Atheists Call 9-11 Memorial Cross "Grossly Offensive"

[Doc Savage Fan]

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.

I think that you're the one misunderstanding the discussion. You responded to my post and I answered you....simple as that.

Atreus has nothing to do with our discussion...he doesn't speak for me and I don't speak for him.

 

[Danwar]

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

equality is not dogmatic.

scientific research into DNA and the human Genome has shown us that we are all the same species of mammal.

whether you believe it or not has no bearing on this fact.

 

[buckshot24]

I'm at work, no youtube. Since it's such a sophomoric question can you just sum up the answer?

No, you're a big boy. You should be working anyway instead of stealing from your employer so get to work.

 

[JD50]

I think that you're the one misunderstanding the discussion. You responded to my post and I answered you....simple as that.

Atreus has nothing to do with our discussion...he doesn't speak for me and I don't speak for him.

If you don't think that it's necessary to believe in god in order to have morals or donate to charity, then my comment was not directed at you.

 

[buckshot24]

So are the points that spurs the question. Which is why it is sophomoric and lazy in the first place.

Thanks for letting us know your opinion. I'll take a note.

 

[JD50]

No, you're a big boy. You should be working anyway instead of stealing from your employer so get to work.

🙄

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I give to charity all the time. It never even crossed my mind to find an "atheist organization" to give to, I just give to already founded charities that do good work. Children's hospital in New Orleans is one of my favorites, why would I stop giving to Children's just to find some atheist organization?

Good point. I think the truth of that matter is that organized religions do an enormous amount of good things in this world. However, when you bring it down to the individual level, there really isn't that much difference between the religious/non-religious. At the end of the day...people are people, and are no better or worse than the other in this regard.

 

[buckshot24]

If you don't think that it's necessary to believe in god in order to have morals or donate to charity, then my comment was not directed at you.

Goodness what is it with this question? That isn't the claim at all. The point was that there is no basis for this morality if you don't believe in God. Agree with that or not but that is the claim.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

If you don't think that it's necessary to believe in god in order to have morals or donate to charity, then my comment was not directed at you.

You quoted me but I'm not supposed to think your response was directed at me? OK. 🙄

 

[JD50]

You quoted me but I'm not supposed to think your response was directed at me? OK. 🙄

I was in the middle of going back and forth with Atreus at the time as well. I'm telling you now that if you don't hold those same beliefs then that comment is not directed at you.

 

[sandorski]

You and I both know that nobody is ever going to hand us a peer review paper proving the existence of God. However, since you say that you're perfectly willing to potentially change your view, I have a little "scientific" experiment for you to try. It's very simple...just sincerely ask God, that if he exists, that he would make himself known to you in the next few weeks. I don't presume to know the mind of God...but if you are truly sincere and honest...I personally don't know how a loving God could deny such a request if presented in such a manner.

Few weeks?

Angels can be experienced in a few minutes.

 

[sandorski]

Obvious Morality

 

[buckshot24]

Obvious Morality

I got to the part where he says WLC says that all good things come from God. Hint:He doesn't say that.


So it would be good to kill the 100 "defects" if it would save the 1000 "normals" according to this guy. I think I'd rather listen to my dog than this one.

 

[sandorski]

I got to the part where he says WLC says that all good things come from God. Hint:He doesn't say that.


So it would be good to kill the 100 "defects" if it would save the 1000 "normals" according to this guy. I think I'd rather listen to my dog than this one.

WLC says that the very nature/character of "God" is good. Whatever that's suppose to mean.

Your conclusion seems to be a purposely crafted attempt to demonize his position. Far more objectionable a thing than what he claimed about WLC, accurate or not. I am confounded how else you could have come to that conclusion other than to simply dismiss the argument without having to think about it.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I was in the middle of going back and forth with Atreus at the time as well. I'm telling you now that if you don't hold those same beliefs then that comment is not directed at you.

Nope, I don't hold the same beliefs as Atreus and why you might have assumed as much is beyond me...which just seems kinda odd coming from someone who obviously prides themself in holding highly "rational" beliefs.

 

[JD50]

Nope, I don't hold the same beliefs as Atreus and why you might have assumed as much is beyond me...which just seems kinda odd coming from someone who obviously prides themself in holding highly "rational" beliefs.

Dude, it was a simple miscommunication, relax.

 

[Retro Rob]

If you don't think that it's necessary to believe in god in order to have morals or donate to charity, then my comment was not directed at you.

I honestly don't think most believers think it does.

Its not the "needing" to have belief in God, most believers I know do it out of gratitude.

The more that give freely, the better the world will be -- I don't care why someone gives, as long as they do.

Stop sweating the small stuff.

 

[thraashman]

I honestly don't think most believers think it does.

Its not the "needing" to have belief in God, most believers I know do it out of gratitude.

The more that give freely, the better the world will be -- I don't care why someone gives, as long as they do.

Stop sweating the small stuff.

And I don't think most atheists/agnostics think most religious people have that belief. But that's why this thread has largely become an all atheists vs Atreus discussion because he seems to genuinely believe that it's impossible to be moral without a belief in a god.

 

[OverVolt]

You're being willfully obtuse about whey the focus of the past several pages has been on the Bible and slavery.

The argument being given by atheists is:

According to many religious Christians, morality comes from God. But since the only statement we have of "God's morality" is what's documented in the Bible, and since the Bible is pretty clearly OK with slavery and other practices that the modern world decries, the obvious point is: What's "moral" is what humans consider to be moral, not what some old religious document says is moral.

That's a pretty clear refutation of what many religious Christians claim.

No, I'm Catholic, so it follows as such:

- In 1917, the Roman Catholic Church's Canon Law was officially expanded to specify that "selling a human being into slavery or for any other evil purpose" is a crime.

- In the Roman Church, universal positive ecclesiastical laws, based upon either immutable divine and natural law, or changeable circumstantial and merely positive law, derive formal authority and promulgation from the office of pope, who as Supreme Pontiff possesses the totality of legislative, executive, and judicial power in his person.[2] The actual subject material of the canons is not just doctrinal or moral in nature, but all-encompassing of the human condition.

You know that pope guy, the canon? Ohhhhhhhhhh yea. Atheists still remember the pope yes?

For what, 20 pages you guys try to hold water to an argument that is 90+ years old and has been laid to rest, for Catholics at least. Like I've been saying all along the only ones making a fuss over slavery in the bible, and all this other nonsense are the Atheists themselves. You guys are worse then the Jehovah's Witnesses.

 

[sandorski]

No, I'm Catholic, so it follows as such:

- In 1917, the Roman Catholic Church's Canon Law was officially expanded to specify that "selling a human being into slavery or for any other evil purpose" is a crime.

- In the Roman Church, universal positive ecclesiastical laws, based upon either immutable divine and natural law, or changeable circumstantial and merely positive law, derive formal authority and promulgation from the office of pope, who as Supreme Pontiff possesses the totality of legislative, executive, and judicial power in his person.[2] The actual subject material of the canons is not just doctrinal or moral in nature, but all-encompassing of the human condition.

You know that pope guy, the canon? Ohhhhhhhhhh yea. Atheists still remember the pope yes?

For what, 20 pages you guys try to hold water to an argument that is 90+ years old and has been laid to rest, for Catholics at least.

Long after the Western World had declared Slavery Immoral/Unacceptable, the Pope declares it as such too. Yay.

😵

 

[OverVolt]

Long after the Western World had declared Slavery Immoral/Unacceptable, the Pope declares it as such too. Yay.

😵

I'm sure its a very important issue to you considering you weren't even born yet. 😵

 

[Retro Rob]

Long after the Western World had declared Slavery Immoral/Unacceptable, the Pope declares it as such too. Yay.

😵

Makes you wonder, if the Western World had never declared slavery a crime, would the Church had also gone along with it.

 

[sandorski]

I'm sure its a very important issue to you considering you weren't even born yet. 😵

Completely moot. By the time the Pope acted, the issue had been resolved. I'm confounded how you seem impressed by this.

 

[Darwin333]

But allowing to live the "defects" in my hypothetical hurts others as well. Sure, some people will be hurt but more will be saved.

Again, I would rather share my own resources, even to my detriment, than to kill another human simply because we think they are "defective". Hell, an argument could have been made that Einstein was "defective" when he was young, could you imagine if we would have killed him due to his defect?

Not a hard admission to make.

Glad to hear.

See, I believe that our consciences were created by God so innately we know the difference between good and evil. So whether you believe God exists or not you still have the moral compass within you to know the basics of morality. You also were raised in a society where this right and wrong was taught to you. So, yes I do believe that a child could be raised to have decent morals outside of any religion.

If it was created by god and has basically been "static" since the creation of man, why have our morals evolved (in some cases drastically) over time?

I'm saying that we don't need to know exactly what is right and wrong to be able to accept that there is a right and wrong.

Fair enough.

If we can imagine one act that is wrong in all situations then we have established that there is a right and wrong and therefore there must be a standard that divides right from wrong that is outside of ourselves.

Yes, they have lost the ability to hear their consciences. But do you think evil actually exists? [/quote]

I would wager most of what we consider "evil" is more likely some sort of mental disorder. I haven't really considered if true evil actually exists or not.

I think it works with my belief that God gave people consciences and the basic ability to know from right and wrong.

What consequences?

All I did was say that he misconstrued the argument everytime I heard him discuss it. I think you're starting to get it, he never did.

Perhaps you should engage him in a debate as well lol.

I think there are. But the claim was that "objective morality" was merely invented to prove an unproveable case. Given that I can't prove that I exist I wouldn't even attempt to do so with God.

What do you mean you can't prove that you exist? I can prove that I exist and if given the opportunity I could easily prove that you exist.

Not much to elaborate on really. In your worldview we are just animals evolved through a couple billion years of struggle for survival. Seems just as "moral" to view the competition as threats as it would to view them as people with any value.

Yes but along with our physical evolution we have evolved as a society too. As our society has evolved so has our societies morals.

If you're just a bag of meat looking to spread your DNA then anything goes to that end.

Not in our evolved society it doesn't.

Sure but you're doing so in a way a 2 year old judges mommy as a meany when she puts him in his crib. Just like the 2 year old doesn't understand the whole situation we don't understand it either from God's perspective but to a larger degree.

Sorry bud but I don't hand out "get out of jail free" cards nearly that easy. I can't fathom a single thing that would EVER make the passover acceptable in any form or fashion. When it comes to the mass murder of children, the big picture is irrelevant.

 

[buckshot24]

WLC says that the very nature/character of "God" is good.

That's more accurate. The video states "For something to be good it must come from God." which is not what he says. What else is he going to mischaracterize?

Your conclusion seems to be a purposely crafted attempt to demonize his position.

"Good is something beneficial to the most people with the most efficiency." That's what he says and if you take my earlier scenario then those 100 "defects" would justifiably be killed under this code. However if you were the one who had to kill the 100 people you'd feel great guilt about it because you know that it was actually wrong to kill these people.

Far more objectionable a thing than what he claimed about WLC, accurate or not. I am confounded how else you could have come to that conclusion other than to simply dismiss the argument without having to think about it.

You think I've never heard this before? I have thought about this and the concept is nothing new to me. He asserts that objective moral values do not exist without giving any reasons for it.