There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

I didnt know the Moon was a light? I'm pretty sure it "glows" because the Sun is behind it. Weird, huh?

I think the term I'd use is 'immature.'

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

I cannot forgive them of their sins, that is, contravention of the Commandments, but I can forgive them of their trespasses against me, that is their offenses against me.

You know, when I said, "You can forgive them", this is exactly what I meant. Exactly.

We are all carnal in nature, including you. We have been conditioned from birth to know the difference between right and wrong. Those moral values have come down from the centuries of ancestorsthat came before us, , who were steeped in religious beliefs. However, there are exceptions to every rule. It all depends on nuture, environmental conditioning and parenting. No one is naturally moralistic. It is all taught.

But earlier, you said we were born with morals! It seems to me that you are talking in circles. I am so confused over what you are trying to tell me. And no, it's not a comprehension problem; I was reading and comprehending at college level by the time I was 12 and continue to score high academically in reading and comprehension.

In talking about whether or not Atheists have morals, you said that there "are exceptions". You did not clarify. So I asked, basically, if you were saying that Atheists have morals, but there are exceptions, and you answer "no, that's not what I'm saying." And, I asked if you were saying that atheists did NOT have morals, with exceptions; and you said, "No, that's not what I'm saying."

-----------------------------

We can't communicate because I can't grasp anything you are trying to tell me ... except that you don't like "militant atheists" ... and even that is meaningless because I have no idea what you mean by "militant athiest" ... I give up.

 

[Ouroboros]

That is why the crimes in our country are on the increase.

Uhm... You should look into that a little bit more. It has been on a steady decline the past decade. Just do a Google search for "crime rate in America" and check out the pretty graphs.

 

[Serenity7855]

Uhm... You should look into that a little bit more. It has been on a steady decline the past decade. Just do a Google search for "crime rate in America" and check out the pretty graphs.

I did a Google search, which is where I got this article. You must remember that we live in a corrupt society where people in authority are unscrupulous and dishonest. They falsify figures to make it look like our police force are doing better then they are, so that Mr Cameron can say, at election time, the crime rate has reduced since we have been in power. What he means is that they have manipulated the figures to look like that, so please vote for us so that we can continue screwing the British public. The only way you will get accurate figures is to study the surveys and find where the have hidden the numbers, like in unreported crimes or crimes that did not get to court because of a lack of evidence.

The article that I have posted is on the moral decline of our society. Try googling that one to be astounded. We are reverting back to animals. Oh my word, I could write a book on it. Just thinking about dear little children, so hungry that their bellies swell up, and then to see Simon Cowell, and people like him, having so much money that they will never spend. How moral is that? What if it were your child, how moral would you think our society is? Sorry, but we have touched on a subject that is close to my heart and one that I have witnessed first hand. There should be no starving children in our world. There is sufficient food and resources for everyone.

 

[outhouse]

That is why the crimes in our country are on the increase.

Why is it that almost all prioners are christian??????????

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

SERENITY:

Here are your statements claiming that Atheists; or "militant atheists"; do not hold themselves accountable, or are immoral:

That is a tad condescending and arrogant, don't you think? Militant Atheists, after all, are void of moral accountability. They have no consequences to their actions, so there is no reason for them to account for them.

To deny the existence of God is not a conspiracy. To actively seek to remove religion from off the face of the earth is conspiracy. That is what militant atheists do. They proselytise their belief in a manner that constitutes brainwashing.

Here are a large number of responses explaining to you why this is not correct:

....
There are moral atheists. There are immoral atheists. There are moral "Christians". There are immoral "Christians".

LIfe, cursory observation and common sense shows you that we can NOT judge a person's character or morality by which group they belong to.

Most atheists, myself included, hold ourselves accountable of right and wrong as we know them; we just don't hold ourselves accountable to a divinity we don't believe exists. We hold ourselves accountable to the laws of the land, those we may have wronged, and ourselves.
....

"Militant Atheists"? What does how some atheists act have to do with the truth? Many atheists are peaceful, moral people. Many Christians are not peaceful, moral people.

Most atheists certainly do have consequences to their actions since they have a conscience which compels them to think, and act in certain ways.

Research has shown that many countries that have higher percentages of atheists enjoy excellent societal health, including low crime rates.

In the Western world, I would not be surprised if the percentage of atheists who commit murder, and theft, is not much different from the percentage of professing theists who commit murder, and theft.
....

.....
Even militant atheists do have a moral accountability. But instead of being good because the mighty creator of the universe wants us to and we want to obey, or because we fear punishment and want reward, one can be good just to be good. It feels better and is in many ways more sincere. Most religious people are also good just to be good, but those who believe that the only reason for being good is divine command, seem to do this only to improve their own chances of reward.

As Agnostic75 says, if you look at statistics showing how happy people are and how free they are in the country in which they live, and compare that with rates of religiosity and those with religious leaders as political leaders, there is a clear correlation between the two. An atheistic society is not one of no morality and only greed and personal gain. An atheistic society can function well and help people be free and happy.

That's not true in my opinion. I'm not a militant atheist, but I don't agree with your statement above one bit.

Everyone is accountable and will feel consequences of his or her actions. It's true that some people at some times don't because they get away with it, but generally, we pay one way or the other for what we do. If not immediately, at least people will feel it years later.

I see myself as the one who will pay and suffer tomorrow for the actions I do today, through the results of my actions. The ripples from one's decisions tend to cause things regardless if we want it or not. To deny this fact of consequences, is not atheism in any sense, but rather stupidity.

I could go on 3 pages short of reaching the end of this thread; but I'd run out of characters with this pointless exercise of trying to get you to understand that Atheists, including Militant Atheists, often have a strong moral backbone and hold themselves accountable for their actions.

You're stubborness and inability to listen and understand what we are trying to tell you is probably why "militant atheists" become frustrated with you and "lash out".

That was certainly the case for me.

 

[outhouse]

The article that I have posted is on the moral decline of our society. Try googling that one to be astounded. We are reverting back to animals. Oh my word, I could write a book on it. Just thinking about dear little children, so hungry that their bellies swell up, and then to see Simon Cowell, and people like him, having so much money that they will never spend. How moral is that? What if it were your child, how moral would you think our society is? Sorry, but we have touched on a subject that is close to my heart and one that I have witnessed first hand. There should be no starving children in our world. There is sufficient food and resources for everyone.

All of which has nothing to do with religion, or atheist.

 

[outhouse]

You're stubborness and inability to listen and understand what we are trying to tell you is probably why "militant atheists" become frustrated with you and "lash out".
.

You should not feed him and use "his" term militant.

he started out this as a militand theist switching the blame to atheist.

Im sure any science professor he runs across would be labeled miliant atheist and its just wrong.


He has a problem with education and knowkledge, not lack of belief in mythology. It goes against what he is standing for.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

The problem is, he talks over himself so much, I can't tell what he's standing for! He shifts goal posts and changes his mind often and doesn't even recognize that he's doing it...

 

[outhouse]

The problem is, he talks over himself so much, I can't tell what he's standing for! He shifts goal posts and changes his mind often and doesn't even recognize that he's doing it...

Squirming in desperation, he stepped in it, and is cornered in his own mire.

 

[Magic Man]

Please, the topic and not me. Was it really necessary for you to use ad hominem to insult me with? If not, then what made you insult me.

It was not an ad hominem, and he did not insult you. He insulted your conclusion/argument. That's why he specifically called your argument those things, not you.

 

[Ouroboros]

I did a Google search, which is where I got this article. You must remember that we live in a corrupt society where people in authority are unscrupulous and dishonest. They falsify figures to make it look like our police force are doing better then they are, so that Mr Cameron can say, at election time, the crime rate has reduced since we have been in power. What he means is that they have manipulated the figures to look like that, so please vote for us so that we can continue screwing the British public. The only way you will get accurate figures is to study the surveys and find where the have hidden the numbers, like in unreported crimes or crimes that did not get to court because of a lack of evidence.

So far, I looked at statistics from several different sources. Gallup, our government, and other source (can't remember the names right now). You find some obscure article by a conspiracy theorist with persecution complex and that must be the truth... well, you can believe that if you want, but you made a straight out claim "That is why the crimes in our country are on the increase." It's rather inefficient argumentation to bring in your belief as a general evidence.

The article that I have posted is on the moral decline of our society. Try googling that one to be astounded. We are reverting back to animals. Oh my word, I could write a book on it. Just thinking about dear little children, so hungry that their bellies swell up, and then to see Simon Cowell, and people like him, having so much money that they will never spend. How moral is that? What if it were your child, how moral would you think our society is? Sorry, but we have touched on a subject that is close to my heart and one that I have witnessed first hand. There should be no starving children in our world. There is sufficient food and resources for everyone.

I missed the link to the article. I will check it out.

---

I can't find your article. Can you please link it again?

 

[Serenity7855]

SERENITY:

Here are your statements claiming that Atheists; or "militant atheists"; do not hold themselves accountable, or are immoral:






Here are a large number of responses explaining to you why this is not correct:






I could go on 3 pages short of reaching the end of this thread; but I'd run out of characters with this pointless exercise of trying to get you to understand that Atheists, including Militant Atheists, often have a strong moral backbone and hold themselves accountable for their actions.

You're stubborness and inability to listen and understand what we are trying to tell you is probably why "militant atheists" become frustrated with you and "lash out".

That was certainly the case for me.

The topic not the person. It is meaningless to cut and paste posts as militant atheists tends to take words out of context just to discredit the poster rather then his post. It reminds me of a previous poster, called Shaker, who used to do the same thing, that is, become hostile and rude when backed in a corner. You could be him.

 

[Revoltingest]

The topic not the person. It is meaningless to cut and paste posts as militant atheists tends to take words out of context just to discredit the poster rather then his post. It reminds me of a previous poster, called Shaker, who used to do the same thing, that is, become hostile and rude when backed in a corner. You could be him.

The best way to address ad hom attacks is to object to the post by the specific offending poster.
When you make it about "militant atheists" in general, you suggest inclusion of many of us who
are innocent of the charge. One can be both militant & fair.

 

[outhouse]

The best way to address ad hom attacks is to object to the post by the specific offending poster.
When you make it about "militant atheists" in general, you suggest inclusion of many of us who
are innocent of the charge. One can be both militant & fair.

His whole OP is an attack on others with different beliefs then his.

Militant theist obviously not liking militant atheist seems a bit hypocritical to me.

I will swing this sword, but I only want to go up against unarmed opponents, or in his case "reasonable men of ignorance who have not been brainwashed "

 

[Kilgore Trout]

The topic not the person. It is meaningless to cut and paste posts as militant atheists tends to take words out of context just to discredit the poster rather then his post. It reminds me of a previous poster, called Shaker, who used to do the same thing, that is, become hostile and rude when backed in a corner. You could be him.

Fe-y!

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

The topic not the person. It is meaningless to cut and paste posts as militant atheists tends to take words out of context just to discredit the poster rather then his post. It reminds me of a previous poster, called Shaker, who used to do the same thing, that is, become hostile and rude when backed in a corner. You could be him.

I am on the topic. The topic is, "Are Atheists Moral". You're attitude that you seem to have that if anyone disagrees with you, they are attacking you, is quite taxing on my self-control.

Part of discussing or debating is pointing out the other's errors in thinking, real or perceived. This is not an attack on the person's character or worth. No one, no matter their intelligence or character, is immune from erroneous thinking.

Moreover, I think you skip right over the part where I admit my shortcoming at losing my cool a bit and "lashing out". And, you fail to recognize the great deal of restraint I am currently exercising, compared to my earlier posts.

Disagreeing with you is not an attack.

If you want to hang on to your wrong idea that Atheists are immoral (in spite of multiple statements from multiple people from multiple angles, which you willfully ignore; and in spite of empirical statistical evidence, which has been presented to you numerous times), then I can't stop you. So, I am going to do my best to refrain from discussing this silliness with you further. If I do not, I assure you, I will make Shaker look ... gentle.

Good day, Serenity.

 

[Serenity7855]

I am on the topic. The topic is, "Are Atheists Moral". You're attitude that you seem to have that if anyone disagrees with you, they are attacking you, is quite taxing on my self-control.

No, that is not the topic. Look at the thread title.

If it is quite taxing on your self control then maybe a debating forum is not the best place for you to be.

I have said it before but I will say it again for you, I welcome disagreement on my beliefs. It either strengthens them or it causes me to change my mind.

Part of discussing or debating is pointing out the other's errors in thinking, real or perceived. This is not an attack on the person's character or worth. No one, no matter their intelligence or character, is immune from erroneous thinking.

I can flip that to you being in error in thinking. Just because you write it does not make you right. If it did, then nobody would respond to your post, as everything you say is right.

Moreover, I think you skip right over the part where I admit my shortcoming at losing my cool a bit and "lashing out". And, you fail to recognize the great deal of restraint I am currently exercising, compared to my earlier posts.

There is no excuse. If you cannot stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. We can all, claim a lack of self control. Maybe I am restraining myself.

Disagreeing with you is not an attack.

No, disagreeing with me is not an attack, and it is welcomed, but personal insult are an attack against my person.

If you want to hang on to your wrong idea that Atheists are immoral (in spite of multiple statements from multiple people from multiple angles, which you willfully ignore; and in spite of empirical statistical evidence, which has been presented to you numerous times), then I can't stop you. So, I am going to do my best to refrain from discussing this silliness with you further. If I do not, I assure you, I will make Shaker look ... gentle.

My opinions are based on my experience and knowledge. I believe that my opinions on militant atheists is correct and true. You are a prime example of the type of person a militant atheist is.

When ever you bring the behaviour of a group of people's behaviour to the forefront you never, never accept there opinions without scepticism as they are the ones being criticised. That is exactly what you are expecting me to do. Of course the response will me "not me" I would never do that.

Lastly, you do realise that you are not only bragging on how nasty you can be to me, as stated in your last sentence, there-by using intimidation techniques, but you are actually threatening me. That is why I am apprehensive of militant atheists. The lack self control on the keyboard and use underhanded techniques to win the point, very much demonstrates to everyone here that my axe to grind with militant atheists is justified. You do your fellow militant atheists no favours. Thank you.

 

[Serenity7855]

His whole OP is an attack on others with different beliefs then his.

Militant theist obviously not liking militant atheist seems a bit hypocritical to me.

I will swing this sword, but I only want to go up against unarmed opponents, or in his case "reasonable men of ignorance who have not been brainwashed "

Let me inform you that I take very little notice of your post, indeed, I ignore most of them, but let me explain to you why.

In my opinion, you have no desire to enter into constructive debate on the forum, you just insult posters. Nothing you write is ever backed up with solid evidence and it is all to obvious that what you do say, you have read from other atheists. It is not your opinion. How do I know that. You use key words and phrases that are used my atheists who like to agitate Christians.

 

[Serenity7855]

The best way to address ad hom attacks is to object to the post by the specific offending poster.
When you make it about "militant atheists" in general, you suggest inclusion of many of us who
are innocent of the charge. One can be both militant & fair.

If I answer your post then you know that I do not consider you to be militant. I do not consider you to be militant. Indeed, your critiques are constructive and attack my belief and not my person. That is called debate. There are others who think that by delivering a low blow might be a foul but it will weaken their opponent sufficient enough to allow them to knock you out.