist "understands that he has the same rights -- and no more! -- that he is willing to allow everyone else" makes no sense to me. The courts don't see it that way. Nor do the police. It seems you are saying you can disallow my rights simply by surrendering yours. You may not do so.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Who do you think is buying that? Have you forgotten all of the demeaning things you have said about atheists? That's not love. That's you claiming that such behavior is love.



It beats your Bible, which nowhere says that rape is always wrong.

Do you disagree with humanists that rape is wrong? The only alternative is that it is right, or at least not wrong.



You continue to malign atheists.

Is this the love of which you spoke? No, thanks.

Incidentally, I'll leave the worshiping to you.

I will try to be more respectful in my posts--you are right.

I disagree with humanists posting on this thread that rape is subjectively (sometimes) wrong.

 

[BilliardsBall]

1) Yes, evolution is not a being who makes something. It is a process that happens without direction or plan.

2) Obviously rape occurs among humans too. But our intelligence allows us to see the perfectly logical reasons why, both as a society and as individuals, behavior is important to us all.

3) Yes I said that.

Clear enough?

Our intelligence, I agree, let's us see logical reasons for validating select behaviors. I agree 100%.

The issue is that justice, like logic itself, is a province of the non-material world. Logic and justice are immaterial in nature. Science, even math, sometimes fails us in immaterial discernment. Therefore, what does logic tell you is the precise punishment for rape? 1 year in prison? Life?

What does your gut tell you about rape? That it is subjectively wrong or objectively wrong?

I've gone on a limb as the OP to say rape is absolutely wrong. Absolutes and immaterial things exist. What will we do with this knowledge?

 

[BilliardsBall]

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!

I appreciate what you've suffered and I suggest respectfully that all suffering can be given meaning. Your post inspires me to be a survivor and be real. Thank you.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

The biblical term wisdom is knowledge applied unto righteous behavior. For example, knowing rape is wrong and then stopping a rape and not committing rape. Also the biblically wise adhere to the scriptures, teach them to others, and attempt to live them out.

The question of whether rape is objectively or subjectively wrong has several implications:

1. Do absolutes exist? This would be an absolute.

2. If I believe rape is sometimes not wrong, that is, subjectively wrong, would you want me on a jury judging a rapist?

3. If I have a subjective moral code, is there a slippery slope I should beware, for example, Judgment Day?