Smoking Gun, Oh Atheists?

[Pudding]

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

Please explain how does your belief's statement answers my post.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

EVERYONE sins.

Speak for yourself: I do not sin. It does not apply to me, it does not shackle or burden me. I am without sin.

 

[JustWondering]

The Buddha lived centuries after Christ taught the golden rule.

Nope, Gautama Buddha was around 500 years before Jesus was alleged to be doing his thing.

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".

You're welcome and you're wrong again. You asked if I considered rape to always be wrong, that's it. I answered the question and then some.

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.

Rape is wrong because it causes needless harm to someone, it is wrong because of the golden rule. I already explained all this.

I do not consider the restraint of obviously criminal urges suffering.

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?

Wrong again. Morals/ethics deal with real life MATERIAL people/objects/acts/situations. Since atheists do not need to invoke the supernatural to form/follow moral/ethical codes, atheists simply discount supernatural claims.

 

[JustWondering]

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

I would like to see you make a thread that listed these logical, rational reasons. I also predict that what you consider logical and rational isn't what a non-Christian would consider logical and rational.

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!

Whatever floats your boat, man.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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!

What suffering? He's a god. Relatively speaking, even the worst Vlad Dracul III could have done to him would be like us mere humans getting a shot at the doctor. And what sacrifice is it really for such a character to have a lousy weekend, be killed, but knowing it's all going to be better and he's coming back to life anyways. It can't even be said he sacrificed his time.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It takes the power of God to love an enemy that much!

I thought we were the children of god? What sort of parent views their child as an enemy?

 

[BilliardsBall]

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

How do you know Evolution is amoral, since humans are evolved beings who have moral codes? If Evolution is truly amoral, there must be a God who made us moral beings.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

You have presented an anecdote about two possibly sincere teachers who fell from "grace". What does the reliability of the unreliability of people tell you about sin? And what does your anecdote have to do with the lived-out sincerity of the Bible writers?

 

[BilliardsBall]

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

Shakespeare wrote more than one good story.

The Bible is a collection of enduring stories, written by 40 writers at a minimum. One question I've never seen a skeptic able to answer:

Please describe why these writers kept piling on fake books for 1,500 years--40 different writers and teams of writers!

 

[BilliardsBall]

I agree.



I agree.



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.



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.



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.

I must be as much a relativist as you, yes, for I agree that killing/execution/murder is subjective but rape isn't.

The problem I have is how did Evolution, which is amoral, create moral beings? Or do you believe conscience is a real thing, unlike some skeptic researchers?!

 

[viole]

How do you know Evolution is amoral, since humans are evolved beings who have moral codes? If Evolution is truly amoral, there must be a God who made us moral beings.

Evolution does not fly either, despite birds being products thereof. Does this line of reasoning alone suffice to deduce that there must necessarily be a God that gives flight to the birds?

Ciao

- viole

 

[BilliardsBall]

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

How did Evolution create moral human beings?! Be consistent.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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

I was replying to "why you are saying God uses rape as a punishment".

 

[BilliardsBall]

**

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???

With respect, Milton, statements like this seem intentionally myopic. I've met hundreds of Christians who read this from Hebrew to English passage as what it obviously is, a parsing between consensual and forced sex.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Nope, Gautama Buddha was around 500 years before Jesus was alleged to be doing his thing.



You're welcome and you're wrong again. You asked if I considered rape to always be wrong, that's it. I answered the question and then some.



Rape is wrong because it causes needless harm to someone, it is wrong because of the golden rule. I already explained all this.

I do not consider the restraint of obviously criminal urges suffering.



Wrong again. Morals/ethics deal with real life MATERIAL people/objects/acts/situations. Since atheists do not need to invoke the supernatural to form/follow moral/ethical codes, atheists simply discount supernatural claims.

The Old Testament, which commands love of neighbor and etc. would be older than Buddha's teachings, if taking most scholarly consensus on dates.

How do you believe the Golden Rule evolved?

How did you personally decide rape is "needless harm" to someone and what "needless harm" is? Rapist are acting on powerful urges. Do you believe urges developed in humans via mechanistic evolution or not?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I would like to see you make a thread that listed these logical, rational reasons. I also predict that what you consider logical and rational isn't what a non-Christian would consider logical and rational.



Whatever floats your boat, man.

Why is that your prediction? Most Americans, for example, still identify as Christians. Do you consider most Americans illogical and irrational? That will place the burden of proof heavily on you, I believe.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

I keep asking a number of skeptics, but still can't figure how mechanistic evolution tells us what "tangible damages" and "needless suffering" are.

In the animal kingdom, you tear apart a victim with carnivorous teeth, responding to urges. Are rapists' urges biological in nature or are they "evil" and judged by a God? Is rape an evolved urge or does evil exist?

 

[BilliardsBall]

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

Without violating the absolute law of the excluded middle.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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?

You can rape your spouse and not be evil? You must have not meant to post that!

 

[BilliardsBall]

Please explain how does your belief's statement answers my post.

I don't understand this question. Please clarify.