Ask An Atheist Anything

reply to post by ChickenPie

But I believe in God, so I do believe that objective right and wrong exists.

Exactly. LOL. It's evident morality is subjective unless you were to make an unnecessary assumption like God and original sin. And we're back to Occam's Razor before i head to bed, I just knew we'd come back to that. Night Night

Peace

[edit on 31/7/10 by awake_and_aware]

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by ChickenPie

 

But I believe in God, so I do believe that objective right and wrong exists.

Exactly. LOL. It's evident morality is subjective unless you were to make an unnecessary assumption like God and original sin.

It's not an unnecessary assumption as I've already illustrated in my previous posts... which you didn't even attempt to rebut. Lulz.

But it's nice to know that you think morality is subjective. That's not a dangerous idea at all.

[edit on 31-7-2010 by ChickenPie]

Originally posted by awake_and_aware

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by awake_and_aware

 

Let's run through them, since you're so quick to back peddle.

if you demontrate you're socially moral and understanding person, i would respect and comend you

Your own words, saying that your default perspective is to disrespect others, until they prove themselves worthy of being treated with respect.

No! again, like you do quite often, twisting my words, I was merely suggesting how i would, personally, go about judging someone and what would cause me to respect someone as a human and what they are about, AND as i have said, how could i possibly do that on a forum. As for the subject of debate, i will treat you with respect until you treat me with disrespect.

No one is twisting your words, they are your own words. You said them. Do you need me to parse that sentence for you?

"If you demontrate you're socially moral and understanding person"

Ooh, there's the conditional. A subjective judgement. Wonder who is qualified to make that?

"I"

Oh. You.

"would respect and comend you"

Meaning that if, and only if, you deem me worth of it, I'll get respect and commendation. By noting that one needs to be judged worthy to get this, the implication is that none will be given otherwise.

Any unbiased observer who went through this thread would find multiple instances of your intolerant and prejudiced treatment of myself and any others who disagree with you. You can whinge all you want, but in the end, it's your own words and attitude that hang you, not the accusations of others.

All you had to do was say "you know, you're right. I let teh Interwebs get the best of me, I didn't treat you very well, and I apologize for that. Let's try again without the sarcasm, belittling and disrespect" and that would have been the end of it.

The fact that you refuse to do that, and instead continue to claim that your clearly intolerant words are noble, further validates my claim that you're no better than those you claim to disdain.

I see that this has been shoved over to BTS, under "Religion, Faith and Theology" How long will it be before someone whinges that atheism isn't any one of those and demands that it go back to ATS? lol

That's a sincere lol, by the way.

reply to post by adjensen


I am going to be blunt. LOL - like I'm not anyway.

I do understand you are seeing this conversation from your mindset.

YOU seem to THINK you are carrying on an interesting debate - presenting different views & viewpoints.

All I see is:

#1 - trying to convince me god exists
#2 - trying to convince me god exists
#3 - trying to convince me god exists

etc etc etc etc

Originally posted by Annee
reply to post by adjensen

 

I am going to be blunt. LOL - like I'm not anyway.

I do understand you are seeing this conversation from your mindset.

YOU seem to THINK you are carrying on an interesting debate - presenting different views & viewpoints.

All I see is:

#1 - trying to convince me god exists
#2 - trying to convince me god exists
#3 - trying to convince me god exists

etc etc etc etc

Whether you see it or not, I'm not interested in convincing you that God exists. Honest. Doesn't matter one iota to me. I am not an evangelist. My feeling is that, if you have an understanding of Christianity (which you clearly do,) what you do with that is none of my concern. Reference Luke 9:3-5 for my honest perspective.

I'm participating in this thread for two reasons. First, I would like to know more about the atheistic point of view. Why? Because it helps me to understand my own perspective. Nothing more.

Secondly, I would like to correct misstatements that I see people making about both Christianity and things in general. I initially came to ATS a couple of months ago from a google search on NDEs, and liked what I read, but saw a significant amount of misconception and, to be honest, flat out ignorance, about Christianity, and joined the site in order to try and help people better understand this faith.

I can't repeat it enough, apparently. I do not care, not in the slightest, whether you believe in God or not. So long as you do not misrepresent my faith, I couldn't care less what you say or believe.

That may be contrary to other Christians that you have encountered, that may even seem insensitive and uncaring, but it is what it is, don't read anything personal into it.

So, regardless of what you believe you see in my posts, I am interested in learning what you believe, why you believe in it, and correcting ignorance. Nothing more.

reply to post by Annee


(By the way, your question in the queue of "questions that seem to take an eternity to answer", is to validate your claim that morality is not due to external forces by explaining how a "mine, mine, mine" child learns to share, completely on their own. Your buddy Awake_and_Aware is still on task to explain why he is morally superior in his bigoted and prejudiced view, and the OP has a number of assignments, the latest of which is to report an instance of Christ teaching something that is contrary to his "love God, love each other" explanation of how to be right with God. Admissions of "I'm wrong" or "I didn't mean that" are acceptable answers. Kindly recognize that all of these are follow ups of statements that each of you made, not accusatory.)

Originally posted by ChickenPie

Why are you so against the possibility of God?

My first question is always: "What is God".

From all that I've read - from a completely unbiased point of view.

"Suns of God coming down from the Heavens" - Crafts descending from the sky - reflecting the Sun.

Ancient myths - cave paintings & sculptures of beings that look like they are wearing helmets with breathing tubes - and various other evidence

Gods to me would be evolved off planet beings. God and Creator not being the same thing.

I've already mentioned energy evolving into consciousness. Obviously we are some form of creation whether by natural evolution or other. But - were we created or did we create?

As far as a god for earth. We probably are being monitored.

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by Annee

 

(By the way, your question in the queue of "questions that seem to take an eternity to answer", is to validate your claim that morality is not due to external forces by explaining how a "mine, mine, mine" child learns to share, completely on their own. Your buddy Awake_and_Aware is still on task to explain why he is morally superior in his bigoted and prejudiced view, and the OP has a number of assignments, the latest of which is to report an instance of Christ teaching something that is contrary to his "love God, love each other" explanation of how to be right with God. Admissions of "I'm wrong" or "I didn't mean that" are acceptable answers. Kindly recognize that all of these are follow ups of statements that each of you made, not accusatory.)

Since you refuse to accept answers given.

Not much more A&A or I can do for ya.

Re-phrasing a question already answered - - does not get you a second answer.

Originally posted by ChickenPie
It's not an unnecessary assumption as I've already illustrated in my previous posts... which you didn't even attempt to rebut. Lulz.

But it's nice to know that you think morality is subjective. That's not a dangerous idea at all.

[edit on 31-7-2010 by ChickenPie]

If you believe moral comes from god and is static, how do you explain the drastic changes in moral we see in recent history? Talking about things like equal rights for women and other groups, freedom of speech, end of slavery, etc. Those were not revealed to us through a holy book, yet they dominate our everyday live now.

Originally posted by AmericanDaughter
Are you scared of hell and what it will be like when you get there?

Are you scared to meet your maker; especially after denying Him?

The answer to both questions should be yes unless you change your mind, open your eyes and get right with
God THE CREATOR OF ALL ...

My parents created me. I haven't denied them nor am I scared.

Hell, that pernicious lie from Jesus, doesn't exist.

reply to post by -PLB-


Exactly, the bible is out of date no matter how holy or divine you think it is, social values and adherences have changed, maybe not so much in middle eastern countries and in Armish communities, why? God, is that good enough justification? Personally, i don't think so.

So you have to ask yourself Christians, Islamists and Jews; is your book really good enough justification for your actions and prejiduces, in this day and age, age of technology, books, knowledge, information, science and reasoned debates. With books written on ethics and morality, on philsophy and reason and logic why would we want to refer to a book written when intelligence was young, and not common.

Should these guys still be respected for living off a pre-medievil social values that has torn apart civilisations for centuries? (whether God is mentioned or not)

Here's the top ten reasons BEER is better than Chrisitinaity.

In moderation as well might i say!!!

10. No one will kill you for not drinking Beer.
9. Beer doesn't tell you how to have sex.
8. Beer has never caused a major war.
7. They don't force Beer on minors who can't think for themselves.
6. When you have a Beer, you don't knock on people's doors trying to give it away.
5. Nobody's ever been burned at the stake, hanged, or tortured over his brand of Beer.
4. You don't have to wait 2000+ years for a second Beer.
3. There are laws saying Beer labels can't lie to you.
2. You can prove you have a Beer.
1. If you've devoted your life to Beer, there are groups to help you stop.

I'm not an alcoholic, honestly!

[edit on 1/8/10 by awake_and_aware]

Originally posted by ChickenPie
I want an atheist to tell me why we should steer clear of death and psychological and physical pain. I also want to know why I should be careful not to negatively affect others with my actions.

Because of the inherent danger to yourself and others in such actions.

This should be self-evident.

Originally posted by ChickenPie
I don't see how energy itself could have evolved into conscious form unless an outside force caused it to evolve that way. Do you know of such a natural process?

This is another invocation of the argument from ignorance. This tactic fails often as scientific discoveries expand human knowledge.

Originally posted by ChickenPie
Indeed, especially when he believes his rationality and morality are merely a byproduct of naturalistic events that hold no intrinsic value.

From your comments on the matter I can only assume that you believe that morals are derived from deities. Correct me if I am wrong.

Originally posted by ChickenPie
But it's nice to know that you think morality is subjective. That's not a dangerous idea at all.

Morality is subjective and arbitrary.

Though you might find this "a dangerous idea" it's a fact.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by Annee

 

(By the way, your question in the queue of "questions that seem to take an eternity to answer", is to validate your claim that morality is not due to external forces by explaining how a "mine, mine, mine" child learns to share, completely on their own. Your buddy Awake_and_Aware is still on task to explain why he is morally superior in his bigoted and prejudiced view, and the OP has a number of assignments, the latest of which is to report an instance of Christ teaching something that is contrary to his "love God, love each other" explanation of how to be right with God. Admissions of "I'm wrong" or "I didn't mean that" are acceptable answers. Kindly recognize that all of these are follow ups of statements that each of you made, not accusatory.)

Since you refuse to accept answers given.

Not much more A&A or I can do for ya.

Re-phrasing a question already answered - - does not get you a second answer.

And refusing to answer a question, which you have consistently continued to do, makes your participation in a thread about asking questions a bit redundant, aside from hoping for a few "atta-boys" from like thinkers who appreciate your non-answers.

You've yet to respond in any fashion to my question about your claim that people have a purely inherent moral code, short of saying "because I said so." I have given you an example, a selfish child, that a first year psychology student could give a clear answer for that does not rely on stamping one's feet and whinging about your opinion being all that matters.

The question stands, whether you think me "worthy" of an answer or not.

and the OP has a number of assignments, the latest of which is to report an instance of Christ teaching something that is contrary to his "love God, love each other" explanation of how to be right with God.

I'm sorry, I don't believe I challenged that. If I said something that was interpreted that way I apologize: I wasn't claiming such a thing. What were the other "assignments"?

[edit on 1-8-2010 by traditionaldrummer]

Originally posted by adjensen

And refusing to answer a question, which you have consistently continued to do, makes your participation in a thread about asking questions a bit redundant, aside from hoping for a few "atta-boys" from like thinkers who appreciate your non-answers.

You are wrong.

I have answered it. You simply refuse to acknowledge it - because you didn't like the answer.

Your emotional diatribes fall on ears better suited for realism.

reply to post by adjensen


I realize some posters have the patience to re-answer/re-affirm their response answer(s) to a question(s) proposed - - again and again - - in reformed/regrouped new attacks.

I am not one of them.

On another note - - I did however notice you chose to totally glaze over the information about Hitler being religious.