Atheists Call 9-11 Memorial Cross "Grossly Offensive"

[Atreus21]

Theists definitely do not have an Objective reason to denounce it.

What are all these Objective Morals you keep asserting? Where do they come from? Show your Source.

Uh, yes we do. We claim that an omnipotent being denounces it.

They come from God. I don't pretend to know everything about them, or God. And you might laugh at that. But who is on safer ground? Is it more sane to claim that there is no ultimate source for morality?

 

[thraashman]

Is it more sane to claim that there is no ultimate source for morality?

Yes, significantly such. If there was an ultimate source for morality then it would be uniform across the planet. It clearly is not.

 

[sandorski]

Uh, yes we do. We claim that an omnipotent being denounces it.

They come from God. I don't pretend to know everything about them, or God. And you might laugh at that. But who is on safer ground? Is it more sane to claim that there is no ultimate source for morality?

What is your Source for such a pronouncement?

 

[buckshot24]

Yes, significantly such. If there was an ultimate source for morality then it would be uniform across the planet. It clearly is not.

non sequitur

 

[bshole]

Atreus,

Where did God get his moral code? Just because God is powerful does not mean that he is morally superior.

You assume because an entity is vastly more powerful than you that his morals are superior to yours. In the end, for you, MIGHT makes RIGHT.

If there is a GOD that is in control of this earth and man, he is amoral at best and a sadistic butcher at worst. The amount of suffering he has visited upon his creation is clearly unconscionable. He makes animals that can feel fear and pain and then he creates other things to hunt, kill and eat those animals.... that takes one sick bastard to come up with that.

 

[buckshot24]

Theists definitely do not have an Objective reason to denounce it.

What are all these Objective Morals you keep asserting? Where do they come from? Show your Source.

Why do you think slavery is wrong, what is your source?

 

[Paul98]

None that do not filter down to some claim to equality and human dignity, of which both are dogmatic claims.

Do you think nearly everyone would enjoy enjoy being a slave?...

 

[Atreus21]

Actually they will, the evolved human trait of empathy. You have to realize that throughout much of western history, if you admitted to being atheist, you were dead.

You speak as if that were never true of Christians.

The concept of the free-thinking, not religiously bound atheist is a pretty new concept. So there's not a lot of history of atheist behavior to draw on for examples. Most atheists will use logic and reason to make their initial assessments of a situation, and final decisions resulting from those assessments will include an empathic element.

It is as old as ancient religions. Doubt and skepticism are nothing new.

Furthermore, if atheists use logic and reason as their guiding principle, they refute it by drawing on empathy to form conclusions.

Example. Logic could dictate that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. But because we atheists are not Spock, empathically we would not sacrifice people (you know like cutting off social programs to reduce the deficit and effectively kill thousands of poor people like so many Christian Republicans seem to want to do).

Again, by appealing to empathy, you are giving up on logic and reason in favor of some arbitrary belief.

As has already been determined, the concept of empathy is beyond foreign to you so it's impossible to discuss it. You are only moral because you fear what your god would do to you if you weren't. That's not a good person, that's a scared person. And if you could be convinced that your god believed something else, like murdering poor children was good, you'd do it. Most atheists would not because we have empathy.

One thing about atheists: They have a monopoly on arrogance.

Yes, if you want the answer you're looking for, I might be compelled to do unspeakable things if I thought God demanded it. But you might consider your own position. Society thought slavery was fine 150 years ago. If it were to do so again, atheists would be entirely unable to defend their position without the dogmatic claim that "slavery is wrong."

 

[Darwin333]

C'mon dude, it wasn't an argument at all.

Although I listened to this radio interview where Hitchens says even if it was true he would tell God to ah heck off (or something to that effect). So there is that sentiment out there.

Wow, you are really into Hitchens aren't you? I am only vaguely familiar with him, couldn't even tell you what his science is about and really couldn't care about his atheism.

As far as me, I am perfectly willing and ready to change my view if and when I am presented with actual evidence that complies with the scientific method. I guess thats his prerogative to tell him to ah heck off but at the least he would "believe" (hate that word when talking about stuff that is known and provable in god and if he didn't he would lose all credibility as a scientist.

 

[Atreus21]

What is your Source for such a pronouncement?

Who cares? The point is we have one. What is yours?

 

[sandorski]

Why do you think slavery is wrong, what is your source?

It clearly isn't the Bible or Religion.

I can see the harm, but even before that it was the accepted norm to oppose it within the society I grew up in.

 

[Atreus21]

Wow, you are really into Hitchens aren't you? I am only vaguely familiar with him, couldn't even tell you what his science is about and really couldn't care about his atheism.

As far as me, I am perfectly willing and ready to change my view if and when I am presented with actual evidence that complies with the scientific method. I guess thats his prerogative to tell him to ah heck off but at the least he would "believe" (hate that word when talking about stuff that is known and provable in god and if he didn't he would lose all credibility as a scientist.

Creation implies creator. We wouldn't argue about God if we didn't exist.

 

[Atreus21]

It clearly isn't the Bible or Religion.

I can see the harm, but even before that it was the accepted norm to oppose it within the society I grew up in.

And for the vast majority of human history, slavery was acceptable. Were they wrong?

 

[sandorski]

Who cares? The point is we have one. What is yours?

GTFO. "Who cares?" I don't have one, I don't Claim to have one. You do claim it, but can't provide jackshit to show that it actually exists, nevermind the position against Slavery you are also claiming is Objectively opposed for which there is SFA source for either.

 

[buckshot24]

It clearly isn't the Bible or Religion.

I can see the harm, but even before that it was the accepted norm to oppose it within the society I grew up in.

Why is slavery wrong? Just "I can see the harm"? That might be a good reason not to do it but not for why it is wrong. I think it's perfectly reasonable to think that slavery is ok if we're just a bunch of highly evolved chemical reactions, I can't think of a single reason why it is wrong given that view.

 

[Darwin333]

Furthermore, I'd bet if atheists actually read the bible, they might stop quoting it as if they've read it.

I've read it cover to cover 3 times and read a bunch of it more than 3 times. How about yourself?

Rather dull at times and a very difficult read, no real plot and all over the damn place. With that said, its got some pretty damn disturbing stuff in it and old testament god is a straight up dick. He lost all right to claim that he was "kind and loving" after the passover, you can argue well before that actually but the passover is akin to the modern day holocaust, simply insane and something I can not and will not agree with.

Frankly I have always said that the best way to get more atheists is to convince theists to read their goddamned bible.

 

[sandorski]

Creation implies creator. We wouldn't argue about God if we didn't exist.

That is true, however, "Creation" is an unsupported Assertion. If you can show that there is Creation, then you might have a point.

 

[sandorski]

Why is slavery wrong? Just "I can see the harm"? That might be a good reason not to do it but not for why it is wrong. I think it's perfectly reasonable to think that slavery is ok if we're just a bunch of highly evolved chemical reactions, I can't think of a single reason why it is wrong given that view.

Then you are not seeing the larger picture. If Slavery is ok, then you are at risk of being the Slave.

 

[Atreus21]

I've read it cover to cover 3 times and read a bunch of it more than 3 times. How about yourself?

Rather dull at times and a very difficult read, no real plot and all over the damn place. With that said, its got some pretty damn disturbing stuff in it and old testament god is a straight up dick. He lost all right to claim that he was "kind and loving" after the passover, you can argue well before that actually but the passover is akin to the modern day holocaust, simply insane and something I can not and will not agree with.

Frankly I have always said that the best way to get more atheists is to convince theists to read their goddamned bible.

I've read it once. And my reaction is that whatever point it makes is unclear, as is the result of most religious texts.

I've never been very engaged in the bible. I've seen too many people replace God with their bible, which never sat well with me.

 

[buckshot24]

It clearly isn't the Bible or Religion.

Given that all people are created by God and have intrinsic value outside of themselves it's quite easy to come to the conclusion that we shouldn't own slaves. However if they are just masses of hydrocarbons it would be more difficult to see the same thing.

 

[Atreus21]

That is true, however, "Creation" is an unsupported Assertion. If you can show that there is Creation, then you might have a point.

Cause and effect implies it. Things don't (outside of theory) spontaneously sprout into existence without some cause.

 

[Retro Rob]

I've read it cover to cover 3 times and read a bunch of it more than 3 times. How about yourself?

Rather dull at times and a very difficult read, no real plot and all over the damn place. With that said, its got some pretty damn disturbing stuff in it and old testament god is a straight up dick. He lost all right to claim that he was "kind and loving" after the passover, you can argue well before that actually but the passover is akin to the modern day holocaust, simply insane and something I can not and will not agree with.

Frankly I have always said that the best way to get more atheists is to convince theists to read their goddamned bible.

Just a caveat, my freind...you can read the Bible as I can read a book on quantum mechanics, but that doesn't mean I understand it.

 

[thraashman]

non sequitur

Considering that means "it does not follow", I don't think you understand how to use it. He claimed morality has an ultimate source. I pointed out that if morality had an ultimate source then globally morality would be uniform. Since it is not uniform, it would follow that there is no ultimate source for morality. In other words, the EXACT opposite of a non sequitur.

Again, by appealing to empathy, you are giving up on logic and reason in favor of some arbitrary belief.

Society thought slavery was fine 150 years ago. If it were to do so again, atheists would be entirely unable to defend their position without the dogmatic claim that "slavery is wrong."

Yes, atheists, while inherently trying to use logic in reason, are still human, and are still capable of and at least partially driven by empathy. Most people who aren't narrow in their view can see how logic and empathy can work together.

You made the comment earlier about the "dogmatic claim that all men are created equal". Yet the Bible itself disagrees with that. Many in the Bible are created lesser. Think the Curse of Ham, or this gem "All the people who were left of the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, who were not of the people of Israel their descendants who were left after them in the land, whom the people of Israel were unable to devote to destruction—these Solomon drafted to be slaves, and so they are to this day." 1 Kings 9:20-21

The entire concept of people ACTUALLY being treated as equal arose as people stopped taking the Bible literally and began considering empathy OVER scripture. Hell, the concept of using empathy in place of scripture based morality is the core of what being an atheist is. To claim that slavery is wrong is a dogmatic claim is bullshit. Slavery is all throughout the Bible and is justified within it constantly. True equality amongst humanity comes not from following God but from rejecting him. And your "what if" scenario of if society moved to being ok with slavery again simply won't happen, because as a society we're moving away from religion and therefore we won't have a dogmatic claim as to justify slavery.

 

[sandorski]

Given that all people are created by God ...

Source/Evidence?

 

[JD50]

Here, let me spell it out for you. I'm calling you a bigot based on your incredibly twisted viewpoint which I previously bolded. Your perspective is not based on compassion...it's based on contempt, intolerance and hatred....the hallmarks of bigotry.

I don't think you understand the discussion. Atreus admitted that god is the reason that he thinks it's wrong to rape and murder people, and without belief in god there is no basis for these morals.