Smoking Gun, Oh Atheists?

[BilliardsBall]

I am not mocking you. At worst, I am mocking your belief. Since you guys make a difference between sin and sinner (hate the former, love the latter), I feel perfectly entitled to make a difference between belief and believer (ridicule the former, respect the latter).

By the way, I am not ridiculing your beliefs either. I just take them at face value.



Well, that was exactly my point. You should not complain if I am proving a (rather self fulfilling) prophecy of your Holy Book. I am sure that if authored a book that says that Donald Duck created the Universe, I would not forget to add that prophecy either; you know, to prove that my book speaks the truth.

And again, I do not hate believers. Where do you get that from? I know personally several believers that have no problems with me. And I do not hit them so sweet as I "hit" you....but bad.

As I said, I hate believers in the same way you hate sinners.

Ciao

- viole

I don't hate sinners. EVERYONE sins. I don't hate everyone.

 

[viole]

I believe, accurately, that atheists have subjective morality--morality which frequently goes against evolution, too, which is inconsistent.

Evolution is amoral. And there is not such a thing as "going against evolution". Because: evolution is ateleological and has no purpose nor goal to go against.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

I don't hate sinners. EVERYONE sins. I don't hate everyone.

I don't hate believers. Everyone has beliefs. Same thing.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Underhill]

Well, how do you think I came to this conclusion? I've read the Bible and can see the honest integrity of the writers, and more...

I have personally known some great preachers who seemed sincere. Maybe they were (nobody thinks of themselves as evil or criminal). But at least 2 of them ran off with women who were not their wives, one of them stole a large amount from the church.

Ulterior motives are not apparent if they are to be effective.

I have no idea why the writers of the new testament wrote what they wrote. It is possible they were genuine. It is possible they were building a religion just like countless others both before them and since. Since much of what they right is unlikely to have actually happened, I am going to go with the latter.

 

[Underhill]

The late dates for the gospels and NT are canards.

But I agree, reason says a dozen (not half a dozen) writers regarding the supernatural are probably not true. But I've undertaken research, personally, to help verify the accuracy of the Bible. My religion doesn't defy reason, not at all.

And the odds you've "calculated" seem off the mark, considering the endurance of the Bible and the Jewish and Christian faiths. There are only about a dozen books claiming divine writing in all of world religions.

Endurance isn't proof. It simply means it's a good story that many people like. Kind of like Shakespeare...

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Personally, Bible aside, rape is always wrong.

I agree.

That is a fact and also my subjective opinion. Do you agree or disagree?

I agree.

If you disagree, then you are demonstrating the moral relativism Christians find distasteful in atheists, yes.

I don't get it. Moral relativism states that certain actions are either or immoral, relative to the time, place, situation, circumstance, etc. So by "agreeing", I should be demonstrating the "moral relativism" Christians claim to dislike; a I am "agreeing" that our moral compass telling us that rape is wrong is subjective, rather than an objective absolute. Personally, I hold rape to be wrong regardless of the circumstance; it causes harm and is inexcusable under any circumstances.

believe, accurately, that atheists have subjective morality

We all have subjective morality.

I also believe that this discussion on conflating "subjective" with "relativism".

My moral compass tells me that rape is wrong (one of the few moral absolutes and a largely subjective opinion) and killing another human being is wrong (also a largely subjective opinion); but for the latter, it is moral when performed for the preservation of one's own life or the life of another.

Therefore, both are highly subjective; the former (rape) is not relative and the latter (killing) is.

morality which frequently goes against evolution, too, which is inconsistent.

Evolution has nothing to do with morality. Evolution is not a religion or a philosophy. One may choose to philosophize or religionize evolution (i.e. Eugenics, Hitler's "Master Race", etc); but the relgiionizing/philsophizing of a scientific discipline does not make that scientific discipline, in and of itself, anything other than that scientific discipline. Opposed to popular opinions postulated by the theist, most atheists do NOT religionize or philosophize evolution.

In our current day and time, we hold human sacrifice to be immoral. Yet in Judges 11, we find a clear cut case of a human sacrifice being performed to the "Lord". Christians will not accept this act as an immoral act, as it was "ordained by God". Thus, human sacrifice is, in the Christian's eye, permissible when performed under "divine command theory" thus Christians are as much ,moral relativists as anyone else.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I'm very curious about 2 Samuel and why you are saying God uses rape as a punishment. Are you saying it was foreordained that the people would behave as they did so that God's warning would come to pass? You do know it requires predestination, not free will, to allow for this "punishment" to be fulfilled?

So you think it's okay to punish someone using rape?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I believe, accurately, that atheists have subjective morality--morality which frequently goes against evolution, too, which is inconsistent.

How is it inconsistent if evolution isn't a moral or philosophical ideology?

 

[Milton Platt]

Conversation is being held on other threads about absolutes and objective rights and wrongs.

I say rape is inherently bad, not "a societal misdeed" but wrong. Sure, rape is wrong, but you do not need a god to tell you that. And "societal misdeeds" are also apparently wrong, or would not be "misdeeds". You are quibbling over words now.

Then I watch as atheists (in error) criticize the Bible for not condemning rape, when it most certainly does (as usual atheists point to the Bible and miss). If two fornicate in the Old Testament, they both receive capital punishment but if a woman cries for help while assaulted, only her rapist is punished . . . by death. Of course both passages regarding consensual sex and rape are collocated in the Bible, but why bother to ask an atheist to actually read more than a verse or two? It's taking for them, poor souls.

So if out of fear for her life, she does not cry out, or is knocked unconscious or gagged before she can cry out, she should be put to death??? And what do you suppose all the virgins that were taken when committing genocide against Israel's neighboring tribes were used for???

Of course, we would say that the atheists who say on one hand "rape isn't inherently bad" but on the other hand, "the Bible is inherently bad for not condemning rape" are behaving both ignorantly (quick, name every American President and Supreme Court Justice on record for condemning rape--are the ones not on the list bad?) and SELF-RIGHTEOUSLY.

Judges who did not go on record for condemning rape are not necessarily in favor of rape and so not necessarily bad. Neither are the ones on the fictitious list for being on record necessarily good just because they are on record for condemning it. One or more may have possibly committed rape in their lifetime, for all we could know.

I haven't heard the supporting argument for saying rape isn't inherently bad, so I don't know that would agree with their position, but saying something isn't inherently bad is not equivalent to saying that it is not actually bad.

My guess is that they are making the philosophical argument that nothing is good or bad outside of human context, because that is what assigns meaning to anything. Since the human context does exist in all cases of rape, it could then be said to be actually bad.

How can an atheist behave self-righteously when they believe neither in righteousness nor its opposite, sinfulness?

Don't know about righteous, but they can be as moral as the next person. I know because I am one and I know many of them.

Stop being self-righteous, oh atheists! (At least until such time as you admit to absolute, objective moral codes.)

The irony is thick in the air....

Are the moral codes really objective, or can they be changed by your god when he sees fit? That would make them subjective, since they are subject to him. If they are objective, then they exist independently of him and he is bound by them and has no say so.

If you hold the Bible as containing examples of God's morality, then he does indeed change it from time to time. Unless you can come up with a context in which slavery is moral.

Today's rant is concluded.

 

[JustWondering]

The Bible isn't in the OP as we're not discussing "righteousness" and "sinfulness".

Personally, Bible aside, rape is always wrong. That is a fact and also my subjective opinion. Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, then you are demonstrating the moral relativism Christians find distasteful in atheists, yes.

Wrong, you mention the bible and sinfulness in YOUR OP.

Secondly, I find it amusing that you, a Christian, created a thread for the singular purpose of pointing your finger at others and judging them (for beliefs they don't hold) when your messiah Jesus taught that you shouldn't judge others.

 

[JustWondering]

Well, how do you think I came to this conclusion? I've read the Bible and can see the honest integrity of the writers, and more...

I've read the bible and can see it is just a book of mythological stories. Not much different than ancient myths from other cultures. I see no rational logical reason why the god of the bible has any more chance to actually exist than any other god mentioned by any other religion ever.

 

[JustWondering]

Is rape always wrong or sometimes wrong?

The golden rule, which was originally taught by the Buddha I believe, is a good guide for how I determine what is right and what is wrong.

So, if I wouldn't want something done to me or one of my loved ones than by the golden rule I can easily determine such behavior/acts are wrong.

Furthermore, I consider anyone who consciously chooses to cause needless harm to another evil.

So rape is always wrong and in most cases done by someone evil, IMO.

 

[JustWondering]

I believe, accurately, that atheists have subjective morality--morality which frequently goes against evolution, too, which is inconsistent.

As Milton Platt previously posted your god is no more consistent with his morals than humans are. So much for your objective morality nonsense.

 

[Simurgh]

Funny. I've found a ton of credible and accurate stuff about Hegel on the 'net, including things he wrote.

High horse, much?


That's just one of many laws that religion didn't come up with that is far greater than what religions tend to promote and allow. Such as, this secular law guarantees freedom of religion; this is explicitly prohibited in Christianity where death is mandated for those who worship any other god.
Laws against theft, murder, and rape, religion has lacked on those, religion has promoted those in some cases, and really only someone who is a psychopath may need such reminders, but even among psychopaths and sociopaths they usually and generally know better than to rape, kill, and steal. No god or religion required.

Wie geht es Ihnen?

vielen dank, es geht mir gut. es wuerde mir aber besser gehen wenn leute die philosphien anwenden statt das sie sie nur lesen. but that's a problem way beyond the scope of this entertaining little interlude.

 

[Furball]

You've obviously never read the bible. Please do so then get back to us.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Okay. So self-aware adults committing rape by force (removing the exceptions you gave above) are always wrong or sometimes wrong? Rapists like rape, victims don't like it.

Yes, as a consequentialist I would classify those specific cases as immoral. Not because of some innate wrongness (virtue ethics/objectivism) rape has, as not all cases of rape are equitable, nor because someone (man or deity) specifically says it's wrong (authoritarianism), but because tangible damages occur due to the behavior.

 

[McBell]

Morals exist without God or the Bible and have weight. They weigh on our conscience!

If rapists do what you say and "make associations and build ties" with similarly minded people, and change laws to make rape legal, is rape WRONG?

It can be proven that right and wrong are existing, immaterial things.

2 + 2 = 4,509 is 100% wrong.

2 + 2 = 4 is 100% right.

yet 2+2=1 can also be 100% under the right circumstances

 

[McBell]

Please give us three examples, then, of where rape is not wrong:

1.

2.

3.

1. when the victim is "asking for it"
2. when the victim doe snot say "no" and or struggles against it
3. when the victim is your spouse


next?

 

[BilliardsBall]

The golden rule, which was originally taught by the Buddha I believe, is a good guide for how I determine what is right and what is wrong.

So, if I wouldn't want something done to me or one of my loved ones than by the golden rule I can easily determine such behavior/acts are wrong.

Furthermore, I consider anyone who consciously chooses to cause needless harm to another evil.

So rape is always wrong and in most cases done by someone evil, IMO.

The Buddha lived centuries after Christ taught the golden rule.

Thank you for saying rape is always wrong, however, your answer is incomplete. You said part of your code above is: "I consider anyone who consciously chooses to cause needless harm to another evil".

Rapist have urges, they like rape, they dislike containing their urges. On what basis do we decide the rapist is wrong? --It's a basis regarding suffering. Why is the rapist's suffering not in play? Obviously, it's because we take self-preservation as an inviolate master right.

And that makes no sense if we use Evolution only without adding on subjective ethics. Ethics are metaphysical/immaterial in nature. How can atheists allow for metaphysics in the world view?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I've read the bible and can see it is just a book of mythological stories. Not much different than ancient myths from other cultures. I see no rational logical reason why the god of the bible has any more chance to actually exist than any other god mentioned by any other religion ever.

I would say there are quite a few logical, rational reasons to uphold the biblical God as the true God and Savior.

Although the love Jesus Christ exhibited in His sufferings is just that, love--not "rational behavior". It takes the power of God to love an enemy that much!