Atheists Call 9-11 Memorial Cross "Grossly Offensive"

[ThinClient]

That is a wonderful opinion to have but why should anybody take it seriously?
Nonsense. Do I need to pull a list of scientists who contradict this BS?
All you've done is make baseless assertions.

List their names. We'll all see the names of those who are smart enough to follow the scientific process until their brain trips a breaker or something and they go off the deep end, abandoning reason and logic and senility in exchange for the assumption that some magical sky fairy ignored the sins of man for 100k+ years, then decided to step in, but sent his "only" son (because he can't make another even though he is an all-powerful god) to be brutalized to save humanity from their sins which he created them having to begin with. Oh, and he didn't bother sending his "only" son to parts of the world that were literate. He chose the middle of fucking nowhere, a people who are known for their ignorant barbarism. Good job, god.

 

[ThinClient]

He seems to know what is right and wrong so I thought he could explain why lying is right.

Hiding Jews from the Nazis.

Bam.

 

[buckshot24]

Solidarity. Compassion. Empathy. These are the traits that make us, as humans, whole.

So do you believe that there are moral absolutes, if not then you're being consistent. If you do then please explain how they came to exist, thanks.

The Nazis were a religious group, believing in the Judeo Christian god, blassed by the Pope and the Catholic church.

You've gone into the "I don't understand the argument at all Hitchens zone". Whether they used Darwinian evolution or Biblical theism as justification for their actions doesn't make there actions any more wrong or any more right. The idea is that what they did was objectively WRONG. In other words in ANY situation their actions would be WRONG. You've fallen into the idiocy of Hitchens as well.

Your illusion of morality, just like Hitler's and the Pope's, could be significantly skewed to the rest of the world no matter how strongly you believe it. While morals and ethics are completely subjective, there do stand a number of things that, without special circumstances, are clearly either wrong or right. Not many, but there are a few that can be looked at as nearly as an absolute good or absolute evil as possible. Just because you don't like his version doesn't mean his version is wrong.

So you're saying that objective morality exists, good. Where does this moral code come from? But note you're continually falling into the Hitchens tar pit of idiocy on the subject. Whether we know what the morals are or not is totally irrelevant.


Got to run....

 

[buckshot24]

List their names.

Search the thread.

 

[ThinClient]

So do you believe that there are moral absolutes, if not then you're being consistent. If you do then please explain how they came to exist, thanks.

I'd say that if a moral absolute existed that it would be a general guideline with a ridiculously long caveat, as in, "this do in defense of survival of your own species unless the action to be taken cause harm to a greater number of other species or that which would put the future survival of your species at risk at a later date" or something ridiculous that goes on and on to cover every possible situation that we cannot conceive of now.

Basically, I doubt that moral absolutes exist. I certainly haven't heard one yet.

You've gone into the "I don't understand the argument at all Hitchens zone". Whether they used Darwinian evolution or Biblical theism as justification for their actions doesn't make there actions any more wrong or any more right. The idea is that what they did was objectively WRONG. In other words in ANY situation their actions would be WRONG. You've fallen into the idiocy of Hitchens as well.

You don't even know the difference between their, there, and they're. How the hell do you expect me to respect your point of view when you don't even have a grasp on the simple points of the language with which you use to argue the matter?

What they did was subjectively wrong, not objectively. I can change just a few variables in the whole WW2 thing in such a way as to paint the Nazis in a positive, morally upright light. What they did was wrong, but it was subjectively wrong.

Hitchens wasn't an idiot. He simply operated several levels above your mental ceiling. I'm pretty sure I'm lowering myself to discuss this with you, as well.

So you're saying that objective morality exists, good. Where does this moral code come from? But note you're continually falling into the Hitchens tar pit of idiocy on the subject. Whether we know what the morals are or not is totally irrelevant.

So you like to put words in people's mouths and then build strawman arguments against the things they didn't say? Awesome. I am now almost reasonably certain that the last sentence of my previous paragraph was correct.

Man creates morals. There is no one else who can create them, no matter how hard your wishful thinking and anthropomorphic projection want the alternative to be the case. We make them. We create them. We change them.

You know why the Son of Sam was able to sit in court claiming that god commanded him to kill people through a talking dog and was sentenced anyway? Because the only people who ACTUALLY believe in heaven and hell and god and satan are people who are CHILDREN -who are not mentally fit to make adult decisions. Our court system says "oh, god? Well, of course! We'll just let you go since god told you to do it!" No, I don't think so.

We are ultimately responsible for ourselves, to ourselves, and no one else. This is why WE judge each other according to our own understanding. There's no mystical magical sky fairy sitting at the judge's bench.

 

[ThinClient]

Search the thread.

You missed the point of my post.

 

[Darwin333]

I think the "debate" has gone as far as I would like to take it given the ridiculous quibbling I've gotten thus far.
Here is another example of the ridiculous quibbling I just mentioned. Of course you have to make decisions when considering what your opinion on a matter would be.
The church isn't Christianity. I agree that the church has acted horribly in many instances but I'm not going to continue the science debate. But, I think the point I've originally intended has been agreed upon by all posters in this thread. That is without the Christians I've listed (and many more) earlier in this thread's contributions to science then the modern understanding of our world wouldn't be as advanced as it is now. That's basically IT and that's ALL I intended.

If that is all you intended then we actually are in agreement for once in this thread. I still don't see the broader point you are trying to make but at least we are clear on exactly what you were trying to say.

For the record, I believe that a Christian, specifically Newton, was undoubtedly the most brilliant man in all of recorded history. I don't have an issue with scientists who happen to be christian in the least.

 

[Darwin333]

I'd still like to point out that Darwin keeps talking about "common human decency" but is using still using a fake quote in his sig line. Perhaps lying is commonly, humanly, decent?

Lmao, if thats the best you have to say that I am not a decent person then I consider that a huge compliment so thank you.

I would like to point out that you still haven't recognized and admitted the fact that not only did god condone rape he actually promised to assist the rapists in at least one passage:

"Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city"

Oh please try to argue that "women ravished" doesn't explicitly mean "fucked against their will".

 

[Darwin333]

Now it's "common" human decency? Since it was common amongst the Nazis that killing Jews was ok did that make it right? What are you talking about?

Lol, it wasn't "common". It was ordered and carried out by relatively few people. The rest of the world completely disagreed. See the difference?

Why can you say any of them are wrong or right?

Because I don't need a book to tell me what is good or bad and I damn sure don't need a book as fucked up as the bible to tell me that all sorts of fucked up things are actually right.

Its kind of ironic, here you are saying that we can't possibly know what is morall without being told by some external force and you think god is that external force. Why is it that you don't believe some of the things he says or implies are right are actually right today? What made you turn away from gods enlightened viewpoint?

How about the following: "If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife."

Do you agree with stoning rape victims to death? If so, why not? How could you possibly think its wrong when you keep implying the only way mankind could have morality is it it came from (your) god?

You've got no basis to think that your illusion of morality is any better than anybody else's.

Yes I do, its called sanity.

What makes anything right?

Human decency.

No, you've read the text and thats it. That isn't research.

No, I have actually read the bible cover to cover multiple times. See I used to be a good little christian just like you and then I read the bible.

So it's by popularity then? You don't believe that and you should have the stones to look at your world view in light of your seemingly acceptance of objective morality. Unless you're a relativist but the evidence of your posts hasn't even hinted at that conclusion.

No its not by popularity but because human decency is common, it becomes more and more popular as our society evolves.
As far as moral relativism, it makes some points but I damn sure wouldn't label myself a "relativist".

Well what is it then? You've gone into the epistemology vs ontology (knowing vs existence) of objective morality again. Christopher Hitchen would be proud. You don't get the distinction and Hitchen's never did either.

WTF does Hitchen's have to do with this debate? As far as objective morality, I have stated many times that I don't buy the entire notion of "objective morality", its an argument made up by theists to try and make an unwinnable argument and then use it as "proof" of their god.

Would you think it would be "common human decency" to kill off defective bags of evolved chemical reactions (humans) in a group if resources were low or would it be wrong in all cases? If it is wrong in all cases, why? If it isn't wrong in this case why would almost anybody who actually killed the handicapped person feel so damn guilty about it?

My own personal morality, not derived from the divine, would not allow me to kill off a "defective" person so that I could have more resources. I would far prefer to give the "defective person" my resources instead.

If you're just a highly evolved collection of biochemical processes why should anybody take your definition of morality over anybody elses?

Now that is a good philosophical question that frankly I can't answer. I do think that almost everyone would say that they are more inline with my morals than with gods if we just listed the morals and left out the names. Would you personally say that is because we have became a more evil society (talking about western civilization)?

 

[Darwin333]

He seems to know what is right and wrong so I thought he could explain why lying is right.

Ooh, lets play your game, can you prove that he didn't say it ever in his lifetime?

But thank you for motivating me to finally update my sig. I haven't touched it since I joined Anand.

 

[Darwin333]

You missed the point of my post.

No, I am fairly certain that he got your point quite well. He doesn't really, at least in this thread, address actual points made in reply to him. He simply continues to try and lead a circular argument because that is the absolute best that he can do. Frankly we could have the same argument about Zeus and it would be just as likely to be true.

 

[BlueWolf47]

Morals are more than likely linked to a evolutionary adaptation. Our ability to feel empathy towards somthing involves a specific region of our brain. Some individuals have a more active empathy region and some are less active. Psychopaths either have this region turned off or they are able to turn it off themselves.

Lets say someone next to you is being poked with a sharp object after you have been poked. Your brain reflects their pain and has the same activity as if you were being poked.

 

[buckshot24]

Hiding Jews from the Nazis.

Bam.

Any comment on why using a quote from a man who most likely never said it is ok?

 

[buckshot24]

I'd say that if a moral absolute existed that it would be a general guideline with a ridiculously long caveat, as in, "this do in defense of survival of your own species unless the action to be taken cause harm to a greater number of other species or that which would put the future survival of your species at risk at a later date" or something ridiculous that goes on and on to cover every possible situation that we cannot conceive of now.

I guess you don't believe in moral absolutes.

Basically, I doubt that moral absolutes exist. I certainly haven't heard one yet.

I think you know in your heart that there are moral absolutes. Even if it was absolutely certain that if a group of 100 young boys lived then that would cause the loss of life of 10,000 other people and you had to kill the 100 you'd feel horribly guilty because you know that killing those 100 was objectively wrong.

You don't even know the difference between their, there, and they're.

Yes I do, it was a typo.

How the hell do you expect me to respect your point of view when you don't even have a grasp on the simple points of the language with which you use to argue the matter?

Go eat cake for all I care. But I used it properly in the very sentence I mistyped it in. Sorry I mis-typed it the second time in that sentence.

What they did was subjectively wrong, not objectively. I can change just a few variables in the whole WW2 thing in such a way as to paint the Nazis in a positive, morally upright light. What they did was wrong, but it was subjectively wrong.

I'm not interested if you can twist their (I hope I got that right!) actions to make them look better. There is no level of BS that would make their actions "right" their actions were evil, period. Everybody intuitively understands that because it was objectively wrong for them to try and exterminate the Jews. In any universe, in any time, in any society it was wrong.

Hitchens wasn't an idiot.

He was whenever he tried to address the objectiveness of morality argument (that I've seen).

He simply operated several levels above your mental ceiling. I'm pretty sure I'm lowering myself to discuss this with you, as well.

If by addressing an argument that wasn't made is above my mental ceiling then I guess so.

So you like to put words in people's mouths and then build strawman arguments against the things they didn't say? Awesome. I am now almost reasonably certain that the last sentence of my previous paragraph was correct.

The statement was conditional. If you answer no then the rest doesn't apply. It isn't a strawman.

Man creates morals. There is no one else who can create them, no matter how hard your wishful thinking and anthropomorphic projection want the alternative to be the case. We make them. We create them. We change them.

All these centuries of debate and thought on the subject and some TC avatared nobody on a forum has solved the problem once and for all. Yaaayy. your (that one was just for you) smart.

You know why the Son of Sam was able to sit in court claiming that god commanded him to kill people through a talking dog and was sentenced anyway? Because the only people who ACTUALLY believe in heaven and hell and god and satan are people who are CHILDREN -who are not mentally fit to make adult decisions. Our court system says "oh, god? Well, of course! We'll just let you go since god told you to do it!" No, I don't think so.

What a blithering pile of manure you've just given us. Congratulations.

We are ultimately responsible for ourselves, to ourselves, and no one else. This is why WE judge each other according to our own understanding. There's no mystical magical sky fairy sitting at the judge's bench.

Do you think any of this is convincing?

Given this tirade I wonder if I came in defending the existence of tinkerbell this genius adult would come in with the same hatred and venom in denouncing tinkerbell. NO, he'd just call me nuts and be done with it. I think the hatred and venom is evidence that he knows deep down that what he's fighting against is actually the truth.

 

[buckshot24]

If that is all you intended then we actually are in agreement for once in this thread. I still don't see the broader point you are trying to make but at least we are clear on exactly what you were trying to say.

For the record, I believe that a Christian, specifically Newton, was undoubtedly the most brilliant man in all of recorded history. I don't have an issue with scientists who happen to be christian in the least.

We've agreed on an other issue back when we were talking about a multi verse. But who's counting.

 

[buckshot24]

Ooh, lets play your game, can you prove that he didn't say it ever in his lifetime?

But thank you for motivating me to finally update my sig. I haven't touched it since I joined Anand.

Cool.

For starters the Church didn't believe that the earth was flat in his day in fact it never was that common of a belief in the church. Secondly the earliest we find this quote was well into the 19th century. But I can't "prove" that I exist. I gave you evidence that it is almost certainly a false quote.

 

[buckshot24]

Lol, it wasn't "common". It was ordered and carried out by relatively few people. The rest of the world completely disagreed. See the difference?

It was common enough where enough people bought into it to actually proceed with the evil plan.

Because I don't need a book to tell me what is good or bad and I damn sure don't need a book as fucked up as the bible to tell me that all sorts of fucked up things are actually right.

So you don't know why its wrong, it just is. Ok.

Its kind of ironic, here you are saying that we can't possibly know what is morall without being told by some external force and you think god is that external force.

Nobody said that. What is it with you atheists on this question? You always get it wrong. An atheist can be just as moral as any Christian and in some cases more so, it isn't being told or knowing what is right and wrong its the fact that there is a difference between right and wrong.

Yes I do, its called sanity.

What does that even mean?

Human decency.

LOL What some chap finds decent isn't decent for the other guy, who decides who is right?

No, I have actually read the bible cover to cover multiple times. See I used to be a good little christian just like you and then I read the bible.

I used to be an atheist myself so looks like a fair trade. :awe:

No its not by popularity but because human decency is common, it becomes more and more popular as our society evolves.
As far as moral relativism, it makes some points but I damn sure wouldn't label myself a "relativist".

I didn't think you were a relativist either. But I would argue that the highly evolved society in Germany allowed one of the most heinous violations of decency ever in human history. If the Germans won WW2 the evolution of society would have produced a much different moral landscape. I'd say that Hitler would have had to hide what they did from the masses because deep down everybody on earth knows that it was objectively evil and would have rebelled eventually.

WTF does Hitchen's have to do with this debate?

Not much except he continually made the same mistake everybody else is making in this thread with the morality discussion. Plus he was a hero of that city of something dude.

As far as objective morality, I have stated many times that I don't buy the entire notion of "objective morality", its an argument made up by theists to try and make an unwinnable argument and then use it as "proof" of their god.

Well of course you don't buy it you're an atheist! If you found it persuasive you'd have gone back to theism. However if it was just "made up" then there should be some knock down arguments against it. I've never seen them.

My own personal morality, not derived from the divine, would not allow me to kill off a "defective" person so that I could have more resources. I would far prefer to give the "defective person" my resources instead.

That's because you're a decent person. From my perspective I'd do it because I think they have intrinsic worth. From yours I feel that viewing them as competitors instead would be just as morally valid.

Now that is a good philosophical question that frankly I can't answer. I do think that almost everyone would say that they are more inline with my morals than with gods if we just listed the morals and left out the names. Would you personally say that is because we have became a more evil society (talking about western civilization)?

I don't think the morals of God are what you're claiming they are. I've dropped that because we weren't getting anywhere.

 

[OverVolt]

Roots Slavery was most definitely in the Bible. Unless by that term one defines it as meaning beating a slave who dies wiithin a couple days as perfectly fine. Otherwise it is mentioned and condoned.

Nobody condones this religious or not in modern day 2013, that is entirely in your head buddy.

 

[sandorski]

Nobody condones this religious or not in modern day 2013, that is entirely in your head buddy.

It's in your Bible, buddy.

 

[buckshot24]

It's in your Bible, buddy.

Maybe there is something more to it since in the prior verse killing a slave could get you killed.

 

[sandorski]

Maybe there is something more to it since in the prior verse killing a slave could get you killed.

What would that be?

 

[buckshot24]

What would that be?

The verse right before the one you were talking about.

 

[ThinClient]

The verse right before the one you were talking about.

The verse where it's okay for you to beat the shit out of your slave but if he dies within a certain period of time then you're in trouble? Or the part where if you beat your slave and he dies outside this time frame, still from wounds inflicted, then you're okay? What about god's commands that a slave owner can choose to stone his slave to death for procreating in certain circumstances?

 

[buckshot24]

The verse where it's okay for you to beat the shit out of your slave but if he dies within a certain period of time then you're in trouble? Or the part where if you beat your slave and he dies outside this time frame, still from wounds inflicted, then you're okay? What about god's commands that a slave owner can choose to stone his slave to death for procreating in certain circumstances?

No TC

You're making an argument from silence.

 

[sandorski]

The verse right before the one you were talking about.

What verse would that be?