Militant Atheism - Its Apparent Inconsistency

Many years ago I was an atheist. In fact I grew up being an atheist. How I became a Calvinist is a different story. However when I was an atheist, one of the last things I wanted to do was engage in a theological debate with any sort of believer of any kind (Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, New Age, Satanist, Wicca, whatever). Having a root canal ranked above a theological debate (at least a root canal had some beneficial results for me). I viewed such debates as being a total waste of my time, an activity to be avoided unless compelled to respond by circumstances beyond my control (which were very rare). I never voluntary entered into any debate with any believer of any kind; it was a waste of my time when I had better things to do (such as girl chasing, fishing, or working).

The logical conclusion of atheism is either Nihilism (life is without objective meaning or purpose, we are here just for the moment, despair) or Hedonism (the only good thing is what gives us pleasure). Unless they are a rarity, atheists contend that there is no afterlife, death is final, you go to black, you existence ceases, nada, the end (he's dead Jim). (I am not aware of any atheists who believe in some form of afterlife.) If you truly believe in no afterlife, then whatever you do in this life is "it", there isn't anymore for you. Spending your time to perform esoteric deeds (such as building hospitals, being kind to the environment, protecting whales, etc.) makes no sense unless doing so gives you some kind of pleasure (a moment of adulation from the audience). The fact that someone may put up a statue in your honor after you are gone is not going to do you much good when you are becoming an archaeological artifact buried in the ground. Since your awareness has terminated you won't know (even if they got the name spelled wrong). The only way an atheist can logically justify his actions is to state "it gives me pleasure" or it is required to get the means to do the things that give me pleasure (such as holding a job). For a atheist to state "I am doing this to improve conditions for the human race" is inconsistent. For if there is no God, then our existence is meaningless. We are then just momentary creations of the cosmos, brief flashes of light in the night (and then darkness). Improving conditions for humanity means that the atheist wishes to continue this repetition of one meaningless existence after another. In this case it would be better to render each person incapable of having children and eventually end this continual succession of meaningless existences while having a nice party in the meantime.

In view of this, I find it absolutely amazing at the time the atheists spend bashing Christianity and trying to convince Christians (and others) that we believe in nothing more than myths. I wonder "why are you doing this?". Your time on earth is running out, you are going to die (eventually). Why are you spending your precious time haranguing believers when you could be doing other things that are much more pleasurable (such as sex, drugs, or rock and roll). Who is being silly? The Christians who believe in God and an afterlife, or the atheists who spend a lot of time telling the Christians that they are being silly when those same atheists could be doing something else. The conclusion I reached is that atheists bash Christians because it gives them some sort of pleasure feeling to do so.

Without God, there is no basis for any set of moral values. Man defines what is moral and what is immoral. What one man defines as being moral, another man can define as being immoral. There is simply no basis to say who is right or who is wrong. Since man is defining morality, man can define one set or ethical rules today, and then tomorrow redefine the entire set of ethics. Men can define different concepts of morality and no one can say who is right. Many years ago there were a group of people called the Nazis led by a man named Hitler who held a moral precept that "Jews are bad people". The Nazis acted on that moral precept and you know the history. Well the atheists really have no basis to condemn that action for if man defines morality then the Nazis just adopted a different set of ethical values (but I have a basis to condemn the Nazis).

Yet we see atheists rant about the "killings of millions of people", hypocrisy, etc. Where is their basis for condemning such actions? For if there is no God, then there is no basis to declare any action as being immoral since such issues are defined by men. The only really logical conclusion is for the atheist to declare that they do not agree with that particular definition of morality. Here is a question for atheists. I have seen many atheists condemn Bush for invading Iraq citing a "Christian agenda". If Bush was a rock hard atheist, would you still condemn his invasion of Iraq? In short atheism gives no basis for moral condemnation of anyone, anytime. The only real basis an atheist has is to say his definition of morality is different.

Originally posted by jagdflieger
Since your awareness has terminated you won't know (even if they got the name spelled wrong). The only way an atheist can logically justify his actions is to state "it gives me pleasure" or it is required to get the means to do the things that give me pleasure (such as holding a job).

So, is there something wrong with that? Do you have issues with some of us living life to its fullest potential?

For a atheist to state "I am doing this to improve conditions for the human race" is inconsistent. For if there is no God, then our existence is meaningless.

Im assuming you are no longer an athiest, and now a critic. There is nothing wrong with us stating that statement ou just wroe. What if I want my kids, and their kids to live in the best conditions possible? You assume we are all selfish bigots who only look after ourselves.

Improving conditions for humanity means that the atheist wishes to continue this repetition of one meaningless existence after another. In this case it would be better to render each person incapable of having children and eventually end this continual succession of meaningless existences while having a nice party in the meantime.

What?!! You think we shouldnt have kids because we simply do not believe in an afterlife? Thats actually quote offensive. And for the record, my children will be allowed to believe in what they want. Unlike some religious parents, im not going to force atheism upon them, nor am i going to bag out other beliefs because I simply do not agree with them

In view of this, I find it absolutely amazing at the time the atheists spend bashing Christianity and trying to convince Christians (and others) that we believe in nothing more than myths.

I havent spent anytime doing that. Again another generalisation from someone who does not understand true atheism...only the extremists. I dont assume all Christians are like yourself, starting threads to point out whats wrong with other peoples belief system

I reached is that atheists bash Christians because it gives them some sort of pleasure feeling to do so.

I dont find pleasure in attacking other forms of religions at all....so sorry...your conclusion is incorrect. However if you wish to point out the problems you have with atheism...then I will gladly defend my belief and tell you what is wron with yours. I dont take pleasure in that, but I will if provoked.

Without God, there is no basis for any set of moral values. Man defines what is moral and what is immoral. What one man defines as being moral, another man can define as being immoral.

I dont believe in god and my morals are fine. I dont do drugs, I dont emotionally or physically hurt people I dont steal, I dont cheat on my fiancee, I treat people equally regardless of colour, sex, relgious beliefs or sexual orientation. If yiou are christian, which of those people would you treat differently? It seems that there is a huge consensus in some peoples point of view that homosexuality is wrong and people with other beliefs are worshipping false gods etc. Thats kind of immoral

Well the atheists really have no basis to condemn that action for if man defines morality then the Nazis just adopted a different set of ethical values (but I have a basis to condemn the Nazis).

I have just as much right as you to condemnt the Nazi's. Just because I dont agree with the jewish faith, doesn not mean I think the nazi's were worng in the persecution of minorties and jews. You seem to assume that we dont have any moral rights or opinions....again you are incorrect

Yet we see atheists rant about the "killings of millions of people", hypocrisy, etc. Where is their basis for condemning such actions?

Millions of people dying before there time....even an invalid can see that murdering people is immoral. My basis, is that people should be allwoed to live their life til the end.....they shouldnt die before their time.

Im beginnning to think this another I hate atheists troll thread, and Im seriously beginning to doubt that you used to be an athiest after your comments and misconceptions about it

For if there is no God, then there is no basis to declare any action as being immoral since such issues are defined by men.

Nope Im sorry....as I stated before, there is no link between morals and religious belief. However, I can see that religion is quite able to cloud ones judgement

Here is a question for atheists. I have seen many atheists condemn Bush for invading Iraq citing a "Christian agenda". If Bush was a rock hard atheist, would you still condemn his invasion of Iraq?

Yes, of course. He had no right to go into Iraq, regardless of what his beliefs were. The guys are complete warmongering tool

Now, do you condemn one of your own for invading Iraq? Or do you support him simply for his belief in god?

In short atheism gives no basis for moral condemnation of anyone, anytime. The only real basis an atheist has is to say his definition of morality is different.

All Im gonna say to that is I condemn child like attempts to suggest that us atheists have no concept of moral condemnation. And yes, my morals may be different to others, religious or otherwise, but unlike you i wont single out these others for there belief



[edit on 20/5/2010 by OzWeatherman]

reply to post by jagdflieger


So if there is no God our life is automatically meaningless?

If anything being an atheist has made me look at life as far more special and incredible. Knowing that this life is probably the only one you get to live makes you value your time here more instead of sitting around waiting for the after-life. And the fact that life evolved to get this way, the fact that we live in a Cosmos that allows the evolution of intelligent life, is phenomenally special with or without a magic sky daddy. As for life having purpose: How about unlocking the secrets of the Universe? Sounds like a pretty noble cause to me.

I never liked the idea of us being God's special project, it doesn't make much sense. Many other animals have better sensory organs (Eagle eyes, Bloodhound noses), some have longer lifespans. Plus the size of the Universe, why would God bother with this much space if we were the only planet he cared about? Also, the idea that we are divine of God goes hand in hand with the BS about us having "DOMINION" over the animals and the Earth - which gives us the excuse to pollute, destroy and most importantly SEPARATE ourselves from our animal brethren. In truth we are just another animal, an ape as a matter of fact, its in our DNA.

And here's a hint as to why some of us like to enter into debates with believers: Most of us used to be believers ourselves. I was raised Christian and now that I'm awake I do my part to awaken other Christians by pointing out the elements of their religion that make no sense whatsoever (and there are A LOT). I like to think of it as denying ignorance. I grew up being told the Bible was the perfect word of a perfect deity but when I got into my teen years and actually started reading the Bible I found plenty of flaws, logical contradictions, historical inaccuracies and morally questionable material.

I've got no quarrel with normal Christians but I do have a problem with the fundamentalists and zealots who defend the myths of the Bible as absolute truth and promote them as such based on blind faith.

For if there is no God, then there is no basis to declare any action as being immoral

This proves you know absolutely NOTHING about the origins of morality. Research the evolution of morality and maybe you'll learn something.

The Bible is a disgustingly poor moral guide which suggests that people who work on the Sabbath should be killed, that women who are not virgins on their wedding night should be put to death. The Bible says that God himself slaughtered a whole host of children in Egypt (not to mention the untold multitudes of children who must have died in the Flood or who will die in the bloodshed God brings during Revelation). The Bible says witches should be killed. The Bible says that cowards, magicians and liars will all go hell (99.9% of humanity falls under the liar category). Any God who cannot follow his own commandments is either a false God or a made up God or both.



[edit on 20-5-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

reply to post by OzWeatherman

So, is there something wrong with that? Do you have issues with some of us living life to its fullest potential?

No, did I say it was wrong. I just questioned your philosophical basis for your actions. I didn't say what you do is wrong, but that your reason for saying why you do it is inconsistent.

Im assuming you are no longer an athiest, and now a critic. There is nothing wrong with us stating that statement ou just wroe. What if I want my kids, and their kids to live in the best conditions possible? You assume we are all selfish bigots who only look after ourselves.

Here again, did I say it was wrong to have children. But tell me what is the meaning of our existence? Do our lives have any meaning other than we will be here only for a brief time? Where is the meaning? I never question the wrongness or the rightness of what you do, only your reasoning for doing what you do. Do you understand that? Having kids is great, but WHY do you have children?

I havent spent anytime doing that. Again another generalisation from someone who does not understand true atheism...only the extremists. I dont assume all Christians are like yourself, starting threads to point out whats wrong with other peoples belief system

Well I wasn't talking about you. Maybe I should have added the word "certain" before atheists. But then again why are you here (reading this thread).

I dont find pleasure in attacking other forms of religions at all....so sorry...your conclusion is incorrect. However if you wish to point out the problems you have with atheism...then I will gladly defend my belief and tell you what is wron with yours. I dont take pleasure in that, but I will if provoked.

If you want to be atheist, fine. No problem, don't believe. It is just that your actions are inconsistent with your world view is my contention. It is not that what you do is right or wrong, it is that what you do is inconsistent with a truly atheist world view.

Nope Im sorry....as I stated before, there is no link between morals and religious belief. However, I can see that religion is quite able to cloud ones judgement

Well what is your basis for moral views. This is not intended to challenge your moral values, but to challenge you to state on what do you base your moral views. Where is the basis for any morality?

Im beginnning to think this another I hate atheists troll thread, and Im seriously beginning to doubt that you used to be an athiest after your comments and misconceptions about it

DID I EVER SAY I HATED ATHEISTS? (I only hate hell, and all Montagues). No all I said was that atheist actions are inconsistent with their purported word view.

Ahhh, the old "life without God/religion is meaningless" argument...I guess wanting to create the best possible future for our children isn't a good enough reason

That's the same argument religious people use when they say non-believers can't have morals, or that without religion they wouldn't have those morals. Total and utter bull#!

If you NEED religion because you believe your life to be meaningless without it, by all means. But you're clinging to total speculation and something that isn't based on rationality or scientific fact. I REFUSE to trick myself by believing in something that has no solid proof or fact. I mean, if it makes you happy, I guess it's a good thing...but arguing life without God is meaningless and only based on the pursuit of pleasure is wrong.

First of all, the premise that life without God is meaningless and reduced to hedonism is laughable. Secondly, the only difference and someone who doesn't believe is that the person not believing needs PROOF and FACTS. The fact is, there are things we CAN'T know given our scientific knowledge at the moment...but that DOESN'T mean just making stuff up to "fill the gaps" (because that's what religion does) is a credible and rational way of dealing with this lack of knowledge.

If being religious makes you happy, by all means...but arguing life without it is meaningless is bull#.

reply to post by OzWeatherman

Now, do you condemn one of your own for invading Iraq? Or do you support him simply for his belief in god?

No I condemn invading Iraq because it was a ill conceived plan that would engage US forces in an extended no-win war just like Viet Nam. Once Saddam Hussein was removed from power, US forces should have pulled out and leave the running of Iraq to the people of Iraq. I saw this happening back before Bush invaded - there was no exit plan.

reply to post by Titen-Sxull

If anything being an atheist has made me look at life as far more special and incredible. Knowing that this life is probably the only one you get to live makes you value your time here more instead of sitting around waiting for the after-life. And the fact that life evolved to get this way, the fact that we live in a Cosmos that allows the evolution of intelligent life, is phenomenally special with or without a magic sky daddy. As for life having purpose: How about unlocking the secrets of the Universe? Sounds like a pretty noble cause to me.

OK believe that. If you tell me that you get pleasure in discovering the secrets of the universe, then fine. It gives you joy. If it gives you pleasure then go do it. But don't tell me you are doing it for some esoteric reason, just say that is how I get my "jollies". Just say you really get off on looking at stars and finding out what makes them go boom.

This proves you know absolutely NOTHING about the origins of morality. Research the evolution of morality and maybe you'll learn something.

Read what I said. When men define morality, then men can redefine morality. In atheism there is no basis for morality other then what is defined by men and that can change. What one man says is moral any can say is immoral. What is your basis for saying who is right?

I'll just do bits of this, since you made a pretty big post

Originally posted by jagdflieger
How I became a Calvinist is a different story.

Choosing to become an adherent of predestination is... actually pretty funny.

The logical conclusion of atheism is either Nihilism (life is without objective meaning or purpose, we are here just for the moment, despair)

Yup, I hold that my life is without objective meaning, i have no "higher purpose", I am not God's specially chosen little dude out here to carry out his personally-selected plan for the universe. Unfortunately, I don't feel especially despairing. I think that the notion that life has no objective meaning only causes despair in those who's egos are so enormous, or so fragile, that they either need, or cannot conceive, a reality where they are not the most important thing in the mind of an omnipotent force or being. Seriously, this whole thing stems from a desperate need to be God's Special Little Creature. It's narcissism of the highest order.

or Hedonism (the only good thing is what gives us pleasure).

Well, seeing as how bad things tend to cause bad feelings, this is kind of intuitive.

Spending your time to perform esoteric deeds (such as building hospitals, being kind to the environment, protecting whales, etc.) makes no sense unless doing so gives you some kind of pleasure (a moment of adulation from the audience).

Quite untrue. I'll want my descendants to have good medical care, and I think they might enjoy seeing whales and the ability to go outdoors without a respirator. At the most base level then, I am acting for the benefit of my offspring, out of a desire to see my genetic pattern perpetuated healthily.

Tell me, why was it that it was (and often is) staunchly religious people who damn near killed all the whales, oppose much of modern medicine, and are openly antagonistic to environmental concerns?

because they feel that this life is meaningless, and only the magic happy land that htey go to after they die has any worth. And since they believe not only that the world will end soon, but all their kids are going to magical happy land too, there's no need for medicine, a place to live, or other creatures to exist. The quicker you die, the faster you get to Magical Happy Land.

It's religion that leads to fatalistic nihilism; ask any Jihadi!

The fact that someone may put up a statue in your honor after you are gone is not going to do you much good when you are becoming an archaeological artifact buried in the ground.

Paleontological, actually.

The only way an atheist can logically justify his actions is to state "it gives me pleasure" or it is required to get the means to do the things that give me pleasure (such as holding a job). For a atheist to state "I am doing this to improve conditions for the human race" is inconsistent. For if there is no God, then our existence is meaningless. We are then just momentary creations of the cosmos, brief flashes of light in the night (and then darkness).

Again, no. If my actions benefit my offspring, then they benefit me; as they are more able to perpetuate my genes into the future. If society comes along for the ride, that's not so bad; it may even further help my own genetic pattern. Simply put, the better conditions are for the human species (especially my own offspring) the better the chances of that species remaining alive (and possibly full of my descendants)

Improving conditions for humanity means that the atheist wishes to continue this repetition of one meaningless existence after another. In this case it would be better to render each person incapable of having children and eventually end this continual succession of meaningless existences while having a nice party in the meantime.

Again, might I point out that it's religion that gives us an imminent apocalypse that is a good thing, and posits that on death we all go to a wonderful place of constant pleasure and satisfaction?

In view of this, I find it absolutely amazing at the time the atheists spend bashing Christianity and trying to convince Christians (and others) that we believe in nothing more than myths. I wonder "why are you doing this?". Your time on earth is running out, you are going to die (eventually). Why are you spending your precious time haranguing believers when you could be doing other things that are much more pleasurable (such as sex, drugs, or rock and roll).

Because invariably, those religious people want to press me into service to their delusion, and failing that place me into a station as a second-or-lower class citizen. Religion is counter to my well-being. If they left wel lenough alone and spent their time humming in church and sucking their crackers, I'd be cool with 'em. But they keep trying to turn their book of ancient jewish methods of torture into law in my country, and I don't dig that, because torture's no fun.

Who is being silly? The Christians who believe in God and an afterlife, or the atheists who spend a lot of time telling the Christians that they are being silly when those same atheists could be doing something else. The conclusion I reached is that atheists bash Christians because it gives them some sort of pleasure feeling to do so.

Yup, a good argument releases endorphins and adrenaline, creating an excited and somewhat pleasurable sensation.

Again though, the Christian's belief in god and the afterlife leads them - and everyone around them, believer or no - into a self-destructive spiral as they seek an apocalyptic war that will return their profit who will kill everyone, cast most into eternal torment, and confirm their own status as His Special Critters by giving them an eternity of idyllic bliss.

hell yeah I wanna talk these maniacs out of that. Especially since they're the ones with most of the nukes!

Without God, there is no basis for any set of moral values. Man defines what is moral and what is immoral. What one man defines as being moral, another man can define as being immoral. There is simply no basis to say who is right or who is wrong.

Welcome to reality. Ever eaten a pork chop? Then you're immoral, according to jews and Muslims. Steak? The Hindus think you're nuts. on the off chance you've eaten horse, you've violated the dietary principles of most christians. Ever eaten meat on a Friday? Do you have any plants with palmate leaves around your house? Ever said a naughty word? masturbated? Have you ever had a drink with your father? if so, did you make sure not to face him whenever you took a swallow, because in Korea, facing your elders while drinking is sign of low moral character. When your grandparents died, did you leave them out for the wildlife to take care of? Of not, you are a terrible, immoral person (especially if you failed to collect and enshrine their bones afterwards!)

Since man is defining morality, man can define one set or ethical rules today, and then tomorrow redefine the entire set of ethics. Men can define different concepts of morality and no one can say who is right. Many years ago there were a group of people called the Nazis led by a man named Hitler who held a moral precept that "Jews are bad people". The Nazis acted on that moral precept and you know the history.

Many years ago there were a group of people called the Jews led by a man named Aaron who held up a moral precept that "Ammonites are bad people." The Jews acted on that moral precept, and you know the history.

Many years ago there were a group of people called the Conquistadors led by a man named Pizarro who held up a moral precept that "Inka are bad people." The Conquistadors acted on that moral precept, and you know the history.

Many years ago there were a group of people called the Americans led by a man named George Bush who held up a moral precept that "Iraqis are bad people." The Americans acted on that moral precept, and you know the history.

Many years ago there were a group of people called the Turks led by a man named Mehmed Talat Pasha who held up a moral precept that "Armenians are bad people." The Turks acted on that moral precept, and you know the history.

Well the atheists really have no basis to condemn that action for if man defines morality then the Nazis just adopted a different set of ethical values (but I have a basis to condemn the Nazis).

Actually as a Christian you have a stronger basis to support the Nazis, since your Book of Choice tells you Jews are evil and are in fact the Antichrist. Plus the Nazis were your coreligionists.

However, you'll notice that atheists and more or less all religions condemn murder (interestingly, religions are very selective of WHICH murders they'll condemn...) It's a biological trait, not a social one.

Yet we see atheists rant about the "killings of millions of people", hypocrisy, etc. Where is their basis for condemning such actions? For if there is no God, then there is no basis to declare any action as being immoral since such issues are defined by men. The only really logical conclusion is for the atheist to declare that they do not agree with that particular definition of morality. Here is a question for atheists. I have seen many atheists condemn Bush for invading Iraq citing a "Christian agenda". If Bush was a rock hard atheist, would you still condemn his invasion of Iraq? In short atheism gives no basis for moral condemnation of anyone, anytime. The only real basis an atheist has is to say his definition of morality is different.

The fact that you think the only thing holding you back from mass murder is your new religion should terrify you more than it should comfort you. Seek help.

[edit on 21-5-2010 by TheWalkingFox]

[edit on 21-5-2010 by TheWalkingFox]

Very well put TheWalkingFox!

reply to post by jagdflieger


Redefining morality is a GOOD think, it means we're evolving as a species. If we wouldn't redefine morality, we'd still be burning witches, and it would still be ok to have slaves and hit/kill them.

Who had the idea of burning witches in the first place? ...drum roll...THE CHURCH!! The church is probably the last organization that has a right to talk about morality, lol.

reply to post by jagdflieger

When men define morality, then men can redefine morality

We do and have since the beginning of human society. Want an example? It used to be both morally, socially and legally acceptable to own another human being, something called slavery. In fact slavery is in the Bible and quite frankly the Bible does not say anything against it. Or how about the practice of older men marrying very young girls that we see in religious documents (among other places), seems our morality was very different then. What about the verse in the Bible where the Israelites takes slaves but make sure to kill all the men and only keep the girls who are virgins (its in Numbers if I remember correctly). Morality does fluctuate as society changes.

I don't feel there is anything esoteric about my desire for knowledge about the Universe however you make it sound like spirituality is impossible without religion. One does not need God to feel at peace or in harmony with the Universe. Why do you seem to think that complex emotions are only for the religious and that us atheists are only hedonistic shallow folks who like to "get off on looking at stars"? Emotions are hardwired into our minds, evolution has led to us having the capability of feeling deep emotion and of dealing with social interaction. Morality is an offshoot of this social interaction, it is not the product of a God descending onto a mountain to chisel stuff about idol worship onto stone tablets.

There are moral codes that predate the ten commandments by thousands of years. Also, God cannot be the source of morality because when he created man in the Bible they were ignorant and he wanted to keep them that way. It was only after they disobeyed and ate of the fruit. So human morality cannot be the result of the Biblical God.

[edit on 21-5-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

[edit on 21-5-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

reply to post by MrXYZ

Ahhh, the old "life without God/religion is meaningless" argument...I guess wanting to create the best possible future for our children isn't a good enough reason

Then tell me, is there a reason for us being here or was it some cosmic accident. If it gives you joy to provide for your children then go do it. That in itself is a form of Hedonism, you get pleasure out of doing it. It just as "Titen-Sxull" gets joy out of finding out what makes the universe ticks. Hedonist pleasures are not just sex, drugs, rock and roll. They can include all sorts of activities such as surfing, fishing, chasing tornadoes, studying volcanoes, etc. If you admit you are doing these things because for that time and place you are having a great time, then I see no inconsistency with your atheist beliefs. If you say this how I "get off", then it is consistent. Don't try to tell me you are trying to save humanity.

That's the same argument religious people use when they say non-believers can't have morals, or that without religion they wouldn't have those morals. Total and utter bull#!

No it is not the same old argument. Did I ever say atheists do not have morals. No - I said that atheism relies on morals defined by men. What men define as being moral can be redefined by men. What one man defines as being moral can be defined as being immoral by other men. What is your basis to determine who is right? If men can define morality how can you say who is right or who is wrong?

reply to post by MrXYZ


Well, to be fair, burning witches was actually a Roman thing before the church adopted it.

The bible in fact recommends hanging witches, though one imagines that beating htem to death with rocks would suffice, in case of a rope shortage or lack of a competent carpenter or handy tree.

reply to post by jagdflieger


Your argument of morality from divinity is really rather shaky, friend.

What does the bible tell you to do with kids who talk back? It tells you to take them outside your town's gates (your town doesn't have gates? Well, you're just a sitting target for raiding Hittites, you fool!) and hit them with rocks until they die.

Have you ever seen a stoning? I've seen some pictures and videos that came out of Kurdistan and Afghanistan. It doesn't look like a fun way to go.

Does this solution to sass sound like it's moral to you?

No?

Your god laid down the law, though. Your god told you it is not only moral, but that it is your imperative, as a parent, to kill your child if he disrespects you. Not doing so places you in violation of your god's decrees and laws, making you immoral for NOT killing your smart-alek offspring.

Of course, this is where you sping the "The Old Testament Doesn't count (Except when it does) rebuttal.

So hey, you argue from a position of Christianity, but do your ideas of deity-based morality include the deities of other faiths? because, oh man, we could go on for days about what an immoral turd you are in their eyes...

reply to post by jagdflieger


The simple fact is we CAN'T know the reason for our existence...but that doesn't mean we should just go ahead and fill the "gaps" in knowledge with fairy tales. I am humble enough to admit there's things I don't understand, and I don't need to believe in some fairy tale that has no solid facts or proof to make me feel better about my lack of knowledge.

Every single scripture has been written by MEN, so I'm sorry to say, "your" morals are also based on what men thinks. The difference is, a lot of those morals are based on beliefs people had over 2000 years (!!!!) ago.

Like others have pointed out, morals change and get redefined...and that's a GOOD thing, because otherwise we'd still use the morals used in the middle ages, or the morals that are stated in the bible. You know, the morals that allow slavery, or the ones who say genocide (old testament) is fine if people don't believe.

It is beyond me why anyone would chose self-deception (by believing in a fairy tale without the slightest scientific fact or even basic rationality) over just humbly accepting there's things we don't understand (yet).

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

Quite untrue. I'll want my descendants to have good medical care, and I think they might enjoy seeing whales and the ability to go outdoors without a respirator. At the most base level then, I am acting for the benefit of my offspring, out of a desire to see my genetic pattern perpetuated healthily.

Why do you want that? I not saying that it is wrong to want that, but why do you want that? You see I am not say what atheists do is wrong, but that it is inconsistent with their world view.

Again, no. If my actions benefit my offspring, then they benefit me; as they are more able to perpetuate my genes into the future. If society comes along for the ride, that's not so bad; it may even further help my own genetic pattern. Simply put, the better conditions are for the human species (especially my own offspring) the better the chances of that species remaining alive (and possibly full of my descendants)

Are you are trying to say that you are responding to some biological urge?

Because invariably, those religious people want to press me into service to their delusion, and failing that place me into a station as a second-or-lower class citizen. Religion is counter to my well-being. If they left wel lenough alone and spent their time humming in church and sucking their crackers, I'd be cool with 'em. But they keep trying to turn their book of ancient jewish methods of torture into law in my country, and I don't dig that, because torture's no fun.

Would you be so kind as to state what laws and methods of tortue, these religious people are trying to implement in your country.

Again though, the Christian's belief in god and the afterlife leads them - and everyone around them, believer or no - into a self-destructive spiral as they seek an apocalyptic war that will return their profit who will kill everyone, cast most into eternal torment, and confirm their own status as His Special Critters by giving them an eternity of idyllic bliss. hell yeah I wanna talk these maniacs out of that. Especially since they're the ones with most of the nukes!

Well there is a lot of Pre-Trib and Mid-Trib Christians around. According to their beliefs, today's Christians won't be around when the nukes start flying. If they are right, then that will be one war you can't blame on the Christians, they are gone.

Actually as a Christian you have a stronger basis to support the Nazis, since your Book of Choice tells you Jews are evil and are in fact the Antichrist. Plus the Nazis were your coreligionists.

Could you quote the passages that state that the "Book of Choice" tells us that Jews are evil, considering the Jesus, the Apostles, and Paul were Jews and Christianity is a development from Judaism. Also where does it say that the Jews are the Antichrist. Furthermore, much of Nazism was based on paganism and occultism, a very definite "no-no" for Christians.

However, you'll notice that atheists and more or less all religions condemn murder (interestingly, religions are very selective of WHICH murders they'll condemn...) It's a biological trait, not a social one.

And I suppose that Stalin, Mao, and Pol Phot were southern Baptists?

The fact that you think the only thing holding you back from mass murder is your new religion should terrify you more than it should comfort you. Seek help.

Did I say that? Where did I say that the only reason I am not advocating mass murder is because of my religious beliefs. Please point out that statement in my post.

reply to post by MrXYZ


We CAN'T know the reason for our existence? BS, that is a malicious lie, speak for yourself.

The bible in fact recommends hanging witches

Point to the book in the bible that says this please. kthx

ETA: Atheists agree on one thing, that the billions of people that believe in a supreme being are all drooling idiots, and are delusional. Also, they are more intelligent than said people.

[edit on 21-5-2010 by Centurionx]

reply to post by MrXYZ

Like others have pointed out, morals change and get redefined...and that's a GOOD thing, because otherwise we'd still use the morals used in the middle ages, or the morals that are stated in the bible. You know, the morals that allow slavery, or the ones who say genocide (old testament) is fine if people don't believe.

Notice my original OP, when men define morality, then men can redefine morality. The definition of morality is then based on what you consider to be moral. In that case, how can you say that someone else is being immoral because it is different from what you believe. Yet I see certain atheists showing "moral rage" because some one did something (burn witches) based on the moral definition of that time. Well the standards have changed. What is your basis to show outrage at these incidents? The men of that time had a different set of morals than today.

Also, Mosaic Law is one of the most misunderstood aspects of the Old Testament. Mosaic Law was a covenant (a contract) between God and the Jews and most of it tenets would only apply to the Jews (as a condition for protection in the occupation of Palestine). For gentiles, only the original ten commandments apply. If you like, we could discuss this issue further. But Mosaic Law was intended for the Jews. Now show me where in the Old Testament that Mosaic Law was to be applied to the gentiles.

Originally posted by Centurionx
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

We CAN'T know the reason for our existence? BS, that is a malicious lie, speak for yourself.

The bible in fact recommends hanging witches

Point to the book in the bible that says this please. kthx

ETA: Atheists agree on one thing, that the billions of people that believe in a supreme being are all drooling idiots, and are delusional. Also, they are more intelligent than said people.

[edit on 21-5-2010 by Centurionx]

So tell me then, what's the reason for our existence...I'm eagerly waiting for proof of your claim that you KNOW the reason

Regarding Christianity condemning witches...



Oh, and there's also these:

1) Deuteronomy 18:10-12

"No one shall be found among you who makes a son or daughter pass through fire, who practices divination, or is a soothsayer, or an augur, or a sorcerer, or one that casts spells, or who consults ghosts or spirits, or who seeks oracles from the dead. For whoever does these things is abhorrent to the Lord;"

2) Exodus 22:18

"thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"

3) 1 Samuel 28

"hath cut off those that have familiar spirits, and the wizards, out of the land"

Sorry, I guess I was wrong when it comes to hanging...the bible just states that they should be either killed or exiled...that makes it better

Oh, and there's of course the Pope, you know...the guy who's the leader of the Christian faith, who in 1320 authorized the inquisition. The Pope is the direct link to God, isn't he? So technically it was God being ok with it, and talking through the pope.

And there's numerous passages in the bible that state slavery as a God given right...I'll get you the quotes/links if you're too lazy to look for them yourself.

reply to post by Centurionx

ETA: Atheists agree on one thing, that the billions of people that believe in a supreme being are all drooling idiots, and are delusional. Also, they are more intelligent than said people.

Really, I have seen several Francis A. Schaeffer videos and he never drooled once and he did seem to be quite erudite and didn't babble. And I suppose C. S. Lewis was a total idiot even though you might have read his books.