Who's more racist... the religious or the non-religious?

[FearGod]

Sin is irrelevant as it is disobedience against a gods laws. Since gods have never been shown to exist, sin is meaningless.

if you don't believe in god,then you don't have the right to let others to do so.

You have no right to judge anyone by your beliefs other than yourself.

But he is free to make his own opinion based on his belief.

 

[1robin]

I'm glad you cleared that up. Now we have objective justification and objective non-justification. One of the problems I see with that is that JUSTIFICATION is COMPLETELY subjective. Maybe you would like to try again and answer the question of the London bombings while your at it?

Yes, objective standards are not confined to a few generic categories. Justification is only subjective if a human determines it alone. Justification is not subjective it may be relative though. Which London bombings, the blitz (battle of Britian) or some terrorist bombing. Actually it doesn't matter they were both unjustified.

 

[beerisit]

All this assumes that the biblical God doesn't exist. This is why non-believers can't ever arrive at truth. You start your evaluation with the idea it isn't true, it colors everything you see. Dr Ravi Zacharias says it this way "Intent determines content" If God is real then there is nothing inconsistent with my views. You are the only one who has used Good in connnection with Hiroshima. I said justified. However should we have just let the psychotic Japanese run over us. Since they would have enslaved, killed, and raped their way across the U.S. the same as they did with China, and the south pacific. Since your solution seems to be nothing then it's absolutely evil. You need to read a little more history, there were not millions of deaths from both atomic bombs put together. Sin is absolute if God is real. What is your moral framework? I guarantee you it is insuffecient to deal with these issues.

WOW I really mean WOW.
Lets see.
If God is real then there is nothing inconsistent with my views
Of course you have no proof that he is and even if he was your views are completely subjective, influenced as they are by a goatherds book, but nevertheless subjective.
psychotic Japanese
Now you are claiming that every man woman and child in Japan in 1945 was psychotic, I'm sorry but any such assessment is not only not objective it must at least be psychotic.
Since your solution seems to be nothing then it's absolutely evil.
And here we have you claiming that I have firstly proposed a solution to an unnamed problem and continued on to claim that the non-existent solution to the non-existent problem is ABSOLUTE EVIL
Do you want me to go on?

 

[A Troubled Man]

Well if that were true and thank God it isn't, whats left in his absence is completely insuffecient for the moral needs of human civilization.

LOL! Yes, that's what believers who are unable to come to their own set of morals, ethics and principles would have us believe.

Great let's let everyone out of jail.

People who are in jails are not there because they have sinned.

Since you believe human sacrifice is wrong (hopefully) and the aztecs believed it devine, would you just sit there and twiddle your thumbs or stop them from cutting the hearts out 20,000 victums a year

Like yourself, the Aztecs were trying not to sin based on their gods laws. That's why a gods laws and sinning are irrelevant in reality.

If you do choose to stop them that decision can not be justified in the absence of an objective standard.

The standard would be my own standard of not wanting someone to be killed for a religious belief.

An objective standard only exists if God exists.

Like the Aztec gods? Zeus? Thor? Allah? If the Aztec gods existed and your god didn't, then sacrificing must continue or else we are all evil sinners, based on your logic.

If he doesn't exist then all morality is subjective, and no ones views are more valid than anothers.

Not true. There are a great deal of people who understand killing others does not align with their morals or ethics. And since, no gods have ever been shown to exist, it is gods laws that are entirely subjective.

You system is impotent and there for evil.

LOL!

 

[A Troubled Man]

if you don't believe in god,then you don't have the right to let others to do so.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

But he is free to make his own opinion based on his belief.

That's nice.

 

[beerisit]

Well if that were true and thank God it isn't, whats left in his absence is completely insuffecient for the moral needs of human civilization.



Great let's let everyone out of jail. People make silly statements like this until something actually effects them and then they always appeal to concepts that don't exist without God. Since you believe human sacrifice is wrong (hopefully) and the aztecs believed it devine, would you just sit there and twiddle your thumbs or stop them from cutting the hearts out 20,000 victums a year. If you do choose to stop them that decision can not be justified in the absence of an objective standard. An objective standard only exists if God exists. If he doesn't exist then all morality is subjective, and no ones views are more valid than anothers. You system is impotent and there for evil.

I don't know whether you know it or not but they were acting on their gods objective values, to rebel would have been subjective, just as it would for you to rebel. If you believe that morality comes from god and is therefore objective.

 

[1robin]

WOW I really mean WOW.
Lets see.
If God is real then there is nothing inconsistent with my views
Of course you have no proof that he is and even if he was your views are completely subjective, influenced as they are by a goatherds book, but nevertheless subjective.

This is a discussion of concepts not known facts. I never claimed I can prove God exists I was compareing the implications of his existence with his non existence. That goat hearders book even though given by a minor illiterate tribe, contains a message so profound and reliable that it is the most respected and cherished book in the history of man. Your goat hearder, bronze age label crap reveals your bias, and does you no credit.

psychotic Japanese
Now you are claiming that every man woman and child in Japan in 1945 was psychotic, I'm sorry but any such assessment is not only not objective it must at least be psychotic.

This comment was made in the context of the soldiers who would be and did do the things I stated. Every man women and child would not be landing on the shores of california. Have you ever heard of the rape of Nanking? Did you know the Japs blew up their own men and then blamed it on the Russians so as to start a war?Did you know that the Japanese would tell ignorant islanders that that US soldiers would eat their children etc.... As we were landing troops who were actually bringing medicine and food for the natives they were jumping off cliffs commiting suicide on the basis of what the Japanese told them. In the mean time the Japs were either getting drunk and doing bonzai charges or blowing themselves up in caves. However the label still applies to the Japanese in general. They believed their emporer was a God and they had a devine mandate to subdue any one they chose. Their women often talked the men into the Kamakazi mindset.

Since your solution seems to be nothing then it's absolutely evil.

And here we have you claiming that I have firstly proposed a solution to an unnamed problem and continued on to claim that the non-existent solution to the non-existent problem is ABSOLUTE EVIL
Do you want me to go on?

I regret you ever started. (just kidding)
Actually this is the only point that you have made that has been correct in IMO. Since you were suggesting our efforts to stop them were wrong then I assumed you didn't support resistance. Fair enough, what is your alternative?

 

[1robin]

I don't know whether you know it or not but they were acting on their gods objective values, to rebel would have been subjective, just as it would for you to rebel. If you believe that morality comes from god and is therefore objective.

This is virtually incoherent. I know quite a bit about the Aztecs. They didn't sacrifice their own people to a great extint. They raided other people to sacrifice. I never said that any concept of God dreamed up is a valid basis for a moral frame work. The biblical God is. Mainly I was pointing out that a system based on human reason alone is incapable of dealing with the moral decisions that require an answer in our society. Any non-theistic morality is incapable of even determining whther what the Aztecs was right or wrong. Their morality would be just as valid as your, yours couldn't even validly define evil or good. Most of the great moral delemas in history were solved by the assertion of an objective standard which doesn't exist without the transcendant. Jefferson knew this well and stated it when asked about the source of our rights. In modern times with our rejection of God and substitution of moral relativity it is no wonder killing an inoccent child is legal but killing a convicted murderer is wrong. This is the kind of moral chaos that comes from the rejection of God.

 

[beerisit]

This comment was made in the context of the soldiers who would be and did do the things I stated. Every man women and child would not be landing on the shores of california. Have you ever heard of the rape of Nanking? Did you know the Japs blew up their own men and then blamed it on the Russians so as to start a war?Did you know that the Japanese would tell ignorant islanders that that US soldiers would eat their children etc.... As we were landing troops who were actually bringing medicine and food for the natives they were jumping off cliffs commiting suicide on the basis of what the Japanese told them. In the mean time the Japs were either getting drunk and doing bonzai charges or blowing themselves up in caves. However the label still applies to the Japanese in general. They believed their emporer was a God and they had a devine mandate to subdue any one they chose. Their women often talked the men into the Kamakazi mindset

.
OYG this is simply so amazing I can hardly believe you wrote it. And this propaganda you have absorbed from the US propaganda department is the basis for your belief in an OBJECTIVE morality from god that explains the destruction of hundreds of thousands of innocent lives.
Explain to me again why the bombing of london wasn't objectively good (or validated). Oh you haven't even addressed that question, have you?

 

[beerisit]

This is virtually incoherent. I know quite a bit about the Aztecs. They didn't sacrifice their own people to a great extint. They raided other people to sacrifice. I never said that any concept of God dreamed up is a valid basis for a moral frame work. The biblical God is. Mainly I was pointing out that a system based on human reason alone is incapable of dealing with the moral decisions that require an answer in our society. Any non-theistic morality is incapable of even determining whther what the Aztecs was right or wrong. Their morality would be just as valid as your, yours couldn't even validly define evil or good. Most of the great moral delemas in history were solved by the assertion of an objective standard which doesn't exist without the transcendant. Jefferson knew this well and stated it when asked about the source of our rights. In modern times with our rejection of God and substitution of moral relativity it is no wonder killing an inoccent child is legal but killing a convicted murderer is wrong. This is the kind of moral chaos that comes from the rejection of God.

The biblical God is
Why, that particular god has an enormous amount of human and non-human blood on his hands, what makes that particular god any better than the Aztecs gods?
Any non-theistic morality is incapable of even determining whther what the Aztecs was right or wrong.
That is quite simply amazing again. Do you HONESTLY believe that someone without a belief in your god can't understand right from wrong? What about the people who believe in other gods are they also morally bankrupt? Have you ever given any thought at all to the ridiculous beliefs you profess?
Their morality would be just as valid as your, yours couldn't even validly define evil or good
But yours could, you could validate the deaths in Nagasaki and Hiroshima and Dresden and invalidate the deaths in London, what a wonderful morality, especially when it is god's objective morality. Not one of those children deserved to live, according to your god. But all of the children in London deserved to live, your god just forgot to do anything about it. Your beliefs are part of the reason I'm an atheist. You and every theist in my opinion needs to grow a brain if they think like you.

 

[1robin]

.
OYG this is simply so amazing I can hardly believe you wrote it. And this propaganda you have absorbed from the US propaganda department is the basis for your belief in an OBJECTIVE morality from god that explains the destruction of hundreds of thousands of innocent lives.

Good lord....... I know or knew some people who were in this war as soldiers and civilians. I am a amateur historian and can just about guaranty I know way more than you about what happened there. I have read books by historians, soldiers, and civilians both sypathetic and hostile to both sides. I have heard the exact same details from dozens of Japanese soldiers and civilians that were interviewed years later. You have a warped and inaccurate view of history. How in the world did you make such a rediculous connection that I neither claimed nor even agree with about where I get my objective moral point of view. Simply astonishing. I get it from philosophy and the bible and I see it reflected in reality.

Explain to me again why the bombing of london wasn't objectively good (or validated). Oh you haven't even addressed that question, have you?

I think I have answered it. What is going on with you? I believe that Germany is unjustified if you are reffering to the bombing during the battle of Britian. I will not answer this again.

 

[FearGod]

Good lord....... I know or knew some people who were in this war as soldiers and civilians. I am a amateur historian and can just about guaranty I know way more than you about what happened there. I have read books by historians, soldiers, and civilians both sypathetic and hostile to both sides. I have heard the exact same details from dozens of Japanese soldiers and civilians that were interviewed years later. You have a warped and inaccurate view of history. How in the world did you make such a rediculous connection that I neither claimed nor even agree with about where I get my objective moral point of view. Simply astonishing. I get it from philosophy and the bible and I see it reflected in reality.
I think I have answered it. What is going on with you? I believe that Germany is unjustified if you are reffering to the bombing during the battle of Britian. I will not answer this again.

i can't understand how he could compare between the heroes who sacrificed their lives to protect their homeland with the deaths caused by AIDS.

 

[1robin]

LOL! Yes, that's what believers who are unable to come to their own set of morals, ethics and principles would have us believe.

No, that's what people who humbly acknowledge the obvious truth that fallable humans are unqualified to develope a suffecient moral standard. The Germans developed one in Nazi Germany. At their trial they said they were only acting consistent with their societies moral system. You would have no justification to refute them within your system. An absolute objective moral standard was needed and used to justify their condemnation.

People who are in jails are not there because they have sinned.

They are there because they violated a moral code. That is identicle to the definition of sin.

Like yourself, the Aztecs were trying not to sin based on their gods laws. That's why a gods laws and sinning are irrelevant in reality.

Unlike myself they made up their God and because of this they made incorrect moral judgements. Christianity cannot be held accountable for another religion. It is philisophicaly invalid. If God does exist then his moral framework will superceed your whether you agree with it or not.

The standard would be my own standard of not wanting someone to be killed for a religious belief.

How is your subjective standard any more valid than the Aztecs, or Stalins, or anyones.

Like the Aztec gods? Zeus? Thor? Allah? If the Aztec gods existed and your god didn't, then sacrificing must continue or else we are all evil sinners, based on your logic.

Well if that were true then there is no standard to appeal to that could be used consistently with the ideology that produced it to stop them. I could still stop them on my own decision however I could not claim that decision is justified or correct. I would be useing force instead of verifiable merit.

Not true. There are a great deal of people who understand killing others does not align with their morals or ethics. And since, no gods have ever been shown to exist, it is gods laws that are entirely subjective.

I agree that people can conclude killing is wrong without God but they can't defend or justify that position consistently with it's source. An ultimate standard is necessary for that. Your are absolutely wrong in that last statement. If a God like the biblical God exists his morality is absolute.

LOL!

To exclude a system that can provide justice because of a hostile bias, and substitute one that cannot possibly deliver justice in many cases is no laughing matter.

 

[1robin]

i can't understand how he could compare between the heroes who sacrificed their lives to protect their homeland with the deaths caused by AIDS.

If you are looking for unbiased reason in the mind of an unbeliever hostile to Christianity then you will be dissapointed. Sometimes you just have to forgive them and move on.

 

[beerisit]

Good lord....... I know or knew some people who were in this war as soldiers and civilians. I am a amateur historian and can just about guaranty I know way more than you about what happened there. I have read books by historians, soldiers, and civilians both sypathetic and hostile to both sides. I have heard the exact same details from dozens of Japanese soldiers and civilians that were interviewed years later. You have a warped and inaccurate view of history. How in the world did you make such a rediculous connection that I neither claimed nor even agree with about where I get my objective moral point of view. Simply astonishing. I get it from philosophy and the bible and I see it reflected in reality.
I think I have answered it. What is going on with you? I believe that Germany is unjustified if you are reffering to the bombing during the battle of Britian. I will not answer this again.

Well you never answered in the first place concerning the bombing of London, But I'm sure your god will allow that lie to slip by, well maybe I'm not sure at all, since I don't know him.
AS an amateur historian I must concede that my fathers experiences in post war Japan pale into insignificance. But surely what we were discussing was neither my fathers experiences or the US propaganda or the rights or wrongs of German aggression or Japanese obscenities, what we are discussing is the OBJECTIVE view, supposedly from your god, purported by you that the bombing of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden were justified by your god, but the bombing of London was not justified in your gods eyes. Can you explain your gods position (since you claim knowledge of it) that the deaths of thousands of Japanese are justified but he believes that the same of the English kids isn't. It's just that they are all his children?

 

[A Troubled Man]

No, that's what people who humbly acknowledge the obvious truth that fallable humans are unqualified to develope a suffecient moral standard.

Upon reading the Bible or most other scriptures, many humans are far more qualified to develop moral standards.

The Germans developed one in Nazi Germany. At their trial they said they were only acting consistent with their societies moral system. You would have no justification to refute them within your system. An absolute objective moral standard was needed and used to justify their condemnation.

Strawman. Most of the world, especially those who were occupied by the Nazis did not agree with their principles of gassing and burning humans. Duh.

They are there because they violated a moral code. That is identicle to the definition of sin.

Utter nonsense. Sin is disobedience to gods while people are in jail for breaking laws initiated by a judicial system.

Unlike myself they made up their God and because of this they made incorrect moral judgements.

That is laughable, Christianity may also be a made up religion and there isn't a shred of evidence to refute that.

Christianity cannot be held accountable for another religion. It is philisophicaly invalid.

Who said it was accountable?

If God does exist then his moral framework will superceed your whether you agree with it or not.

Faith based gobbledegook. Irrelevant.

How is your subjective standard any more valid than the Aztecs, or Stalins, or anyones.

How is yours or your gods standards more valid? See how that works?

Well if that were true then there is no standard to appeal to that could be used consistently with the ideology that produced it to stop them. I could still stop them on my own decision however I could not claim that decision is justified or correct. I would be useing force instead of verifiable merit.

Then, you have no argument. YOU yourself just invalidated it.

I agree that people can conclude killing is wrong without God but they can't defend or justify that position consistently with it's source.

Yes, they can and they do.

An ultimate standard is necessary for that.

And, that ultimate standard would be? (wait for it...)

Your are absolutely wrong in that last statement. If a God like the biblical God exists his morality is absolute.

Notice you said, "If"? Notice that your statement can apply to any god?

To exclude a system that can provide justice because of a hostile bias, and substitute one that cannot possibly deliver justice in many cases is no laughing matter.

Perhaps, but your statement was definitely laughable.

 

[FearGod]

No, that's what people who humbly acknowledge the obvious truth that fallable humans are unqualified to develope a suffecient moral standard. The Germans developed one in Nazi Germany. At their trial they said they were only acting consistent with their societies moral system. You would have no justification to refute them within your system. An absolute objective moral standard was needed and used to justify their condemnation.

They are there because they violated a moral code. That is identicle to the definition of sin.

Unlike myself they made up their God and because of this they made incorrect moral judgements. Christianity cannot be held accountable for another religion. It is philisophicaly invalid. If God does exist then his moral framework will superceed your whether you agree with it or not.

How is your subjective standard any more valid than the Aztecs, or Stalins, or anyones.

Well if that were true then there is no standard to appeal to that could be used consistently with the ideology that produced it to stop them. I could still stop them on my own decision however I could not claim that decision is justified or correct. I would be useing force instead of verifiable merit.

I agree that people can conclude killing is wrong without God but they can't defend or justify that position consistently with it's source. An ultimate standard is necessary for that. Your are absolutely wrong in that last statement. If a God like the biblical God exists his morality is absolute.


To exclude a system that can provide justice because of a hostile bias, and substitute one that cannot possibly deliver justice in many cases is no laughing matter.

it is hard for the atheist to understand god's laws for morals because they believe that
god doesn't exist.

But they can understand earth laws for morals,because there is court and judgement
which without them,then we will live in a jungle,the strong will eat the weak.

We can't live without laws,thanks god that his laws are still protecting weak people
on earth by police force.

 

[beerisit]

i can't understand how he could compare between the heroes who sacrificed their lives to protect their homeland with the deaths caused by AIDS.

I'm glad 1robin pretended to understand this.

 

[beerisit]

it is hard for the atheist to understand god's laws for morals because they believe that
god doesn't exist.

But they can understand earth laws for morals,because there is court and judgement
which without them,then we will live in a jungle,the strong will eat the weak.

We can't live without laws,thanks god that his laws are still protecting weak people
on earth by police force.

I must say that I am encouraged by the fact that someone still believes that the strong no longer rule the weak. Oh wish I had that naivety again.

 

[FearGod]

I must say that I am encouraged by the fact that someone still believes that the strong no longer rule the weak. Oh wish I had that naivety again.

But because we are believers,then we know that there is a judgement day,
if the oppressor escaped earth laws,then he will not escape god's punishment.

But for you that seems nonsense,because you only beleive that you're here to
enjoy your life for some limits.