Atheists face death in 13 Muslim countries

[ThinClient]

Of course you are...you're never wrong. I get that.

Good, now that we have that covered, we can move right along.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

Someone who doesn't exist has no authority.

I agree.

We're really blessed that God does exists. He created a great universe too. His next one is going to be way better. The best part is I'll be living forever with God in that one. Awesome. :biggrin:

 

[spittledip]

Sorry, who's law? Someone who doesn't exist has no authority.

We are talking within the confines of the Bible. You are both trying to discredit the Bible using the bible as a resource. To go outside the bible in the midst of this argument is irrational. You either lost sight of the argument at hand or are not being honest in your debating tactics.

 

[spittledip]

Law can be evil and immoral and unethical, yes.

See the post above.

 

[sandorski]

God's law. He created the world and brought into it His law. His law he placed into the heart of man. Read Romans 1 and 2.

You know you completely avoided all my earlier questions and comments.

edit: I was a bit hasty- here are some verses that will give you an idea why God was meting out justice: Deuteronomy 20:16–18, Leviticus 20:20-26, Deuteronomy 26 16-19, Deuteronomy 7:1-6

Which Law?

 

[IEC]

snip

List of logical fallacies often employed by ThinClient:
loaded question
begging the question
composition/division
black or white
special pleading
Straw man
cherry-picking
tu quoque

 

[sandorski]

We are talking within the confines of the Bible. You are both trying to discredit the Bible using the bible as a resource. To go outside the bible in the midst of this argument is irrational. You either lost sight of the argument at hand or are not being honest in your debating tactics.

We're not. We're just using your resource and accepted Morality to show you that your claims are baseless. The Bible clearly endorses Immoral acts.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

We're not. We're just using your resource and accepted Morality to show you that your claims are baseless. The Bible clearly endorses Immoral acts.

[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif]From Whence Came Morals?
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif]by Eric Lyons, M.Min.[/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif]“

[E]volutionary psychologists believe they are closing in on one of the remaining mysteries of life, the universal ‘moral law’ that underlies our intuitive notions of good and evil.” Such were the words of Newsweek senior editor Jerry Adler in his article, titled “The New Naysayers” (2006).[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif]It has long been understood that morality exists (see Taylor, 1945, p. 83). Even the most renowned atheists have admitted such (see Simpson, 1967, p. 346): there is good and there is evil; there is right and there is wrong. Different people draw the moral line at different places, but “they all agree that there is such a line to be drawn” (Taylor, 1945, p. 83). Why?[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif]Why are humans moral beings if, as evolutionists teach, we merely evolved from lifeless, mindless, unconscious matter over billions of years? Why do humans feel a sense of “ought” to help the poor, weak, and oppressed if we simply evolved by the natural law of “might makes right” (i.e., survival of the fittest)? Adler highlighted Richard Dawkins in his “New Naysayers” article as one of three scholars who “argue that atheism is smarter” (2006, p. 47).

Apparently, one example of atheism’s superiority comes from evolutionists’ new explanation for morality, which they describe as “one of the remaining mysteries of life” (p. 48). According to Adler,[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif]Dawkins attempts to show how the highest of human impulses, such as empathy, charity and pity, could have evolved by the same mechanism of natural selection that created the thumb. Biologists understand that the driving force in evolution is the survival and propagation of our genes. They may impel us to instinctive acts of goodness...even when it seems counterproductive to our own interests—say, by risking our life to save someone else. Evolutionary psychology can explain how selfless behavior might have evolved (pp. 48-49, emp. added).[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif]And what exactly are these explanations? (1) “The recipient [of our acts of goodness—EL] may be a blood relation who carries some of our own genes.” (2) “Or our acts may earn us future gratitude, or reputation for bravery that makes us more desirable as mates.” (3) “The impulse for generosity must have evolved while humans lived in small bands in which almost everyone was related, so that goodness became the default human aspiration” (p. 49).[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif]There you have it—atheism’s “smarter” explanations for morality. Although the “driving force” of evolution—natural selection—runs contrariwise to such moral, human impulses as empathy, charity, and pity, now we are told it “may impel us to instinctive acts of goodness...even when it seems counterproductive to our own interests” (p. 48). In summary, our sense of moral “oughtness” allegedly comes (1) from wanting to pass on our genes, (2) from a desire to be a hero and gain popularity, and/or (3) by default.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif]In actuality, “smarter” atheism is as foolish as ever (Psalm 14:1; 1 Corinthians 1:25). The desire to pass on one’s genes or to be a hero fails to explain the origins of human morality. When a person sees an unfamiliar child hanging from a six-story balcony and feels compelled to save that child from death (even though no one is watching), that sense of moral obligation must be explained in some way other than evolution. When a person is compelled to spend valuable time, money, and energy to help a poor stranger survive, even though such action may mean risking injury or death, naturalistic explanations simply will not do. To say, “goodness became the default human aspiration” is simply a copout for lacking an adequate naturalistic explanation.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif]Morality exists and makes sense only if there is a God, because only God could have created it. If all naturalistic explanations for the existence of morality have been shown to be inadequate, by default, the only logical explanation must be Supernatural (i.e., God).[/FONT]

 

[sandorski]

[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif]From Whence Came Morals?
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif]by Eric Lyons, M.Min.[/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif]“

[E]volutionary psychologists believe they are closing in on one of the remaining mysteries of life, the universal ‘moral law’ that underlies our intuitive notions of good and evil.” Such were the words of Newsweek senior editor Jerry Adler in his article, titled “The New Naysayers” (2006).[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif]It has long been understood that morality exists (see Taylor, 1945, p. 83). Even the most renowned atheists have admitted such (see Simpson, 1967, p. 346): there is good and there is evil; there is right and there is wrong. Different people draw the moral line at different places, but “they all agree that there is such a line to be drawn” (Taylor, 1945, p. 83). Why?[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif]Why are humans moral beings if, as evolutionists teach, we merely evolved from lifeless, mindless, unconscious matter over billions of years? Why do humans feel a sense of “ought” to help the poor, weak, and oppressed if we simply evolved by the natural law of “might makes right” (i.e., survival of the fittest)? Adler highlighted Richard Dawkins in his “New Naysayers” article as one of three scholars who “argue that atheism is smarter” (2006, p. 47).

Apparently, one example of atheism’s superiority comes from evolutionists’ new explanation for morality, which they describe as “one of the remaining mysteries of life” (p. 48). According to Adler,[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif]Dawkins attempts to show how the highest of human impulses, such as empathy, charity and pity, could have evolved by the same mechanism of natural selection that created the thumb. Biologists understand that the driving force in evolution is the survival and propagation of our genes. They may impel us to instinctive acts of goodness...even when it seems counterproductive to our own interests—say, by risking our life to save someone else. Evolutionary psychology can explain how selfless behavior might have evolved (pp. 48-49, emp. added).[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif]And what exactly are these explanations? (1) “The recipient [of our acts of goodness—EL] may be a blood relation who carries some of our own genes.” (2) “Or our acts may earn us future gratitude, or reputation for bravery that makes us more desirable as mates.” (3) “The impulse for generosity must have evolved while humans lived in small bands in which almost everyone was related, so that goodness became the default human aspiration” (p. 49).[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif]There you have it—atheism’s “smarter” explanations for morality. Although the “driving force” of evolution—natural selection—runs contrariwise to such moral, human impulses as empathy, charity, and pity, now we are told it “may impel us to instinctive acts of goodness...even when it seems counterproductive to our own interests” (p. 48). In summary, our sense of moral “oughtness” allegedly comes (1) from wanting to pass on our genes, (2) from a desire to be a hero and gain popularity, and/or (3) by default.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif]In actuality, “smarter” atheism is as foolish as ever (Psalm 14:1; 1 Corinthians 1:25). The desire to pass on one’s genes or to be a hero fails to explain the origins of human morality. When a person sees an unfamiliar child hanging from a six-story balcony and feels compelled to save that child from death (even though no one is watching), that sense of moral obligation must be explained in some way other than evolution. When a person is compelled to spend valuable time, money, and energy to help a poor stranger survive, even though such action may mean risking injury or death, naturalistic explanations simply will not do. To say, “goodness became the default human aspiration” is simply a copout for lacking an adequate naturalistic explanation.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif]Morality exists and makes sense only if there is a God, because only God could have created it. If all naturalistic explanations for the existence of morality have been shown to be inadequate, by default, the only logical explanation must be Supernatural (i.e., God).[/FONT]

Unfounded assertion.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

North Korea is officially an atheist state,[1][2] and government policy continues to interfere with the individual's ability to choose and to manifest his or her religious belief. The regime continues to repress the religious activities of unauthorized religious groups. Recent refugee, defector, missionary, and nongovernmental organizations (NGO) reports indicate that religious persons engaging in proselytizing in the country, those who have ties to overseas evangelical groups operating across the border in the People's Republic of China, and specifically, those repatriated from China and found to have been in contact with foreigners or missionaries, have been arrested and subjected to harsh penalties. Refugees and defectors continued to allege that they witnessed the arrests and execution of members of underground Christian churches by the regime in prior years.

The Government deals harshly with all opponents, including those who engage in religious practices deemed unacceptable by the regime. An estimated 150,000 to 200,000 persons were believed to be held in political prison camps (Kwalliso) in remote areas,[5] many for religious and political reasons.[6] Prison conditions were harsh, and refugees and defectors who had been in prison stated that prisoners held on the basis of their religious beliefs generally were treated worse than other inmates. A refugee who arrived in South Korea in 2001 claimed that he was tortured for his Christian beliefs after a Bible was discovered in his belongings.[citation needed]

 

[Exophase]

The connection between a lot of popular morality and survival/fitness should be obvious to anyone with much intellectual integrity. You don't need a supernatural authority to dictate morality for it to serve a practical purpose, a lot of it just makes sense.

But some of becomes obsolete as humanity advances. For example, a lot of rules for sexual conduct made more sense before there was reliable birth control. It's better if these things are continually reevaluated instead of sticking with them because you think they were written in stone by God. And that's where the function of religion works as a double edged sword - good when people need higher powers to adhere to to enforce morality. Bad when that particular morality goes stale. And when people are killing each other in the name of enforcing these obsolete moralities the whole thing becomes pretty counterproductive.

 

[ericlp]

Uh anyone ever see that movie Easy Rider? I wouldn't want to be stumping or going up to anyone in the bible belt proclaiming your an Atheist and your views on religion.

Tho, I have some atheist t-shirts I like to wear around my town. I dunno ... No one has said anything to me yet. But I'm kinda a big guy on that note as well. But I could see this happening in the future when the churches become "THREATENED" by Atheism.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

Atheism is dying

 

[spittledip]

Which Law?

Read the verses I referenced. The verses will tell you what God was punishing them for.

 

[spittledip]

We're not. We're just using your resource and accepted Morality to show you that your claims are baseless. The Bible clearly endorses Immoral acts.

"Accepted Morality"? Your definition of "accepted morality" is different than my definition of"accepted morality". So who holds the right "accepted morality"? I certainly reject your "accepted morality". Who are you to tell me that you hold some type of authority to tell me what is moral and what is not? Who determines what is "accepted morality"?

 

[sandorski]

"Accepted Morality"? Your definition of "accepted morality" is different than my definition of"accepted morality". So who holds the right "accepted morality"? I certainly reject your "accepted morality". Who are you to tell me that you hold some type of authority to tell me what is moral and what is not? Who determines what is "accepted morality"?

Slavery: Moral or Immoral?

Genocide: Moral or Immoral?

 

[Exophase]

Atheism is dying

If by atheism you mean lack of a belief in some kind of god then sorry, you are wrong. The numbers are gradually increasing, at least in the US. Meanwhile, the number of people who identify as Christian has been going down.

This is kind of like the claim I've frequently heard (for the past couple decades) that biologists have been losing belief in evolution..

 

[Retro Rob]

If by atheism you mean lack of a belief in some kind of god then sorry, you are wrong. The numbers are gradually increasing, at least in the US. Meanwhile, the number of people who identify as Christian has been going down.

This is kind of like the claim I've frequently heard (for the past couple decades) that biologists have been losing belief in evolution..

Yeah, and this is largely due, not to science, but to religion itself. That does NOT mean people are losing their theism...just their religion.

I don't know if that's a good thing, but I think this trend was inevitable.

 

[Nebor]

Yeah, and this is largely due, not to science, but to religion itself. That does NOT mean people are losing their theism...just their religion.

I don't know if that's a good thing, but I think this trend was inevitable.

As the overall education level, and peoples access to news & discoveries has increased, it was indeed inevitable for people to move away from religion.

 

[thraashman]

Yeah, and this is largely due, not to science, but to religion itself. That does NOT mean people are losing their theism...just their religion.

I don't know if that's a good thing, but I think this trend was inevitable.

I have to say I'd be willing to bet that people like Pray drive more people away from religion than scientists ever could.

 

[ThinClient]

We are talking within the confines of the Bible. You are both trying to discredit the Bible using the bible as a resource. To go outside the bible in the midst of this argument is irrational. You either lost sight of the argument at hand or are not being honest in your debating tactics.

Not really. You can make any sort of claim you want, but it doesn't matter in the end. Eventually, the argument always comes back to supporting the claim that god exists in the first place.

It's entirely rational. I'm just skipping a few pointless posts.

 

[ThinClient]

List of logical fallacies often employed by ThinClient:
loaded question
begging the question
composition/division
black or white
special pleading
Straw man
cherry-picking
tu quoque

You can make up shit like this all day and none of it is relevant without evidence to support the positive claim.

 

[ThinClient]

"Accepted Morality"? Your definition of "accepted morality" is different than my definition of"accepted morality". So who holds the right "accepted morality"? I certainly reject your "accepted morality". Who are you to tell me that you hold some type of authority to tell me what is moral and what is not? Who determines what is "accepted morality"?

Who are you to push your authority given to you by someone who doesn't exist?

 

[ThinClient]

I have to say I'd be willing to bet that people like Pray drive more people away from religion than scientists ever could.

Thank the lord!

 

[Exophase]

Yeah, and this is largely due, not to science, but to religion itself. That does NOT mean people are losing their theism...just their religion.

No, it doesn't mean those people are becoming atheists, and I didn't say it did. The hard numbers for atheism, however, have been continually rising as well. And apparently a lot of people who aren't theists (don't have any kind of belief in gods) don't like to label themselves as atheists because of all the negative connotations about how atheism means hating religion and mocking religious people.

I don't think there's any doubt that over time people have been taking a lot of their religious mythology and history less seriously because its credibility has been seriously questioned more and more. Easier access to information on these subjects has helped facilitate this. And with these core beliefs compromised many will wonder why they should believe in any of it at all, including a vague belief in the supernatural, spiritual, or gods.

I actually expect fundamentalists to be more vulnerable to this, in a sense. I've seen many of them say that the Bible is either all right or all wrong, or that if a verse is wrong the writer must have been a liar or manipulator. Even you have said that if the books of the Bible weren't written by those held by Church tradition that it'd seriously compromise your faith.