Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil?

[1robin]

Actually, in practice, that first option is more like every human on Earth can have an equally valid opinion about what God thinks morality should be.

Pick pretty much any moral position you like and you'll be able to find someone, somewhere in history arguing that their god approved of it.

I must have clearly illustrated in exhaustive terms what I claim regarding morality in over a hundred posts yet the next non-theist that comments will make the same mistake every single time. My claims are not epistemological but ontological. I do not care if no one in human history can decide what, if anything, at all is moral. God is still the only objective foundation for morality (an actually true morality). If God mandates that murder is wrong then even if every human in history thought it was right they would all be wrong. I do not grant your hopeless confusion argument but it applies to another discussion even if true. For one thing God can only be a net gain compared to no discernible moral foundation at all, even as it concerns apprehension. You seem to be suggesting that if anyone disagrees with anyone else then it is hopeless, but only hopeless if God is involved. If men are simply basing morality on arbitrary opinion and preference then I would bet you would have argued differences in opinion are actually good. There is only a net gain with God and only loss without him concerning morality.

 

[1robin]

When you talk about arresting people, you're talking about the law.

I have to argue on an atheists common ground. Sin is not part of that. I said arrest implying they were actually wrong not because it was a legal issue. It was my mistake but a mistake forced because your views negate a large portion of reality IMO.

Setting the line at birth is not arbitrary. Setting the line at conception is.

Why is one second after birth murder but one second before perfectly fine. Can't think of any reason? I thought not because it is a perfectly arbitrary line. I agree both are arbitrary that is exactly why I draw no line and err for life.

That it's bad to put children's lives at risk unnecessarily.

It is kind of necessary to have children for the human race to survive. You may feel it ok to claim the human races survival is not good but I will try and keep the guys in the white coats away and think like you and 99.9% of humanity that humanity is desirable. I can't believe where you non-theists will go to defend the indefensible. Do you realize you are arguing that the right to kill a fetus is good but survival of the human race is not?

Actually, I think your position is the one that devalues life.

It just gets worse and worse. The guy who is defending the survival of almost a billion human lives so far is devaluing life but the one who claims doing so was good and the human races survival is not is assigning greater value to life. Even if what you said had the slightest hint or truth about it whatever value I gave life would be based on sufficient justification. Whatever value you assign to life is completely arbitrary and assumed and from the looks of things either zero or even less.

Okay - so you don't have an obligation to have kids. That's fine - so we're back where we started: if we assume that the fetus/embryo is a person from the moment of conception, then pregnancy creates a needless risk of the death of a child.

The continuation of the human race is anything but needless. Look I just can't do this. Either pick some far less absurd argumentation or I am out. This is just embarrassing to even consider worthy of reply.

It's quite a bit higher than 5%. Here are one set of stats:


The Truth About Your Top 10 Pregnancy Worries - Fit Pregnancy

Also, keep in mind that failure of a fertilized egg to implant wouldn't be considered "conception" medically (and therefore wouldn't be included in those stats), but would still count if we're assuming that the embryo is a person from the moment the sperm meets the egg. When these are included, the likelihood that a fertilized egg won't result in a live birth is around 1 in 3 to 1 in 4, just like I said.

I tell you what, since the argument you are using that makes use of these numbers is so ridiculous that it long before this moment ceased to resemble a argument at all you may use whatever stats you like as it will not help.

I am unwilling to continue any discussion with you that involves.

1. Calling the end of the human race acceptable. On your view there is no basis for considering it good or bad but in mine like most other things actual foundations exist to extricate moral ideas from hopeless insanity.
2. Pregnancy is needless.
3. Or the one protecting life from your side values it less.

Any argument with those premises is just Ludacris. Weed those out and I will debate you but it is just a waste of time debating absurdities that are that absurd.

 

[1robin]

Yes, in reality I am. Autonomy from being an actual part of a woman's body. At birth, a totally autonomous new being.

So you have redefined morality to equal autonomy based on convenience and opinion. That has ceased to be a moral or even true morality you have developed. Why should your opinion bind anything. Why not Hitler's moral opinion as Dawkins so honestly admitted? Why not mine? Why not Stalin's or Mother Theresa's or are we to all be the moral God's of our own lives? Six billion independent moral nations with independent laws? What happens when those nations impact each other? Who's opinion based morality is to be used? Let's say that your view turns out to be wrong and there is a God and he endows that child with a soul of infinite worth at conception and gives it individual will (personhood) at sometime prior to birth. However you for no reason deny this is true and in your omniscience and preference based moral system terminate the sovereign life of that Child. Yet if God does exist you are absolutely wrong and have killed an innocent child of God on the basis of convenience and as a result of actions you not it took. No you can't prove their is no God and I cant prove there is, yet my view errs for life and yours for death based on "imaginary rights you demand for yourself but deny the child". Until you can prove there is no God my decision is the more moral.

Slum off ramp! LOL! A conversation on this subject always includes these ideas because you folks are using your patriarchal religious ideas, - like sex should be in a marriage.

Yes we are so antiquated. Sex outside of marriage has actually been so beneficial to society in general it should be mandated along with other things as beneficial like the plague or communism. We should all worship at the alter of the secular God ME and forget that secularism is producing massive increases in almost all moral statistics (for example the US since the great secular hippy rebellion of the 60's). In fact I already have our creed ready for our most glorious regression. Yes regression but don't worry because without God the almighty me or you can simply declare regression is the new progression. Here is our Bible.

“Creed” on the World
By Steve Turner

We believe in Marxfreudanddarwin
We believe everything is OK
as long as you don’t hurt anyone
to the best of your definition of hurt,
and to the best of your knowledge.
We believe in sex before, during, and
after marriage.
We believe in the therapy of sin.
We believe that adultery is fun.
We believe that sodomy’s OK.
We believe that taboos are taboo.
We believe that everything’s getting better
despite evidence to the contrary.
The evidence must be investigated
And you can prove anything with evidence.
We believe there’s something in horoscopes
UFO’s and bent spoons.
Jesus was a good man just like Buddha,
Mohammed, and ourselves.
He was a good moral teacher though we think
His good morals were bad.
We believe that all religions are basically the same-
at least the one that we read was.
They all believe in love and goodness.
They only differ on matters of creation,
sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation.
We believe that after death comes the Nothing
Because when you ask the dead what happens
they say nothing.
If death is not the end, if the dead have lied, then its
compulsory heaven for all
excepting perhaps
Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Kahn
We believe in Masters and Johnson
What’s selected is average.
What’s average is normal.
What’s normal is good.
We believe in total disarmament.
We believe there are direct links between warfare and
bloodshed.
Americans should beat their guns into tractors .
And the Russians would be sure to follow.
We believe that man is essentially good.
It’s only his behavior that lets him down.
This is the fault of society.
Society is the fault of conditions.
Conditions are the fault of society.
We believe that each man must find the truth that
is right for him.
Reality will adapt accordingly.
The universe will readjust.
History will alter.
We believe that there is no absolute truth
excepting the truth
that there is no absolute truth.
We believe in the rejection of creeds,
And the flowering of individual thought.
If chance be
the Father of all flesh,
disaster is his rainbow in the sky
and when you hear
State of Emergency!
Sniper Kills Ten!
Troops on Rampage!
Whites go Looting!
Bomb Blasts School!
It is but the sound of man
worshipping his maker.
Steve Turner, (English journalist), “Creed,” his satirical poem on the modern mind. Taken from Ravi Zacharias’ book Can Man live Without God? Pages 42-44

Fair warning given half a chance I will use this poem. It is the most accurate commentary on the modern secular (in general) mind that I have ever heard.

That idea is just bull. Women have the right to have sex whenever, and with whomever, they want.

However the human life created by this "right - that is based on nothing what so ever" does not even have the right to live. That is hypocrisy on steroids. What founds rights without God? Jefferson could think of nothing else and he was no Christian. Secular people have rights based on simply claiming they do I guess because they have rights to things they apparently demand others pay for as well.

Since they have a womb, PERFECT contraception is NEEDED. Since there is no PERFECT contraceptive at this time - there are going to be unintentional pregnancies. And the right to abort these, needs to be guaranteed. Nobody wants to have an abortion. We need better contraceptives.

Capacity is not the foundation of rights. I have arms, eyes, and automatic weapons, do I have a right to kill. No, that is restricted only to abortion I guess.

I get a kick how you throw in the RED HERRING= EMOTIONALLY BASED - every time we have a conversation where you don't like what I'm saying - and the FACT that I am telling you HOW it is.

What I like has nothing to do with anything. Debates consist of foundations and justifiable argumentation and that is what I point out yours lacks.

These ideas have obviously been found rational - as we have legal abortion.

So now not only is morality simply redefined as whatever you think but rationality is defined as legal. Even the Greeks and Romans knew that a big difference exists from crimes against moral truth and actions against legal cades. See Mallum prohibitum and Mallum in se if you actually care what the truth of morality is.

Also I was not complaining about men's actions - I was pointing out the double standard - and reasons why men feel they can PLAY PIOUS and order women to continue pregnancies - they personally don't fall into the command to do such - win-win for them. They can continue to have as much sex as they want - while the idea is to force women to play nun until the male is done s****ing around and calls them to be a broodmare in a bound relationship.

Double standard or actions I will not defend them. However complaining about and denying reality seems only to have value to your side of the aisle.

I obviously don't agree with your religious ideas, or your ideas about when cells attain legal status.

I have no claims about the legal status of cells or unborn babies. I am responsible. I allow for my ignorance. Your side does not allow for theirs but recklessly demands rights that have no basis what so ever and dismisses age old morality in order to produce and kill human lives and is at least just as ignorant.

Women have to have absolute control of their own bodies to be truly equal with men.

I have no interest in false equalities. I don't know who has the better end of the stick and do not care, but one thing is certain we are not equal and never will be and to insist on impossibilities based on nothing is a recipe for doom. Where do you get any justification for even suggesting equality as a goal? Nature is all that is left without God and it has not produced two equal things ever. Only with God can we all be created with equal value and worth. Without him we have no actual worth or value even possible beyond a false subjectivity. Did God or women's lib create the most revered women in history?

 

[Ingledsva]

Yes, in reality I am. Autonomy from being an actual part of a woman's body. At birth, a totally autonomous new being.

So you have redefined morality to equal autonomy based on convenience and opinion. That has ceased to be a moral or even true morality you have developed. Why should your opinion bind anything. Why not Hitler's moral opinion as Dawkins so honestly admitted? Why not mine? Why not Stalin's or Mother Theresa's or are we to all be the moral God's of our own lives? Six billion independent moral nations with independent laws? What happens when those nations impact each other? Who's opinion based morality is to be used? Let's say that your view turns out to be wrong and there is a God and he endows that child with a soul of infinite worth at conception and gives it individual will (personhood) at sometime prior to birth. However you for no reason deny this is true and in your omniscience and preference based moral system terminate the sovereign life of that Child. Yet if God does exist you are absolutely wrong and have killed an innocent child of God on the basis of convenience and as a result of actions you not it took. No you can't prove their is no God and I cant prove there is, yet my view errs for life and yours for death based on "imaginary rights you demand for yourself but deny the child". Until you can prove there is no God my decision is the more moral.

I have not redefined morality. You however are trying to based on your religious ideas.

My RIGHTS count, and Hitler's don't. because we are talking about a part of MY BODY!

These are not imaginary rights, as shown by courts, and a blob of my cells does not have rights over ME.

Slum off ramp! LOL! A conversation on this subject always includes these ideas because you folks are using your patriarchal religious ideas, - like sex should be in a marriage

Yes we are so antiquated. Sex outside of marriage has actually been so beneficial to society in general it should be mandated along with other things as beneficial like the plague or communism. We should all worship at the alter of the secular God ME and forget that secularism is producing massive increases in almost all moral statistics (for example the US since the great secular hippy rebellion of the 60's). In fact I already have our creed ready for our most glorious regression. Yes regression but don't worry because without God the almighty me or you can simply declare regression is the new progression. Here is our Bible.

Steve Turner, (English journalist), “Creed,” his satirical poem on the modern mind. Taken from Ravi Zacharias’ book Can Man live Without God? Pages 42-44
...
Fair warning given half a chance I will use this poem. It is the most accurate commentary on the modern secular (in general) mind that I have ever heard.

LOL! Your religion is speaking. We are not in trouble today because of sex outside of marriage! PERIOD!

That idea is just bull. Women have the right to have sex whenever, and with whomever, they want.

the human life created by this "right - that is based on nothing what so ever" does not even have the right to live. That is hypocrisy on steroids. What founds rights without God? Jefferson could think of nothing else and he was no Christian. Secular people have rights based on simply claiming they do I guess because they have rights to things they apparently demand others pay for as well.

As has already been said - this is my right as the cells are part of my body - and the courts have agreed with this.

"What founds rights without God?" I don't believe in your God. Nor do your religious ideas have a right to rule me.

Capacity is not the foundation of rights. I have arms, eyes, and automatic weapons, do I have a right to kill. No, that is restricted only to abortion I guess.

Yes you do have a right to kill - in defense of self or family, etc. And again YOU are the one that thinks abortion is murder - I do not.

I get a kick how you throw in the RED HERRING= EMOTIONALLY BASED - every time we have a conversation where you don't like what I'm saying - and the FACT that I am telling you HOW it is

What I like has nothing to do with anything.

Which still leaves you throwing in RED HEARINGS trying to throw off a debate.

Debates consist of foundations and justifiable argumentation and that is what I point out yours lacks.

LOL! And I will say again - the courts have found them justifiable.

These ideas have obviously been found rational - as we have legal abortion.

So now not only is morality simply redefined as whatever you think but rationality is defined as legal. Even the Greeks and Romans knew that a big difference exists from crimes against moral truth and actions against legal cades. See Mallum prohibitum and Mallum in se if you actually care what the truth of morality is.

LOL! Again - obviously more then just I think this way - as we have laws.

Also I was not complaining about men's actions - I was pointing out the double standard - and reasons why men feel they can PLAY PIOUS and order women to continue pregnancies - they personally don't fall into the command to do such - win-win for them. They can continue to have as much sex as they want - while the idea is to force women to play nun until the male is done s****ing around and calls them to be a broodmare in a bound relationship.

Double standard or actions I will not defend them. However complaining about and denying reality seems only to have value to your side of the aisle.

And again - you don't seem to understand the difference between stating facts - and - "complaining about and denying reality."

I obviously don't agree with your religious ideas, or your ideas about when cells attain legal status.

I have no claims about the legal status of cells or unborn babies. I am responsible. I allow for my ignorance. Your side does not allow for theirs but recklessly demands rights that have no basis what so ever and dismisses age old morality in order to produce and kill human lives and is at least just as ignorant.

LOL! Obviously you do, as you are posting on the subject.

You calling people whom believe women have to have full control of their own bodies to be truly equal in our society, irresponsible and ignorant, is just ridiculous.

There has obviously been years of back and forth discussion on this subject - leading to a reasonable compromise law with an abortion cut off date. Both sides have had their say.

Women have to have absolute control of their own bodies to be truly equal with men.

I have no interest in false equalities. I don't know who has the better end of the stick and do not care, but one thing is certain we are not equal and never will be and to insist on impossibilities based on nothing is a recipe for doom. Where do you get any justification for even suggesting equality as a goal? Nature is all that is left without God and it has not produced two equal things ever. Only with God can we all be created with equal value and worth. Without him we have no actual worth or value even possible beyond a false subjectivity. Did God or women's lib create the most revered women in history?

This last paragraph in a nutshell shows explicitly some of the reasons why I think religions are a detriment to society.

Obviously I was not talking about the male and female bodies being the same. I was talking about societal equality, and what rights are needed by women to achieve this.

*

 

[johnhanks]

If God mandates that murder is wrong then even if every human in history thought it was right they would all be wrong.

It is linguistically nonsensical to declare that murder is right, since murder is by definition wrongful homicide. "Murder is wrong" is a tautology, "murder is right" an oxymoron. If God had mandated that any homicide is wrong, or had specified precisely the criteria by which a homicide is judged to be murder, he would have said something worth listening to; but if we translate the fifth commandment merely as "Thou shalt not murder", all that has been uttered is an empty tautology.

 

[1robin]

It is linguistically nonsensical to declare that murder is right, since murder is by definition wrongful homicide. "Murder is wrong" is a tautology, "murder is right" an oxymoron.

You will be entertaining. Linguistically has not the slightest thing to do with it. Language use has not the slightest capacity to bind what is wrong or write. Language is descriptive not prescriptive. Murder is wrong is not a tautology if God exists. Me and even non-theists just destroyed that argument in one of these threads recently. It is nonsense if he does not. If God does not exist Murder is not actually wrong in any form or language use. It may be assumed to be but it isn't. It could be inconvenient, it could be un-preferred but there exists not the slightest capacity to make it wrong. Are you actually attempting to claim that the standard of making sense is what determines what people will claim? The same moral insanity that insists killing an innocent human life in the womb is a sacred right but denies the right to kill a convicted "murderer" should have prevented that claim. Rinse and repeat a billion times for every area of morality.

If God had mandated that any homicide is wrong, or had specified precisely the criteria by which a homicide is judged to be murder, he would have said something worth listening to; but if we translate the fifth commandment merely as "Thou shalt not murder", all that has been uttered is an empty tautology.

Whatever problems you prescribe to God (right or wrong) in this context only apply to application or apprehension. I was making an ontological point not an epistemological one. You must stay in the context an argument was given in to critique it meaningfully. What grounds morality is different from discussing how we apprehend it or apply it.

 

[1robin]

I have not redefined morality. You however are trying to based on your religious ideas.

My RIGHTS count, and Hitler's don't. because we are talking about a part of MY BODY!

These are not imaginary rights, as shown by courts, and a blob of my cells does not have rights over ME.





LOL! Your religion is speaking. We are not in trouble today because of sex outside of marriage! PERIOD!




As has already been said - this is my right as the cells are part of my body - and the courts have agreed with this.

"What founds rights without God?" I don't believe in your God. Nor do your religious ideas have a right to rule me.



Yes you do have a right to kill - in defense of self or family, etc. And again YOU are the one that thinks abortion is murder - I do not.




Which still leaves you throwing in RED HEARINGS trying to throw off a debate.



LOL! And I will say again - the courts have found them justifiable.




LOL! Again - obviously more then just I think this way - as we have laws.




And again - you don't seem to understand the difference between stating facts - and - "complaining about and denying reality."




LOL! Obviously you do, as you are posting on the subject.

You calling people whom believe women have to have full control of their own bodies to be truly equal in our society, irresponsible and ignorant, is just ridiculous.

There has obviously been years of back and forth discussion on this subject - leading to a reasonable compromise law with an abortion cut off date. Both sides have had their say.




This last paragraph in a nutshell shows explicitly some of the reasons why I think religions are a detriment to society.

Obviously I was not talking about the male and female bodies being the same. I was talking about societal equality, and what rights are needed by women to achieve this.

*

This is too long for the time I have available. Diffuse this weekend. I thought you were about to blow in your last post and we will go at it again on Monday. Have a good weekend.

 

[ruffen]

“Creed” on the World
By Steve Turner

We believe in Marxfreudanddarwin
We believe everything is OK
as long as you don’t hurt anyone
to the best of your definition of hurt,
and to the best of your knowledge.
We believe in sex before, during, and
after marriage.
We believe in the therapy of sin.
We believe that adultery is fun.
We believe that sodomy’s OK.
We believe that taboos are taboo.
We believe that everything’s getting better
despite evidence to the contrary.
The evidence must be investigated
And you can prove anything with evidence.
We believe there’s something in horoscopes
UFO’s and bent spoons.
Jesus was a good man just like Buddha,
Mohammed, and ourselves.
He was a good moral teacher though we think
His good morals were bad.
We believe that all religions are basically the same-
at least the one that we read was.
They all believe in love and goodness.
They only differ on matters of creation,
sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation.
We believe that after death comes the Nothing
Because when you ask the dead what happens
they say nothing.
If death is not the end, if the dead have lied, then its
compulsory heaven for all
excepting perhaps
Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Kahn
We believe in Masters and Johnson
What’s selected is average.
What’s average is normal.
What’s normal is good.
We believe in total disarmament.
We believe there are direct links between warfare and
bloodshed.
Americans should beat their guns into tractors .
And the Russians would be sure to follow.
We believe that man is essentially good.
It’s only his behavior that lets him down.
This is the fault of society.
Society is the fault of conditions.
Conditions are the fault of society.
We believe that each man must find the truth that
is right for him.
Reality will adapt accordingly.
The universe will readjust.
History will alter.
We believe that there is no absolute truth
excepting the truth
that there is no absolute truth.
We believe in the rejection of creeds,
And the flowering of individual thought.
If chance be
the Father of all flesh,
disaster is his rainbow in the sky
and when you hear
State of Emergency!
Sniper Kills Ten!
Troops on Rampage!
Whites go Looting!
Bomb Blasts School!
It is but the sound of man
worshipping his maker.
Steve Turner, (English journalist), “Creed,” his satirical poem on the modern mind. Taken from Ravi Zacharias’ book Can Man live Without God? Pages 42-44

Fair warning given half a chance I will use this poem. It is the most accurate commentary on the modern secular (in general) mind that I have ever heard.

What a narrow-minded poem. It's funny how one can criticize the belief in UFO's, horoscopes and bent spoons and yet think belief in Christ is normal.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why is one second after birth murder but one second before perfectly fine. Can't think of any reason? I thought not because it is a perfectly arbitrary line. I agree both are arbitrary that is exactly why I draw no line and err for life.

First off, I need to correct you: my position is that the woman has the right to end the pregnancy at any time. This is not the same as some sort of right to the death of the fetus. After viability, the pregnancy can be ended by inducing a live birth.

But back to your question: supporting abortion isn't a matter of believing that the fetus has no value, but that the woman's rights have more value. After birth, there's no conflict between the rights of the woman and the life of the baby.

Now let me turn your question around on you: after a person is born, we would never take your bone marrow or kidneys against your will even if that person would die without them. If you have the right to decide not to let someone use your organs, why wouldn't a pregnant woman? Why do you give a fetus even more rights than a normal person?

It is kind of necessary to have children for the human race to survive. You may feel it ok to claim the human races survival is not good but I will try and keep the guys in the white coats away and think like you and 99.9% of humanity that humanity is desirable. I can't believe where you non-theists will go to defend the indefensible. Do you realize you are arguing that the right to kill a fetus is good but survival of the human race is not?

Please actually read my posts before you reply... did you even look at the half that you snipped out?

People will keep breeding regardless of whether you decide to be consistent. And if you resolve the conflict the way I'd prefer - i.e. by accepting that the anti-choice position is wrong - then you're free to have kids without being worried about being logically inconsistent.

It just gets worse and worse. The guy who is defending the survival of almost a billion human lives so far is devaluing life but the one who claims doing so was good and the human races survival is not is assigning greater value to life. Even if what you said had the slightest hint or truth about it whatever value I gave life would be based on sufficient justification. Whatever value you assign to life is completely arbitrary and assumed and from the looks of things either zero or even less.

Your position devalues pregnant women. You care about fetuses, but stop carrying about those fetuses after they've grown up and get pregnant themselves.

The continuation of the human race is anything but needless. Look I just can't do this. Either pick some far less absurd argumentation or I am out. This is just embarrassing to even consider worthy of reply.

Again: the human race will continue regardless of whether you acknowledge the inconsistency in your position.

I tell you what, since the argument you are using that makes use of these numbers is so ridiculous that it long before this moment ceased to resemble a argument at all you may use whatever stats you like as it will not help.

I am unwilling to continue any discussion with you that involves.

1. Calling the end of the human race acceptable. On your view there is no basis for considering it good or bad but in mine like most other things actual foundations exist to extricate moral ideas from hopeless insanity.
2. Pregnancy is needless.
3. Or the one protecting life from your side values it less.

Any argument with those premises is just Ludacris. Weed those out and I will debate you but it is just a waste of time debating absurdities that are that absurd.

You're arguing against a straw man. If you want to stop arguing against those points, then start arguing against what I'm actually saying.

 

[Ingledsva]

[quote-1Robin]“Creed” on the World
By Steve Turner

We believe in Marxfreudanddarwin
We believe everything is OK
as long as you don’t hurt anyone
to the best of your definition of hurt,
and to the best of your knowledge.
We believe in sex before, during, and
after marriage.
We believe in the therapy of sin.
We believe that adultery is fun.
We believe that sodomy’s OK.
We believe that taboos are taboo.
We believe that everything’s getting better
despite evidence to the contrary.
The evidence must be investigated
And you can prove anything with evidence.
We believe there’s something in horoscopes
UFO’s and bent spoons.
Jesus was a good man just like Buddha,
Mohammed, and ourselves.
He was a good moral teacher though we think
His good morals were bad.
We believe that all religions are basically the same-
at least the one that we read was.
They all believe in love and goodness.
They only differ on matters of creation,
sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation.
We believe that after death comes the Nothing
Because when you ask the dead what happens
they say nothing.
If death is not the end, if the dead have lied, then its
compulsory heaven for all
excepting perhaps
Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Kahn
We believe in Masters and Johnson
What’s selected is average.
What’s average is normal.
What’s normal is good.
We believe in total disarmament.
We believe there are direct links between warfare and
bloodshed.
Americans should beat their guns into tractors .
And the Russians would be sure to follow.
We believe that man is essentially good.
It’s only his behavior that lets him down.
This is the fault of society.
Society is the fault of conditions.
Conditions are the fault of society.
We believe that each man must find the truth that
is right for him.
Reality will adapt accordingly.
The universe will readjust.
History will alter.
We believe that there is no absolute truth
excepting the truth
that there is no absolute truth.
We believe in the rejection of creeds,
And the flowering of individual thought.
If chance be
the Father of all flesh,
disaster is his rainbow in the sky
and when you hear
State of Emergency!
Sniper Kills Ten!
Troops on Rampage!
Whites go Looting!
Bomb Blasts School!
It is but the sound of man
worshipping his maker.

Steve Turner, (English journalist), “Creed,” his satirical poem on the modern mind. Taken from Ravi Zacharias’ book Can Man live Without God? Pages 42-44

Fair warning given half a chance I will use this poem. It is the most accurate commentary on the modern secular (in general) mind that I have ever heard.[/quote

What a narrow-minded poem. It's funny how one can criticize the belief in UFO's, horoscopes and bent spoons and yet think belief in Christ is normal.

Yep. Plus it is slanderous in its fallacy that people that don't believe in God commit all kinds of "evil."

It shows the Christian idea that if their religion doesn't like it - then you should be forced to follow their idea,

Sex before marriage is normal and good, - better hope there is sex in the marriage, or your spouse is going to leave, - and sex after/outside marriage is OK if both spouses agree to such.

There is obviously nothing wrong with "sodomy." Homosexuals should be allowed to do it - right along with all the heterosexual couple that do. etc.

And by the way, I've seen a flying saucer, - and NO I wasn't alone, many saw it.

*

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

What a narrow-minded poem. It's funny how one can criticize the belief in UFO's, horoscopes and bent spoons and yet think belief in Christ is normal.

UFOs?! Now that's just crazy talk. But God has a son that's actually him and sacrificed his son, I mean, himself, so that he can forgive himself for the sins of his own creation. How could that be unreasonable?:sarcastic

 

[johnhanks]

If God does not exist Murder is not actually wrong in any form or language use.

Anthropologically and sociologically illiterate. All societies categorise acts of homicide as justifiable or not; some seek to strengthen that categorisation by ascribing it to a deity. The homicides that are unjustifiable they have a word for.

Are you actually attempting to claim that the standard of making sense is what determines what people will claim?

If you really think that's what I'm claiming you haven't read very carefully. I'm saying that right and wrong are social constructs, not absolutes. What you call murder is not necessarily what a Yanomami tribesman calls murder. But once the word murder (in whatever language) has been applied, "Murder is not actually wrong" is an oxymoron.

 

[1robin]

Anthropologically and sociologically illiterate. All societies categorise acts of homicide as justifiable or not; some seek to strengthen that categorisation by ascribing it to a deity. The homicides that are unjustifiable they have a word for.

The commonality of a claim is powerless to make it mirror actual truth. Even if everyone on Earth thought Hitler was right that would not make it true. However as a Christian I have the foundation to claim he was not right. As a atheist you can't as Dawkin's so honestly admitted. You also state God's are invented to justify morals. First you must prove that then you must tell my why it effects what I said.

If you really think that's what I'm claiming you haven't read very carefully. I'm saying that right and wrong are social constructs, not absolutes. What you call murder is not necessarily what a Yanomami tribesman calls murder. But once the word murder (in whatever language) has been applied, "Murder is not actually wrong" is an oxymoron.

Since you agree that without God there is no actual right or wrong then as that is what I said what are you contending?

1. With God morals are both factual and moral.
2. Without God morality is opinion and amoral.

Keep in mind I am making ontological points, not epistemological ones.

 

[1robin]

What a narrow-minded poem. It's funny how one can criticize the belief in UFO's, horoscopes and bent spoons and yet think belief in Christ is normal.

Even if I were to remove what you contended that poem still accurately states and condemns modern thought. I can hardly believe anyone would equate bent spoons with faith in Christ. Or even what has been experienced by billions (Christ) to what has been experienced (UFOs) by between 0 and a few ten thousand at most. They are not even remotely equal.

 

[SheikhHorusFromTheSky]

This was brought out many times by Atheists and agnostics, I would like to discuss it with you in a rational and respectful manner. My disclaimer is I am a true 5 point Calvinist and If that is offensive to you,You are free to close the thread now. If I may suggest , we leave out all slander against My God in the process of this discussion, slander being pre-defined as name calling as If he were real and present.Questioning scriptures depiction of God however you interpret is allowed. Example: Is God evil? Fair enough?

Here is my premise,
this is my belief based upon my scriptures.
God not only allows children to die, He has pre-ordained them to die. Hard for us to fathom, granted, but True nevertheless in Scripture. If we say he did not cause it and only allowed it to happen then God would be reacting to free will of man to accomplish their own destruction, thus putting too much power in men and essentially tying God's hands. God ordained for this latest tragedy for his own purposes, we cannot know them, we are not our creator, so The bible tells us we must accept that their is a divine plan and God is in control completely.

So you have asked, where is the comfort in that? Why do religious peoples comfort families of these tragedies with this premise of a God in control? Well let me ask you Atheists would you attempt to comfort these mothers with your precept that there is no God? No heaven and no hell? That their children are reduced to dust as they came? That the man who murdered them who took his life is also Dust and there is no justice for them either? Both parties cease to exist, one guilty, one innocent, both have the same fate in the end.

Or could it be more comforting that a God in control is with their babies now, that they know no suffering,feel no pain have no more tears and the man that took their life will be punished by a Just and perfect God. Where is the evil in my premise and the lack of evil in yours? I find evil in evildoing going unpunished.I find evil in a life given for no purpose but to die and cease to exist.
What say you?

Here's my take.

I agree that the Gawd of the BiBULL is a cruel, heartless son-of-a-*****; the one you Calvinists worship.

That's the reason why I hate it is because it has caused more deaths than any other religion. In fact it is still going on today: claiming victims in Africa, Asia, and South America.

Things They Don't Tell You about Christianity - Overview IV: Christianity in the present

Feel free to click on the button above. You will definitely see an eye opening perspective that you've never seen.

 

[1robin]

UFOs?! Now that's just crazy talk. But God has a son that's actually him and sacrificed his son, I mean, himself, so that he can forgive himself for the sins of his own creation. How could that be unreasonable?:sarcastic

I would not claim to know UFOs do not exist but the ration of those who even claim to have experienced them is at least a thousand to 1. However there are very good and scientific reasons to believe that UFOs have at least not visited Earth. Only those ignorant of both claims would equate them.

 

[1robin]

I have not redefined morality. You however are trying to based on your religious ideas.

No my claims were specifically crafted so as not to depend on my faith. Erring for life instead of death requires no theological justification and I gave a secular justification. No faith needed.

My RIGHTS count, and Hitler's don't. because we are talking about a part of MY BODY!

In what way is owning genetic material a basis for rights? Any way you invent to do so would also justify the child's right to life. My Dad always said your rights (even if you actually have them) end at the other persons none.

These are not imaginary rights, as shown by courts, and a blob of my cells does not have rights over ME.

A court is completely incapable of either granting rights to an unborn human life or of taking them away. It may only decide what is legal. As I have explained going all the way back to Rome and Greece the difference between legality and morality was well known. I have been discussing the more profound moral issue not the arbitrary legality used to buy votes, pay back those who gave money to campaigns, or to satisfy lobbyists.

LOL! Your religion is speaking. We are not in trouble today because of sex outside of marriage! PERIOD!

Good night nurse, there are few issues in human history that have more devastating consequences than sex outside marriage. Statements like this simply destroy you credibility. How many families have to be destroyed by infidelity for you to agree it is destructive? A rate BTW up 300-400% since secularism infected the US in 1960. It is hard to debate morals with an atheist, they are an illusive moving target.

As has already been said - this is my right as the cells are part of my body - and the courts have agreed with this.

What a court says has nothing to do with right or wrong. Why do I have to state something so obvious. When those same courts said abortion was illegal did not your side insist that law was wrong? Did not recently homosexuals argue that laws prohibiting them from marrying was wrong? Neither one had a foundation for claiming that did anyway. I do have a foundation even without God to claim what I have and your denying the same thing you allowed before.

"What founds rights without God?" I don't believe in your God. Nor do your religious ideas have a right to rule me.

Then you have no rights or at least no basis for claiming you do. Certain things are voided when you dismiss God. That is why Jefferson could only think of God as grounds for rights at all.

Yes you do have a right to kill - in defense of self or family, etc. And again YOU are the one that thinks abortion is murder - I do not.

Well neither condition exists concerning abortion so by your own standards you have no justification for killing an unborn child.

Which still leaves you throwing in RED HEARINGS trying to throw off a debate.

I have no need of misdirection. Facts are all on my side. My erring on life contention is absolute.

LOL! And I will say again - the courts have found them justifiable.

No they did not. They determined they were legal based on political pressure. Two very different issues. Why is only those legal determinations you agree with correct. By your standards Jim Crow laws were right when in effect.

LOL! Again - obviously more then just I think this way - as we have laws.

All law is opinion. My statements dealt with absolute criteria for solutions not opinions.

And again - you don't seem to understand the difference between stating facts - and - "complaining about and denying reality."

So far you have not presented an actual fact as justification for anything or refutation of what I have said. By your twisted rationalization the white man who refused to serve the African American in 1940 was "right". This is called a false normalization fallacy. The idea that what is accepted is right would have resulted in condemnation of Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr, and Christ. Nice job. My views look for what is right not what is legal.

LOL! Obviously you do, as you are posting on the subject.

You calling people whom believe women have to have full control of their own bodies to be truly equal in our society, irresponsible and ignorant, is just ridiculous.

There has obviously been years of back and forth discussion on this subject - leading to a reasonable compromise law with an abortion cut off date. Both sides have had their say.

1. My side- States we have no capacity to declare any line exist in pregnancy between Murder and ok and so being responsible contend that no decision should be made.
2. Your side- Is ignorant of where any line "should" be drown. Yet being selfish and irresponsible draws it anyway and takes life based on that imaginary line.

You can't defend this. The fact no line actually exists is reflected by their being lines drawn at multiple times based on states determinations. There exists no actual line yet human life is destroyed based on it.

This last paragraph in a nutshell shows explicitly some of the reasons why I think religions are a detriment to society.

There is not much for me to do with your opinion. There is no argument here and I agree that most religions are detrimental as well as perhaps the most destructive (no religion). All the great genocides of history are atheistic.

Obviously I was not talking about the male and female bodies being the same. I was talking about societal equality, and what rights are needed by women to achieve this.

If we are physically different is that not grounds for at least a few societal inequalities being justified. Should we lower the physical requirements for combat units concerning women (as we have) and get soldiers killed so women can exercise a right that does not exist and become infantry or special operations soldiers. PC liberal BS has caused way more harm than it has prevented. Unequal things should not be equalized. I put this off because the posts length suggested I was in for a long and complex argument. I was mistaken. You made two main points, both founded on nothing and repeated them many times. Where do you get rights? The government does not have a warehouse full of rights to distribute? If you have an equality with anything on what actually existent thing and sufficient foundation are they founded? Only God can possibly make humans equal and with equal status. Evolution has never created two equal things ever and has no rights to dispense even if it could.

 

[1robin]

Nope. Just a bunch of arguments that defend their worthless theologies

Actually every single argument that claims the presence of Evil is incompatible with a benevolent and all powerful God is a false optimization fallacy and based in ignorance. The presence of Evil is in no way contradictory to a good God.

 

[SheikhHorusFromTheSky]

Actually every single argument that claims the presence of Evil is incompatible with a benevolent and all powerful God is a false optimization fallacy and based in ignorance. The presence of Evil is in no way contradictory to a good God.

Maybe you should read Isaiah 45:7. It says right there explicitly that Gawd creates evil. So what does that tell you? That he's evil.

If evil is outside the creation of God, then that would prove my point that God and the Devil are one and the same. You just unwittingly admitted it right there, yet you refuse to acknowledge it.

 

[1robin]

Yep. Plus it is slanderous in its fallacy that people that don't believe in God commit all kinds of "evil."

It shows the Christian idea that if their religion doesn't like it - then you should be forced to follow their idea,

Sex before marriage is normal and good, - better hope there is sex in the marriage, or your spouse is going to leave, - and sex after/outside marriage is OK if both spouses agree to such.

There is obviously nothing wrong with "sodomy." Homosexuals should be allowed to do it - right along with all the heterosexual couple that do. etc.

And by the way, I've seen a flying saucer, - and NO I wasn't alone, many saw it.

*

You condemnation is actually evidence of the poem's veracity. You gave a laundry list of what is ok (without the slightest reason) and the only thing you said was wrong was for anyone to say those things were wrong. That is exactly what the poem said of secular "morality".

1. Sodomy is not in any sense normal. Most societies throughout most of history have considered it deviant.
2. Normal (even if I had the luxury of what you said being true) would still not have the slightest thing to do with right or wrong. It was normal in 1860 for a slave to be torn apart by horses, whipped, or sexually assaulted. If the 300,000 Christians in the north thought like you they would have said: Why should they throw away their lives, as slavery was normal after all? I am sure glad Abraham Lincoln was a Christian with the moral foundation to stop what was normal.
3. Sodomy is destructive even in monogamous relationships and as it exists in the homosexual community at large produces massive amounts of suffering, death, and monetary costs and is completely devoid of any corresponding gain that would justify its practice.
4. I have a friend who was a Navy corpsman. He has told me stories about what they have seen since homosexuals were allowed in the military and I would post it but they are far too graphic. It is utterly disgusting.
5. Since adultery has caused millions of families to be torn apart, I wish to ask if anything is destructive enough to be considered wrong to you?

Your post is proof of the accuracy of the poem.