Theism vs Atheism

Topic started by Mortein on Feb. 7, 2011. Last post by Bigheart711 2 years ago.
Post by Newdeath (18,555 posts) See mini bio Level 19
@cfatalis: No kidding. It's the same with me. 
 
ND
Post by cfatalis (19,150 posts) See mini bio Level 15
@Newdeath: well i think it is natural for people right? I mean for example you are trying to convince people, if you keep saying that they are ABSOLUTELY wrong and idiotic , it won't exactly work wouldn't it?
Post by Newdeath (18,555 posts) See mini bio Level 19
@cfatalis: Indeed. 
 
ND
Post by hitsusatsu11 (10,747 posts) See mini bio Level 20

No this statement is fallacious , if you argued for Christian moral absolutism is needed yet I show you that countries who don't use it succeed better at upholding at upholding morals  then I have proved your statement.wrong It doesn't matter if the country with the least murder is a Christian one it still remains that in general the countries with a low murder rate aren't Christian. 

I am saying this is not true, (secular laws producing superior "morality" in terms of citizens actions) the laws of western Europe and NA are directly based on Judeo-Christian morality, and most Arab countries have sharia law, or sharia inspired law.  
Even Japan's law system has a rich religious history.  
Most all nation states base there law on religious or spiritual morals (the exception being communism)  
 
What part of my statement is wrong? The region with the lowest international homicide rate is Western Europe  
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate 
 
The place with the longest continuous Christian tradition.    
 
 

Example : Some kids  are poor some are rich.It is generally accepted that  richer kids get better educatian .Nobody would say this statement is wrong simply because a few poor kids got a good education that is at the rich level.Even if those kids were eventually to surpass the rich ones in terms of education it still remains that generally poor kids have a lower level of education. 


Except in this case the individual nation with the lowest homicide rate, and the region of the world with the lowest homicide rate are both Christian.  
But I maintain the root causes of homicide/crime are socio/economic.   
 
 

Your whole premise seems rather sketchy for one you don't really explain how your reasoning is not circular.You just say that we need absolute Christian morality without explaining why God is moral without falling into this pointless and flawed circular reasoning. Simply because you don't want subjective morality doesn't mean youj can say God  is absolutely good.Hell, I could just say that my worldview is great and magnificent.And point you to a book I wrote saying my worldview is great and magnificent  to prove you that it truly .Would you accept my worldview as great and magnificent for that sole reason. 
And when have I said "Christian commit atrocities, atheists are moral" this whole thing was started by statement "Educate people without religion and they only become clever devils" it was perpetuated by your belief that  Christian moral absolutism was needed if I prove that atheist aren't any less moral then Christians then I disprove both of those statements.This has nothing to do with me claiming moral superiority , it's about me disproving those statements

You may teach people not to kill, steal, covet, without teaching them where those notions came from, but it still doesn't change the fact that those directions are religious in origin and we have religion to thank for them.  
 
Some Atheists may follow the above moral tenets (especially when they are law, of course),  and they may even follow them better then some who profess Christianity, but they are still (and always will be) Judeo-Christian principles.  
 

Without God it's all subjective? 

Yes.  
How could anything be absolutely wrong (i.e rape) without direction from an absolute being? 
I don't think it could.  
I think without the direction of an absolute being it would merely be the "flavor of the month" of a changing human society, things that were considered wrong may not be, things which are wrong now may not be in the future, ect. With God we have everlasting principles.  
 

What about objective morality. it seems like a better  position since it is actually based on reasoning that isn't circular. 


I cannot see how morality can be objective (rather than subjective) without the direction of an absolute being.  
Imo "objective ethical facts" cannot exist without God, who is "external" to existence.  
When "object ethical facts" are deduced and created by man, I insist they are not objective, but by definition subjective.  
 


  Although the "Thou shalt not kill" stands at foundations of Christianity those other commands also need to be taken into consideration.And it is still contradicted by those other statements which are also commands from God .It is cherry-picking when you pick two statement who are equally respectable but pick the one that suits you


I do take all commands into consideration.  
 
The command not to murder in the 10 commandments is the command not to "ratsach" (in Hebrew)  http://strongsnumbers.com/hebrew/7523.htm and is used only a few times throughout scripture. 
This word is different then the words used to describe death as punishment for breaking commandments, such as  " He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death"  
Here we find no "ratsach" http://biblos.com/exodus/21-12.htm  
 
There is then a difference in forbidden murder"and God (or God's appointed judges-i.e King David, ect.) destroying or putting people to death in sin, and thus no contradiction.   
 
This website I found and read seems useful on the subject http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nokilling.html
This one to, though I only skimmed through it http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?file=article&name=News&sid=225 
 



  God ordered the murder of those innocent peoples



 God doesn't kill innocents, because nobody is innocent.  
 


Yea I just pulled statistics backing up my claim,no offence but this just doesn't seem to measure up to my argument. 

I've pulled numerous statistics showing that it is generally Christian regions (i.e western europa) with the lowest murder rates.  
Or do you mean the chart showing the population of non Christians and how can God justify damning all those people?
Post by SilverGalford (2,951 posts) See mini bio Level 11

How could anything be absolutely wrong (i.e rape) without direction from an absolute being? 
I don't think it could.  
I think without the direction of an absolute being it would merely be the "flavor of the month" of a changing human society, things that were considered wrong may not be, things which are wrong now may not be in the future, ect. With God we have everlasting principles.  


without God i think everything is biased
Post by MrASSH0LE (2,330 posts) See mini bio Level 12
@hitsusatsu11 said:

No this statement is fallacious , if you argued for Christian moral absolutism is needed yet I show you that countries who don't use it succeed better at upholding at upholding morals  then I have proved your statement.wrong It doesn't matter if the country with the least murder is a Christian one it still remains that in general the countries with a low murder rate aren't Christian. 

I am saying this is not true, (secular laws producing superior "morality" in terms of citizens actions) the laws of western Europe and NA are directly based on Judeo-Christian morality, and most Arab countries have sharia law, or sharia inspired law.  
Even Japan's law system has a rich religious history.  
Most all nation states base there law on religious or spiritual morals (the exception being communism)  
 
What part of my statement is wrong? The region with the lowest international homicide rate is Western Europe  
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate 
 
The place with the longest continuous Christian tradition.    
 
 

Example : Some kids  are poor some are rich.It is generally accepted that  richer kids get better educatian .Nobody would say this statement is wrong simply because a few poor kids got a good education that is at the rich level.Even if those kids were eventually to surpass the rich ones in terms of education it still remains that generally poor kids have a lower level of education. 


Except in this case the individual nation with the lowest homicide rate, and the region of the world with the lowest homicide rate are both Christian.  
But I maintain the root causes of homicide/crime are socio/economic.   
 
 


Actually that is the same problem as earlier,I showed you statistics comparing the more Christian states to the less Christian ones, comparing how Christians are represented in prisons compared to atheists and comparing the atheist countries to the more theist ones.And you still want to disregard it because some countries have not a lower crime rate but a lower murder rate.And if you want to measure morality you can't look at just one attribute and disregard things like rape,robbery and pedophilia by example. 
@
When did I say secular countries produced superior laws ? As i said earlier ,I said that if I prove that atheist aren't any less moral well I can say that your statement and Rockingham statements are refuted.
Yes ,many nations base their values on religious traditions but if you look at nations who enforce the separation of church and state, very little of the laws still have anything to do with religion  except not killing and not robbing but that exists in every society. I would also like to understand what you are trying to get at ?So simply because Christians are somewhat responsible for the foundation of many law systems your going to disregard the fact that atheist perform better in it ?
 
 
@hitsusatsu11 said:


How could anything be absolutely wrong (i.e rape) without direction from an absolute being? 
I don't think it could.  
I think without the direction of an absolute being it would merely be the "flavor of the month" of a changing human society, things that were considered wrong may not be, things which are wrong now may not be in the future, ect. With God we have everlasting principles.  
 

What about objective morality. it seems like a better  position since it is actually based on reasoning that isn't circular. 


I cannot see how morality can be objective (rather than subjective) without the direction of an absolute being.  
Imo "objective ethical facts" cannot exist without God, who is "external" to existence.  
When "object ethical facts" are deduced and created by man, I insist they are not objective, but by definition subjective.  
 



1.You still fail at explaining how your reasoning isn't circular
2. Definition from the Oxford dictionnary
Even if God existed there is no reason why morality couldn't be subjective, I could say "There is a God and he understands everything better then me and can punish me but I still think that X is right" .And that is because morality is a set of principles simply because somebody smarter and more powerful orders you to not obey them does not mean they are no longer your principles or right from your perspective.
 
Flavor of the month , do you mean that if we don't believe in God and folow his principles  we are going to become degenerates?
 
 
@hitsusatsu11 said:




Yea I just pulled statistics backing up my claim,no offence but this just doesn't seem to measure up to my argument. 

I've pulled numerous statistics showing that it is generally Christian regions (i.e western europa) with the lowest murder rates.  Or do you mean the chart showing the population of non Christians and how can God justify damning all those people?

 You said  "Paul and Jesus it is that easy" .Which is blatantly disregarding the chart that I showed. 
@hitsusatsu11 said:



I do take all commands into consideration.  
 
The command not to murder in the 10 commandments is the command not to "ratsach" (in Hebrew)  http://strongsnumbers.com/hebrew/7523.htm and is used only a few times throughout scripture. 
This word is different then the words used to describe death as punishment for breaking commandments, such as  " He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death"  
Here we find no "ratsach" http://biblos.com/exodus/21-12.htm  
 
There is then a difference in forbidden murder"and God (or God's appointed judges-i.e King David, ect.) destroying or putting people to death in sin, and thus no contradiction.   
 
This website I found and read seems useful on the subject http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nokilling.html
This one to, though I only skimmed through it http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?file=article&name=News&sid=225 
 




 God doesn't kill innocents, because nobody is innocent.  
 





Well that is still cherry-picking, your taking "Thou shalt not kill" and using it to defend your religion's moral integrity and you disregard the times where God asks to kill in his name those gay peoples and those non-believers.
And it isn't always his appointed judge  ( even know I don't understand how all of a sudden it being a judge makes it better)

  Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods.  In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully.  If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock.  Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it.  Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God.  That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt.  Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction.  Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you.  He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors.  "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him."  (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)
 
So God let them go ahead and do whatever shameful things their hearts desired.  As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other's bodies.  Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies.  So they worshiped the things God made but not the Creator himself, who is to be praised forever.  Amen.  That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires.  Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other.  And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other.  Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved.  When they refused to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their evil minds and let them do things that should never be done.  Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, fighting, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip.  They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful.  They are forever inventing new ways of sinning and are disobedient to their parents.  They refuse to understand, break their promises, and are heartless and unforgiving.  They are fully aware of God's death penalty for those who do these things, yet they go right ahead and do them anyway.  And, worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too.  (Romans 1:24-32 NLT)
 
  And Joshua said to Achan, My son, give, I pray thee, glory to the LORD God of Israel, and make confession to him; and tell me now what thou hast done, hide it not from me.  And Achan answered Joshua, and said, Indeed I have sinned against the LORD God of Israel, and thus and thus have I done.  When I saw among the spoils a goodly Babylonish garment, and two hundred shekels of silver, and a wedge of gold of fifty shekels weight, then I coveted them, and took them, and behold, they are hid in the earth in the midst of my tent, and the silver under it."  [Note that the sin is not looting, but failing to give the loot to the treasury of the Lord.]  "So Joshua sent messengers, and they ran to the tent, and behold, it was hid in his tent, and the silver under it.  And they took them from the midst of the tent, and brought them to Joshua, and to all the children of Israel, and laid them out before the LORD.  And Joshua, and all Israel with him, took Achan the son of Zerah, and the silver, and the garment, and the wedge of gold, and his sons, and his daughters, and his oxen, and his asses, and his sheep, and his tent, and all that he had: and they brought them to the valley of Achor.  And Joshua said, why hast thou troubled us?  the LORD shall trouble thee this day.  And all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire, after they had stoned them with stones.  And they raised over him a great heap of stones to this day.  So the LORD turned from the fierceness of his anger: wherefore the name of that place was called the valley of Achor to this day.  (Joshua 7:19-26 Webster's Bible)
 
 
 A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death.  (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

 


  But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house.  Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst.  (Deuteronomy  22:20-21 NAB)

 

  The last 3  statements are encouraging stoning which was a group activity.
 
 
And the second statement is quite sickening "God doesn't kill innocents , because nobody is innocent" .What did you expect from that statement that I would be rallied to your position because from God's and from a good Christian's perspective everybody is guilty? OK well then it is wrong to perceive those peoples as guilty and then to kill them.  
If God was a KKK member and he though blacks should be killed would you go along with it simply because he said they are guilty?
 
@hitsusatsu11 said:

You may teach people not to kill, steal, covet, without teaching them where those notions came from, but it still doesn't change the fact that those directions are religious in origin and we have religion to thank for them.  
 

Every society has those principles to some extent.
 
@hitsusatsu11 said:

Some Atheists may follow the above moral tenets (especially when they are law, of course),  and they may even follow them better then some who profess Christianity, but they are still (and always will be) Judeo-Christian principles.  
 

1.As I said earlier the current laws of countries who enforce the separation of church and state properly have very little to do with Christianity. And what kind of logic is that? So atheist uphold the laws better but Christians are still the most moral ones because  they are  at the origin of the system? That doesn't make any sense
Post by SilverGalford (2,951 posts) See mini bio Level 11

.As I said earlier the current laws of countries who enforce the separation of church and state properly have very little to do with Christianity. And what kind of logic is that? So atheist uphold the laws better but Christians are still the most moral ones because  they are  at the origin of the system? That doesn't make any sense 

i think hitsu means God created those principles, not corrupted and weak humans who barely can understand what  justice or right  is.
Post by hitsusatsu11 (10,747 posts) See mini bio Level 20
@hitsusatsu11

Actually that is the same problem as earlier,I showed you statistics comparing the more Christian states to the less Christian ones, comparing how Christians are represented in prisons compared to atheists and comparing the atheist countries to the more theist ones.And you still want to disregard it because some countries have not a lower crime rate but a lower murder rate.And if you want to measure morality you can't look at just one attribute and disregard things like rape,robbery and pedophilia by example. 

And I showed how Christian countries and even entire regions have the lowest murder rates on earth.  
I don't disregard rape, robbery, ect. per se, but I feel that intentional murder is the best universal benchmark of violent crime and morality-since pedophilia ect. may have different legal status in different regions, murder seems to be the most straightforward and consistent imo (although differences may occur).  Atheism may produce a low crime rate, but if it does it is only because it practices Christian morality, which is responsible for western society and laws as a whole.  
 

  When did I say secular countries produced superior laws ? As i said earlier ,I said that if I prove that atheist aren't any less moral well I can say that your statement and Rockingham statements are refuted. 

Its like your saying that since an atheist may keep some commandments better than a believer (i.e thou shalt not murder, commit adultery ect.) that this is a victory for the morals of atheism. I'm saying that the morals are Judeo/Christian, and are indicative of their source (i.e Christianity or even religion in general) rather than tenets of atheism. 
 

Yes ,many nations base their values on religious traditions but if you look at nations who enforce the separation of church and state, very little of the laws still have anything to do with religion  except not killing and not robbing but that exists in every society.


As I said, the foundation of western society is directly based on Judeo/Christian morals.  
The very basis of freedom in America is a direct result of belief in a Creator God.  
 
 

 I would also like to understand what you are trying to get at ?So simply because Christians are somewhat responsible for the foundation of many law systems your going to disregard the fact that atheist perform better in it ?

I'm saying that if there were not Judeo/Christian tradition, western society and morals would not be what they are today.  
Atheists do not "perform better" in terms of morals, not by a long shot, just because you say so doesn't make it so. What your trying to cite in support of this is based on loose terms and fallacious conclusions, which aren't necessary because in defense of Christianity all one must do is cite the Gospels to show impeccable and spotless morals. What doctrine of atheism can you show that is equivalent?  Atheism is the absence of belief, the morals of western atheism are based on western society, which is in turn based directly on Christian/Religious morals.  
 


You still fail at explaining how your reasoning isn't circular

My argument is not circular at all.  
For the sake of argument, suspend your disbelief.   
If there was an omnipotent God who created everything (space, time, even cause and effect) then wouldn't it stand to reason that the very notion of "good" should be decided by him? 
 
 

Even if God existed there is no reason why morality couldn't be subjective, I could say "There is a God and he understands everything better then me and can punish me but I still think that X is right" 

You could still think X is right, but that would only show that the omnipotent God has allowed you free will.  


And that is because morality is a set of principles simply because somebody smarter and more powerful orders you to not obey them does not mean they are no longer your principles or right from your perspective 


But, if the being who created EVERYTHING, including cause and effect, and MORALITY dictates that something is right, then it certainly would be. Since he is the creator and author of existence and every definition therein.  
 

Flavor of the month , do you mean that if we don't believe in God and folow his principles  we are going to become degenerates? 

Yes.  
Let me ask you this, if Christianity is bunk, then why should we not kill? Because of fear of jail?  Ok, fair enough. but why shouldn't we lie to get our way? Why is "truth" important? Why shouldn't we commit adultery?  
 

Well that is still cherry-picking, your taking "Thou shalt not kill" and using it to defend your religion's moral integrity and you disregard the times where God asks to kill in his name those gay peoples and those non-believers. 
And it isn't always his appointed judge  ( even know I don't understand how all of a sudden it being a judge makes it bette


Thou shalt not "murder", as it were, not merely kill.  
I explained this.   
Going out and killing someone because your angry, ect. is forbidden, executing the death penalty is not (it was commanded)  
 


The last 3  statements are encouraging stoning which was a group activity.

Yes, a group activity where the ppl executed the judgement of the Law, there not murdering any more that the doctor who administers the lethal injection is. (And even less so, because they are directed by God)  
 
I noticed that you like to examine the Jewish Law code and quote from it, why not quote from the teachings of Christ which are to be applied universally, rather that the Law which was specifically for the Children of Israel?   
You seem to think that things like murder and robbery are bad, but things like homosexuality and other biblical prohibitions are ok.  
But why?   
Who are any of use to say that murder or robbery or lies are bad? Without God it is merely an opinion. 
 


  And the second statement is quite sickening "God doesn't kill innocents , because nobody is innocent" .What did you expect from that statement that I would be rallied to your position because from God's and from a good Christian's perspective everybody is guilty? OK well then it is wrong to perceive those peoples as guilty and then to kill them.  
If God was a KKK member and he though blacks should be killed would you go along with it simply because he said they are guilty


It is not sickening in the least. God is perfect, and he demands perfection. Anyone not meeting his standard (in this case, everyone) is deserving of punishment. just as a criminal who breaks a law is forced to face the consequence of that Law. God is the divine judge who executes judgement.  
 
But more than that, God took the judgement on himself in the form of Christ. So that anyone who wishes may accept his sacrifice on there behalf.  
Thus fulfilling justice (the penalty being applied), but for the sake of love offering freedom from the penalty.   
 

 

  You said  "Paul and Jesus it is that easy" .Which is blatantly disregarding the chart that I showed


Yes I did say 

  According to Jesus, Paul, ect. it is that simple


In response to: 
 

and "it offers a guaranteed free gift of salvation to all who will accept Christ's atoning sacrifice and try their best to follow his teachings.  " yea that is not that simple.

I maintain that it is that simple. 
Post by MrASSH0LE (2,330 posts) See mini bio Level 12
@hitsusatsu11 said:

I maintain that it is that simple. 

Even when only 32 % of people on Earth are Christians.And out of those people are gay and bisexuals  and have or have had premarital or adulterous sex? 
Nobody can choose his /her  place of birth  (and that is mainly what determines your  religion )or his sexual orientation ,how is that easy when you have a chance of  68 % to go to hell and that is not even counting as said above the gay,bisexual ,adulterous Christians and the ones who have sex before marriage.
 
 
@hitsusatsu11 said:

And I showed how Christian countries and even entire regions have the lowest murder rates on earth.  
I don't disregard rape, robbery, ect. per se, but I feel that intentional murder is the best universal benchmark of violent crime and morality-since pedophilia ect. may have different legal status in different regions, murder seems to be the most straightforward and consistent imo (although differences may occur).  Atheism may produce a low crime rate, but if it does it is only because it practices Christian morality, which is responsible for western society and laws as a whole.  
 

As I said earlier the current laws of countries who enforce the separation of church and state properly have very little to do with Christianity. And what kind of logic is that? So atheist uphold the laws better but Christians are still the most moral ones because  they are  at the origin of the system? That doesn't make any sense .
And those regions  aren't as good as an argument  as my statistics.Were still stuck with the rich kid and the poor kid the only difference is that you gave the poor kid some friends and your kids don't even succeed aswell they are just good with math lol . 
Yes, you disregarded the other crimes , i showed you statistics that atheist countries are generally the ones with the lower crime rate and you showed me this as a response which indicates that you actually believe this is a good argument, you actually believe that a few Christian countries having a low homicide rate is the same as most Atheist countries having lower CRIME rates ,atheist being less present in American prisons and the less Christian states having lower crime rates.  

@hitsusatsu11 said:



Its like your saying that since an atheist may keep some commandments better than a believer (i.e thou shalt not murder, commit adultery ect.) that this is a victory for the morals of atheism. I'm saying that the morals are Judeo/Christian, and are indicative of their source (i.e Christianity or even religion in general) rather than tenets of atheism. 
 

As I said, the foundation of western society is directly based on Judeo/Christian morals.  The very basis of freedom in America is a direct result of belief in a Creator God.  

 
 

'm saying that if there were not Judeo/Christian tradition, western society and morals would not be what they are today.  


As I said earlier the current laws of countries who enforce the separation of church and state properly have very little to do with Christianity. Things like prohibition of murder  and prohibition of robbery   always existed.And what kind of logic is that? So atheist uphold the laws better but Christians are still the most moral ones because  they are  at the origin of the system? That doesn't make any sense . 
 
 
 
@hitsusatsu11 said:

"Atheists do not "perform better" in terms of morals, not by a long shot, just because you say so doesn't make it so. What your trying to cite in support of this is based on loose terms and fallacious conclusions, which aren't necessary because in defense of Christianity all one must do is cite the Gospels to show impeccable and spotless morals. What doctrine of atheism can you show that is equivalent? Atheism is the absence of belief, the morals of western atheism are based on western society, which is in turn based directly on Christian/Religious morals. "

 
 
 
Again that makes no sense, your trying to argue that Christians today  perform better because  of Christian  from thousands of  years ago and not because  of their actual PERFORMANCE but because of  the what they said ought to be done. i don't even feel like refuting this.And I know it may seem like a cope-out but it is common sense that one you can't say that a group does something better  simply because ex-members of the group were doing it and for second you can't say that somebody is performing better simply because they talked about performing better. 
 What do you mean by loose terms and false conclusion?The only explanation you gave to me that came the closest to justifying this statement was the moment where you talked about the paper saying "atheist are happier" which would make your position an association fallacy as you would be disregarding the paper based on this statement.
Let's say hypothetically that actions are equal to words, your still taking the Gospel a book that is admitted as not being the truth (interpretation,mistranslation,fallacies ,etc) by scholars and scientists over a scientific study .


 
@hitsusatsu11 said:


 
 

1.You could still think X is right, but that would only show that the omnipotent God has allowed you free will.  


2.But, if the being who created EVERYTHING, including cause and effect, and MORALITY dictates that something is right, then it certainly would be. Since he is the creator and author of existence and every definition therein.  
 

No as I said and as you once again ignored .Morality is a set of principles if my principles aren't the same as God or his followers then I have a different on view on what is moral or not .
 
 
@hitsusatsu11 said:

My argument is not circular at all.  
For the sake of argument, suspend your disbelief.   
If there was an omnipotent God who created everything (space, time, even cause and effect) then wouldn't it stand to reason that the very notion of "good" should be decided by him? 
 
 


No I am not going to suspend my disbelief.If you come to me an atheist and claim that your God and is principles are  absolutely moral well then you need to back up your statement .
 
@hitsusatsu11 said:

1.Yes, a group activity where the ppl executed the judgement of the Law, there not murdering any more that the doctor who administers the lethal injection is. (And even less so, because they are directed by God)  
 
2.I noticed that you like to examine the Jewish Law code and quote from it, why not quote from the teachings of Christ which are to be applied universally, rather that the Law which was specifically for the Children of Israel?   
 
3.You seem to think that things like murder and robbery are bad, but things like homosexuality and other biblical prohibitions are ok.  
But why?   
Who are any of use to say that murder or robbery or lies are bad? Without God it is merely an opinion. 
 


 

 
 1.If a government asked of his people to do such a thing I and most people would consider it wrong and degenerate .
 And I fail to understand what difference it makes , it's God / Christianity who creates a system where you can kill those peoples
 
 
 
 
 
  2. Matthew 5:17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
 
18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 
  
19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
 

20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. 
 
And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
 
From those statements you can deduce that Jesus hasn't come to change the Old law or to abolish it and therefore this would make my hypothesis that he came to finalize the law the likeliest.Therefore, he either condones poeple following the Old law or he approves of the Old law.
And even if my deduction  is wrong.Well  what should prevent me from looking at the Old Jewish law code?If a  murderer becomes an humanitarian well you would still prosecute him for murder, even if the NT isn't the OT well I still have a write to judge what happened in the OT.
 
 
@hitsusatsu11 said:


It is not sickening in the least. God is perfect, and he demands perfection. Anyone not meeting his standard (in this case, everyone) is deserving of punishment. just as a criminal who breaks a law is forced to face the consequence of that Law. God is the divine judge who executes judgement.  
 

 


 Simply  because God is  punishing the people who don't fit his standards, doesn't make his standards less insane.
I know I am kind of talking to a wall now but why would a prefect God knowingly make humans imperfect and then demand perfection?And why the favoritism towards the believers and the heterosexuals?Why not if we 're all sinners , just kill us all or create us to begin with?
@hitsusatsu11 said:

Yes.  
Let me ask you this, if Christianity is bunk, then why should we not kill? Because of fear of jail?  Ok, fair enough. but why shouldn't we lie to get our way? Why is "truth" important? Why shouldn't we commit adultery?  
 

 Your statement would only be right if we were just a bunch of sociopaths who don't act in the way they please out of fear of punishment
As I said ealier if a lack of Christianity turned into immoral people with no laws , well then why do atheist countries and  more secular American states have low crime rates.Why are atheist less likely to go to prison? 
We do not hurt people because of empathy. Whcih exists because of the way our brain is wired that is why we make a distinction between normal peoples and psychopath and sociopaths.
The Christian God did not introduce those  things.As I had said earlier Buddha and several other thinkers  had already spoken of love compassion and other acts of benevolence. Several other cultures had those principles.
 
@hitsusatsu11 said:


Thou shalt not "murder", as it were, not merely kill.  
I explained this.   
Going out and killing someone because your angry, ect. is forbidden, executing the death penalty is not (it was commanded)  
 



Once again cherry-picking ,you take "Thou shalt not murder" and use it to prove your religion's moral integrity and disregard God asking his disciples to take the lives of the peoples I named and putting this actions under the banner of "killing".
Post by hitsusatsu11 (10,747 posts) See mini bio Level 20
@MrASSH0LE

Once again cherry-picking ,you take "Thou shalt not murder" and use it to prove your religion's moral integrity and disregard God asking his disciples to take the lives of the peoples I named and putting this actions under the banner of "killing".

I'm not cherry picking, I'm differentiating between moral and immoral killings (in terms of the ancient Jewish state, patriarchs, ect)  
In terms of post incarnation earth, no killing is acceptable. 
 

1 Your statement would only be right if we were just a bunch of sociopaths who don't act in the way they please out of fear of punishment
2 As I said ealier if a lack of Christianity turned into immoral people with no laws , well then why do atheist countries and  more secular American states have low crime rates.Why are atheist less likely to go to prison?  
3 We do not hurt people because of empathy. Whcih exists because of the way our brain is wired that is why we make a distinction between normal peoples and psychopath and sociopaths.
4 The Christian God did not introduce those things.As I had said earlier Buddha and several other thinkers  had already spoken of love compassion and other acts of benevolence. Several other cultures had those principle


1 From an secular point of view yes, humans are merely animals who do whatever it takes to survive-killing, rape, ect. are all fine, survival of the fittest reigns.  
2 Atheist countries DO NOT have lower crime rates then Christian countries, the majority of populations of MOST countries have some sort of theistic beliefs, There is really NO SUCH thing as a secular atheist country (save for imposed communism) 
 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism  
 
 3 Empathy? Our brains are wired that way? No, our brains are wired in an evolutionary way that is only concerned with survival. (I speak as an secular atheist) 
 
4 What do all those have in common? They all have supernatural beliefs, they are NOT secular humanists.  
 



Simply  because God is  punishing the people who don't fit his standards, doesn't make his standards less insane. 

In your opinion, which (without God) is only as valid as any others.  
Who is to say what standards are fair or not? 
Without God, what is fair?  
Nothing, it is all subjective.  
Morality NEEDS an absolute to work.  
 

I know I am kind of talking to a wall now but why would a prefect God knowingly make humans imperfect and then demand perfection?

I'm not a wall in the least, and its been a good exchange of ideas i'd say. 
He demands perfect obedience, but wants us to have free will (choice). 
The world (since the fall in the Garden of Eden) has become more and more corrupt and full of temptations (due to the result of choices-Satan's, and humans) such that it is nearly impossible to be perfect obedience.   
Thats why God came in the flesh, lived a perfect life, and died to take our punishment-thats the answer to your question from a Christian perspective.  
 


And why the favoritism towards the believers and the heterosexuals?Why not if we 're all sinners , just kill us all or create us to begin with?

Favoritism?  
No, He gives all the chance to repent and accept the sacrifice of Christ. 
Idk why your still on the homosexual thing, the Bible calls it unnatural and a sin. From a purely evolutionary perspective it would be considered a defect, since its a "condition" that impedes the furtherance of the species. (I.e gay couples cannot pro create) 
 

  
Even when only 32 % of people on Earth are Christians.And out of those people are gay and bisexuals  and have or have had premarital or adulterous sex?  
Nobody can choose his /her  place of birth  (and that is mainly what determines your  religion )or his sexual orientation ,how is that easy when you have a chance of  68 % to go to hell and that is not even counting as said above the gay,bisexual ,adulterous Christians and the ones who have sex before marri


Its not a game of cosmic dice, everyone has the chance to repent and its the duty of believers  to explain to all those who want to hear about Jesus.   


 
From those statements you can deduce that Jesus hasn't come to change the Old law or to abolish it and therefore this would make my hypothesis that he came to finalize the law the likeliest.Therefore, he either condones poeple following the Old law or he approves of the Old law. 
And even if my deduction  is wrong.Well  what should prevent me from looking at the Old Jewish law code?If a  murderer becomes an humanitarian well you would still prosecute him for murder, even if the NT isn't the OT well I still have a write to judge what happened in the OT. 

Right, Jesus followed the Law. He was born under the law and died under the law, to redeem those under the Law and elevate them to true "son's" of God (Gal. 4:4) 
Furthermore, it is explicitly stated by the apostles at the council of Jerusalem that Gentile's need not be circumcised ect. only that they abstain from blood and things strangled, sexual immorality, and things polluted, and if they do these things they "do well". But these actions do not save, they are rather outward signs of belief and love of God. 
Everything that happened in the OT is imo just and good. From the perspective of a Christian it is the word of God, and from a secularist point of view where morals are subjective it is neutral-neither good nor bad.  
 

No as I said and as you once again ignored .Morality is a set of principles if my principles aren't the same as God or his followers then I have a different on view on what is moral or not .

Sure, you can have a different view.  
Everyone can, doesn't make it correct.  
I don't believe that things can be right or wrong from different perspectives, I believe in absolutes.  
 

No I am not going to suspend my disbelief.If you come to me an atheist and claim that your God and is principles are  absolutely moral well then you need to back up your statement . 

I do maintain that my God's principles are absolutely moral.  
How can I back them up to a secular humanist perspective, where everything would be neither good nor bad but a matter of opinion.  
 

Again that makes no sense, your trying to argue that Christians today  perform better because  of Christian  from thousands of  years ago and not because  of their actual PERFORMANCE but because of  the what they said ought to be done. i don't even feel like refuting this.And I know it may seem like a cope-out but it is common sense that one you can't say that a group does something better  simply because ex-members of the group were doing it and for second you can't say that somebody is performing better simply because they talked about performing better.  
 What do you mean by loose terms and false conclusion?The only explanation you gave to me that came the closest to justifying this statement was the moment where you talked about the paper saying "atheist are happier" which would make your position an association fallacy as you would be disregarding the paper based on this statement.
Let's say hypothetically that actions are equal to words, your still taking the Gospel a book that is admitted as not being the truth (interpretation,mistranslation,fallacies ,etc) by scholars and scientists over a scientific study .

No, religious people perform better today as well, you MADE UP that atheists "perform" better by citing a debunked study, where as I have continually refuted it with ACTUAL statistics cited from Wiki. 
Christian groups and charities are some of the strongest forces for good, in my community they provide outreach and help for the homeless, ect.  
 
Please, tell me what actions commanded by Jesus in the Gospels are immoral in your opinion? 
I maintain that they are perfect morals.  
 

As I said earlier the current laws of countries who enforce the separation of church and state properly have very little to do with Christianity. Things like prohibition of murder  and prohibition of robbery   always existed.And what kind of logic is that? So atheist uphold the laws better but Christians are still the most moral ones because  they are  at the origin of the system? That doesn't make any sense .

Laws of countries =/ morals, morals is broader.  
And I have proven Christian regions have the lowest murder rate, and I dispute your statement that "atheists" are more moral then Christians. 
What is this "high morals" of atheism you keep spewing?  
Who is more likely to get drunk, gamble, sleep around, lie, ect. ect. an atheist or someone following the teachings of Christ? What reason does an atheist have for "morality" apart from the Law?  
Why should an atheist love and respect another human being? 
 
 

Yes, you disregarded the other crimes , i showed you statistics that atheist countries are generally the ones with the lower crime rate and you showed me this as a response which indicates that you actually believe this is a good argument, you actually believe that a few Christian countries having a low homicide rate is the same as most Atheist countries having lower CRIME rates ,atheist being less present in American prisons and the less Christian states having lower crime rates. 

Again, as I have shown there simply are NO real atheist countries (even Japan incorporates religious activities into daily life, though Japan's traditional religion was largely changed after WW2)  
Your stuff about the states is meaningless.  
Because the prison rate among poor, trailer living folk in texas (no offence) who happen to be born into a family with a Christian heritage may be higher than atheists from Boston who come from a rich family and have the opportunity to go to an ivy league school and drive Bentley's 'means nothing, it is indicative of SOCIO ECONOMIC CONDITIONS and is NO WAY a reflection of Christianity.  
 
Who is a Christian, what is a Christian? 
A Christian is literally a person of the Christ.  
 
Please point out which morals of Christ are "immoral" in your opinion, and answer how you can have any morals without absolutes.  
Are things "absolutely" right or wrong? 
If so, why? 
If not then all our statistics of crime and murder mean nothing. 
Post by SilverGalford (2,951 posts) See mini bio Level 11
as for morality this is what i think , if there aren't  absolute  morals , then this means everybody can choose what they think is right. since we are humans with flaws and we tend to make mistakes , how are you suppoused to know what is right or wrong without making a mistake as well? 
how can you be so sure if your morals are perfectly  right since humans have flaws?  how can you be so sure if humans created these morals  since they  become corrupt and tend to make mistakes? how can something perfect like  morals can come from something with flaws?   "because if something hurts others, that's wrong" but sometimes due to the fact that we have flaws and tend to make mistakes , how can you be so sure if what you do is right? , as creation of God , we have his feelings , but because of our flaws  our point of view is not perfect.  that's why  we make mistakes always , otherwise the world wouldn't be in this way . and that's why we need absolute morals , and actually they exist  , without them we will  live in this horrible way forever until our own destruction.
 
in few words ,why are your morals right and why mine are wrong? why are your ideas ok and why mine are not ok?  and this is the thing , you can impose your ideas on me and i can't do the same thing to you . God is the only one who decides  that , because he is perfect. he knows what he is doing. we are inferior and weak , we don't know anything perfectly .
 

 
humans weren't created to rule themselves or to decide by themselves what is wrong or right , satan did the same thing many humans do today , and he is a failure by himself ,if satan who was a perfect angel,superior to humans,  is a failure and a threat to the universe (because what he thinks is only destruction , no matter how good this idea can be  ) because he rejected God's standards and direction and decided to live by his own just like many humans today , just imagine inferior and weak beings like human beings. it's going to be the same result.
 
 
and these are going to be  the results of living without God whether your like it or not :  (don't even mention hypocritical religious people because those ones have rejected God as well and eventually they are going to do the same thing  many non believers do )
  
  
 
  
 
this is even worse than the zerg expansion.
 
 
how many planets are you going to destroy?
how long will you live in this way? 
how many enviroments are you going to eliminate?
how many selfish studies with terrible consequences that affect our life are you going to carry on to show off your insignificant superiority?  (because no one is superior)
how many fails do you need to understand  that by ourselves we are a big failure?   
how many problems do you need to understand that by ourselves we are still a failure?  
 
let's face it , there is no solution by ourselves and never there will be one , and that's a fact , deny what is evident won't  improve anything
 

just think about it.
Post by Fire Star (3,730 posts) See mini bio Level 16
Moderator

@SilverGalford: You can't talk to you without you saying "God" does this or that, you are talking to people who don't believe in him, so we can't relate. At all.

Post by MrASSH0LE (2,330 posts) See mini bio Level 12
@hitsusatsu11 said:
@MrASSH0LE

Once again cherry-picking ,you take "Thou shalt not murder" and use it to prove your religion's moral integrity and disregard God asking his disciples to take the lives of the peoples I named and putting this actions under the banner of "killing".

I'm not cherry picking, I'm differentiating between moral and immoral killings (in terms of the ancient Jewish state, patriarchs, ect)  
In terms of post incarnation earth, no killing is acceptable. 
 


No killing is acceptable  but you went out  a few hours ago saying that God commanded the people to go out and stone  the people he deemed worthy of such treatment. 
May I add that the differentiation is futile since from your perspective whatever done or condoned by the Lord is just.
@hitsusatsu11 said:


 3 Empathy? Our brains are wired that way? No, our brains are wired in an evolutionary way that is only concerned with survival. (I speak as an secular atheist) 
 
4 What do all those have in common? They all have supernatural beliefs, they are NOT secular humanists.  
 


 


1.We're not all sociopaths  every scientist will agree  to this statement,sociopaths brain work differently then normal peoples.The fact that you would even say this leads me to ask myself if you  know what is a sociopath and if you know the difference between being moral out of fear of punishment and being  moral out of empathy. Christianity can maybe give people guidelines but it can't turn a sociopath into a normal person. If your dad died would you cry only because Christ said so?
As for natural selection ,the one who would get to pass down his genes would be the one that cooperates ,that takes care of his off-spring,that has buddies to help him ,etc.Sure they are moments where it isn't what helps you and that is why when we're in dangerous situation we will only think of our self and our off-spring.I think at one point you agreed to the idea that instinctively we have a feeling of what is bad  .Maybe it was you maybe somebody else. lol
2.When I said atheist country I said countries who were mostly atheistic and secular countries which what was said in the paper.And you don't really say anything for the atheist prisoners and the more secular states . 
http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Zuckerman_on_Atheism.pdf
page 6
3.Yes,we are when a sociopath is shown a set of gruesome images his brain reacts in a different way .
4.Knowing that you believe that the Abrahamic god is the right one you should believe that those other  beliefs are man-made wouldn't you.
 
@hitsusatsu11 said:



And why the favoritism towards the believers and the heterosexuals?Why not if we 're all sinners , just kill us all or create us to begin with?

Favoritism?  
No, He gives all the chance to repent and accept the sacrifice of Christ. 

 


Straight people  to become sinners have to sin.
Gay  people   become sinners the moment they're born.
That is what I mean.
 
 
@hitsusatsu11 said:

 



Its not a game of cosmic dice, everyone has the chance to repent and its the duty of believers  to explain to all those who want to hear about Jesus.   


 

Only a Christian will repent  of his sins .Somebody who believes in Shiva has no logical reason to sincerely repent what his a sin from the Christian point of view.
Yes, it is a game of cosmic dice knowing that your place of birth and sexual orientation are all things that will determine whether your  Buddhist or Christian and whiter your bisexual or  asexual and those things are pure chance and nobody can decide those things it is like the lottery.It also begs the question why the believer should be rewarded when the reason he is a Christian is allot of times the result of sheer luck. Hitsu, I am pretty sure you would of been a Muslim apologist were you born in the Middle East.
 
 

 @hitsusatsu11 said:
No, religious people perform better today as well, you MADE UP that atheists "perform" better by citing a debunked study, where as I have continually refuted it with ACTUAL statistics cited from Wiki. 
Christian groups and charities are some of the strongest forces for good, in my community they provide outreach and help for the homeless, ect.  
 

You didn't refute the study 
1.You said atheist countries did not exist even know the study is refferring to the countries which are mostly atheistic and secular ones  like many people consider the Middle East Islamic even know .
 2.You used countries with the lowest murder rate when I showed that  generally  it is secular/atheist nations that  have the lowest crime rate. It is like if somebody said black people tend to have lower income jobs but somebody else  says this statement is refuted by the fact Obama is in office and he hold the highest post in the planet.
 @hitsusatsu11 said:
1.In your opinion, which (without God) is only as valid as any others.  
Who is to say what standards are fair or not? 
Without God, what is fair?  
Nothing, it is all subjective.  
Morality NEEDS an absolute to work.  
 

 
2.Sure, you can have a different view.  
Everyone can, doesn't make it correct.  
I don't believe that things can be right or wrong from different perspectives, I believe in absolutes.  
 

3.I do maintain that my God's principles are absolutely moral.  
How can I back them up to a secular humanist perspective, where everything would be neither good nor bad but a matter of opinion.  
 


4.Laws of countries =/ morals, morals is broader.  
And I have proven Christian regions have the lowest murder rate, and I dispute your statement that "atheists" are more moral then Christians. 
What is this "high morals" of atheism you keep spewing?  
Who is more likely to get drunk, gamble, sleep around, lie, ect. ect. an atheist or someone following the teachings of Christ? What reason does an atheist have for "morality" apart from the Law?  
Why should an atheist love and respect another human being? 
 
 

5.Again, as I have shown there simply are NO real atheist countries (even Japan incorporates religious activities into daily life, though Japan's traditional religion was largely changed after WW2)  Your stuff about the states is meaningless.  Because the prison rate among poor, trailer living folk in texas (no offence) who happen to be born into a family with a Christian heritage may be higher than atheists from Boston who come from a rich family and have the opportunity to go to an ivy league school and drive Bentley's 'means nothing, it is indicative of SOCIO ECONOMIC CONDITIONS and is NO WAY a reflection of Christianity.   W

1. Simply because we need it doesn't mean we have it.
2 .That is the point of principles everybody has them  and from everyone's perspective they are right .
3 .As an humanist I am concerned with the well-fare being of humans ,show me how God's morality is absolute in this aspect.
4 .Love and respect are  emotions , you can't learn them or make yourself feel them because your afraid to be tortured .
5 .Why do you assume the Boston kid is not going to be poor but the Texan one will ?In one country the socio-economic conditions seem to be very similar everywhere
 
@hitsusatsu11 said:
 Who is a Christian, what is a Christian? A Christian is literally a person of the Christ.   Please point out which morals of Christ are "immoral" in your opinion, and answer how you can have any morals without absolutes.  Are things "absolutely" right or wrong? If so, why? If not then all our statistics of crime and murder mean nothing. 


 A Christian is somebody who believes in Christianity , as I said earlier if you're going to disregard  somebody for his actions that are not what you see as New Testament Christian values no one is a Christian because as you  said we're all sinners.
The fact  that he condones the Old Testament and the idea  that we are going to hell would be wrong from the humanist's perspective.
 
Also secular humanist don,t believe everything is  permissable .A humanist by definition seeks the well - being of humanity. 
 
 

"Idk why your still on the homosexual thing, the Bible calls it unnatural and a sin. From a purely evolutionary perspective it would be considered a defect, since its a "condition" that impedes the furtherance of the species. (I.e gay couples cannot pro create) "


Yea because all us atheist fellas worship evolution and if it doesn't benefit it it's evil.
 
 
Some biologist have theorized that homosexuality is beneficial to a group as it limits the population of said group and therefore people can exploit ressources more avidly.
And this is frankly a case  of Occam's razor , either God created gay people for no reason then to send them to hell and to  order their stoning at ealier times in our history or biology
Post by hitsusatsu11 (10,747 posts) See mini bio Level 20
@MrASSH0LE

1 No killing is acceptable  

 

2 but you went out  a few hours ago saying that God commanded the people to go out and stone  the people he deemed worthy of such treatment.  
May I add that the differentiation is futile since from your perspective whatever done or condoned by the Lord is just.

1 Yes,  killings by humans of course. 
2 Yes because before Christ God's justice was carried out by human authority (Israelite) as well as his direct intervention (i.e Flood) 
 

1.We're not all sociopaths  every scientist will agree  to this statement,sociopaths brain work differently then normal peoples.The fact that you would even say this leads me to ask myself if you  know what is a sociopath and if you know the difference between being moral out of fear of punishment and being  moral out of empathy. Christianity can maybe give people guidelines but it can't turn a sociopath into a normal person. If your dad died would you cry only because Christ said so?

We are not sociopaths, but not only sociopaths commit atrocities. Many logical, healthy people commit terrible acts without empathy.  
For example it may seem extremely logical to a Nazi to exterminate a Jew. And without an absolute moral authority how can we argue he is wrong? 
  
As far as death, everyone dies, but as a Christian I do not believe this the end of existence.  
 

As for natural selection ,the one who would get to pass down his genes would be the one that cooperates ,that takes care of his off-spring,that has buddies to help him ,etc.Sure they are moments where it isn't what helps you and that is why when we're in dangerous situation we will only think of our self and our off-spring.I think at one point you agreed to the idea that instinctively we have a feeling of what is bad  .Maybe it was you maybe somebody else. lol

Idk, it seems to me that (as an animal) it might be beneficial to rape as many other animals, and to kill whenever possible to secure food and shelter. 
And even when animals cooperate, they don't do so because of empathy or morals, they do so out of mutual gain. Christianity is about putting others first.  
 
 


.Why do you assume the Boston kid is not going to be poor but the Texan one will ?In one country the socio-economic conditions seem to be very similar everywhere

Just for sake of illustration.   
 
 

Hitsu, I am pretty sure you would of been a Muslim apologist were you born in the Middle East.


Lol 
Well demographics do play a large role, but the call is there for all to heed.  

You used countries with the lowest murder rate when I showed that  generally  it is secular/atheist nations that  have the lowest crime rate. It is like if somebody said black people tend to have lower income jobs but somebody else  says this statement is refuted by the fact Obama is in office and he hold the highest post in the planet


And again, I respond with saying "crime" as it were is not the best indicator, should we really put tax fraud and evasion up there with murder? 
As well, I showed with the previous eurozone graphic, NO country is really atheist, in Estonia the scores for atheism (belief in no god or spiritual force) were the highest, at ONLY 26 percent.   
 

.Yes,we are when a sociopath is shown a set of gruesome images his brain reacts in a different way


I'm not saying were sociopathic, i'm saying we ARE hard wired for love, empathy, ect 
Hard wired by God. 
If we were a random product of evolution we should not be hard wired this way-we should have NO empathy, but rather do whatever it takes for survival of ourselves and our race, however cruel an action we must take.  
 


A Christian is somebody who believes in Christianity , as I said earlier if you're going to disregard  somebody for his actions that are not what you see as New Testament Christian values no one is a Christian because as you  said we're all sinners. 


Yes,  I don't mean to say anyone is perfect-that's why Christ came, I'm not saying I do more "good" things then you. 
But as a Christian, you must hold the teaching and theology of Jesus to be absolutely morally true, we all make mistakes, but God abundantly pardons. 
 

Love and respect are  emotions , you can't learn them or make yourself feel them because your afraid to be tortured


Agape is the kind of love we must have for one another (as opposed to say, Eros) it is selfless love that is independent of emotions (i.e being angry with someone)  
 


Also secular humanist don,t believe everything is  permissable .A humanist by definition seeks the well - being of humanity. 

Right but in this manner the humanist seeks out what HE believes is the best for humanity,  I genuinely think Hitler and others thought that what they were doing was for the benefit of humanity (or at least there race, and what they thought humanity should be) 
 
The absolutist seeks out what is ABSOLUTELY right, that is the will of God, thereby refuting Nietzsche's will to power.   
 

That is the point of principles everybody has them  and from everyone's perspective they are right


Yes, but if all are equally right all are equally wrong.  
That's why there must be an absolute benchark.   
 

  Simply because we need it doesn't mean we have it.


If we need it, and it exists (i.e morality works), then we have it.  


Some biologist have theorized that homosexuality is beneficial to a group as it limits the population of said group and therefore people can exploit ressources more avidly

Hmm.  
Well, if homosexuality is an inherited trait, then it would die out. (Since for the most part true homosexuals cannot pro create) 
This is obviously not the case, homosexuality has been with us for thousands of years.  
This coupled with the great amount of discrepancy between homosexual practice's (i.e bisexuality) leads me to believe it is not an inherent condition but rather a lifestyle choice, or series of lifestyle choices. 

case  of Occam's razor , either God created gay people for no reason then to send them to hell and to  order their stoning at ealier times in our history or biology  


I don't think anyone can be created gay, and no one "is" a sin.  
The actions themselves are sins.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
I re submit these questions: 
 
 
 

 how you can have any morals without absolutes.   Are things "absolutely" right or wrong?  If so, why?  If not then all our statistics of crime and murder mean nothing



 
 
 I'm curious to see the secular perspective on this.  
Post by MrASSH0LE (2,330 posts) See mini bio Level 12
@hitsusatsu11 said:

We are not sociopaths, but not only sociopaths commit atrocities. Many logical, healthy people commit terrible acts without empathy.  
For example it may seem extremely logical to a Nazi to exterminate a Jew. And without an absolute moral authority how can we argue he is wrong? 
  
As far as death, everyone dies, but as a Christian I do not believe this the end of existence.  
 

I'm not saying were sociopathic, i'm saying we ARE hard wired for love, empathy, ect 
Hard wired by God. 
If we were a random product of evolution we should not be hard wired this way-we should have NO empathy, but rather do whatever it takes for survival of ourselves and our race, however cruel an action we must take.  
 

@Idk, it seems to me that (as an animal) it might be beneficial to rape as many other animals, and to kill whenever possible to secure food and shelter. 
And even when animals cooperate, they don't do so because of empathy or morals, they do so out of mutual gain. Christianity is about putting others first.  
 
 


  
 You said that we're not wired  to feel empathy .That an atheist would have no reason  to love or respect someone . Those are the psychological attributes of a psychopath/sociopath.
 
As for animals , a certain number of them have shown signs of empathy.Dolphins,elelphants, chicken ,rats and apes are examples.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1364383/Scientists-say-chickens-empathy-feel-pain.html
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/enlightened-living/200808/self-awareness-empathy-and-evolution
 http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-animals-feel-empathy

@hitsusatsu11

said:

Just for sake of illustration.   
 
 

Well then you haven't refuted my statement  , as you haven't shown how the more Christian states have great socio-economic differences. 
 

@hitsusatsu11

said:


Well demographics do play a large role, but the call is there for all to heed.  


That is the point of me bringing up demographic ,you are not going to become a member of a religion simply because it exists.Most people just adopt the religion which is most popular in there country or for emotional reasons most people don't even study every religion before making a choice.
 
And the call is not always there "for all to heed", an example is native amercians back in the 1500s who had never heard about Christ or people today who live in poor countries where the people are uneducated and simply don't have anything to do the research.
 
 

@hitsusatsu11

said:

1 Yes,  killings by humans of course. 
Yes because before Christ God's justice was carried out by human authority (Israelite) as well as his direct intervention (i.e Flood) 
 


Yes,  I don't mean to say anyone is perfect-that's why Christ came, I'm not saying I do more "good" things then you. 
But as a Christian, you must hold the teaching and theology of Jesus to be absolutely morally true, we all make mistakes, but God abundantly pardons. 
 
Right but in this manner the humanist seeks out what HE believes is the best for humanity,  I genuinely think Hitler and others thought that what they were doing was for the benefit of humanity (or at least there race, and what they thought humanity should be) 
 
The absolutist seeks out what is ABSOLUTELY right, that is the will of God, thereby refuting Nietzsche's will to power.   
 

Yes, but if all are equally right all are equally wrong.  
That's why there must be an absolute benchark.   
 


If we need it, and it exists (i.e morality works), then we have it.  



I can't help but comeback to the circular reasoning you use.You say that God is absolutely good because he decided to be absolutely good and he decided that because he is good.
Also you have to prove God exists through intelligent design/fine-tuning to make such statements otherwise it is just you arguing that the actions of fictional character are good.
 
 
 

@hitsusatsu11

said:


And again, I respond with saying "crime" as it were is not the best indicator, should we really put tax fraud and evasion up there with murder? 
As well, I showed with the previous eurozone graphic, NO country is really atheist, in Estonia the scores for atheism (belief in no god or spiritual force) were the highest, at ONLY 26 percent.   
 

As I said earlier , if you've read the paper it refers to the most secular countries.
And atheism is defined as a disbelief in a deity ,you can be an atheist and believe in ghosts or in reincarnation .Buddhist stand as an example of that 
And yes I value overral crime rate (murder,rape,fraud,robbery,drunk driving ,etc) over simple murder in a measure of morality.
 
 
 

@hitsusatsu11

said:





Hmm.  
Well, if homosexuality is an inherited trait, then it would die out. (Since for the most part true homosexuals cannot pro create) 
This is obviously not the case, homosexuality has been with us for thousands of years.  
This coupled with the great amount of discrepancy between homosexual practice's (i.e bisexuality) leads me to believe it is not an inherent condition but rather a lifestyle choice, or series of lifestyle choices. 

I don't think anyone can be created gay, and no one "is" a sin.  
The actions themselves are sins.  
 
 
 
 
 
 


Bisexuality is the evidence even know most gay people exclusively have sex with their gender or when they have sex with the opposite gender it is to experiment  or because of the pressure of society?
This another case of Occam's razor, either people choose to be gay and simulate attraction towards the other gender  for no apparent reason based on it 's inability to die out and  because of bisexuals or it is biological as exemplified by the fact research has shown that when shown different types of pornography gay straight and bisexual people display different  level of arousals when exposed to either gay or straight pornography,the fact that they are several animals who exhibited homosexual behavior and they lack any real reason to "choose " based on the fact very few animals have sex for sheer pleasure and because if somebody wants to have sex with his own gender on a somewhat regular basis he/she need to be aroused. 
I should also had that the consensus among psychologist is that you can,t change your orientation.
 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13674-evolution-myths-natural-selection-cannot-explain-homosexuality.html
  
  
 
 

@hitsusatsu11

said:

@
 
I re submit these questions: 
 
 
 

 how you can have any morals without absolutes.   Are things "absolutely" right or wrong?  If so, why?  If not then all our statistics of crime and murder mean nothing

   I'm curious to see the secular perspective on this.  


If we are taking your statement that current law is the off-spring of the Christian law. Then atheist should by your logic be considered more moral. And from the humanist point of view which is adopted by most people (both Christians and atheist) upholding the law would generally be good for the rest of our society.
As I said morality is a set principles,even if God is the creator of the notion of morality and he says that he is moral it would still not make him absolutely moral, let's say I am the Creator and I say that  eating marshmallow is physically painful now the statement would still not be an absolute because obviously it doesn't fit what  pain means to all or even most people therefore marshmallow can't be absolutely painful, that is the same thing with God  as morals are by definition a set of principles and principles may vary.
Post by hitsusatsu11 (10,747 posts) See mini bio Level 20
@MrASSH0LE

You said that we're not wired  to feel empathy .That an atheist would have no reason  to love or respect someone . Those are the psychological attributes of a psychopath/sociopath

Right, we ARE hard wired to feel empathy BECAUSE of God 
If there were no God and we are merely evolved animals, empathy would be a defective trait for survival.  
 

As for animals , a certain number of them have shown signs of empathy.Dolphins,elelphants, chicken ,rats and apes are example

Those are nice theories, but still animals will invariably do what it takes to survive, no matter what.   
 

 

you are not going to become a member of a religion simply because it exist


Many people do.  
 

And the call is not always there "for all to heed", an example is native amercians back in the 1500s who had never heard about Christ or people today who live in poor countries where the people are uneducated and simply don't have anything to do the research. 

I think in today's world the vast majority have heard of Christ.  
 

I can't help but comeback to the circular reasoning you use.You say that God is absolutely good because he decided to be absolutely good and he decided that because he is good.

No I'm not merely saying this, let me simplify. 
 
What is your definition of Good? 
Do we all have different definitions of Good?  
Is there any absolute definition of Good?  
 
God decrees what is good. The same way the Lord made water wet, the earth round, the sky blue, ect. he made "good" good.  
 

Also you have to prove God exists through intelligent design/fine-tuning to make such statements otherwise it is just you arguing that the actions of fictional character are good.

Well were talking about morality currently, were not really going into detail about evolution, biblical authority, ect.  right now.  
I am arguing for the Christian God, but I'm also coming at this moral thing from the broader theistic/supernatural perspective (there is some divine absolute force), to counter what I assume is the humanist, no supreme divine force exists argument which I assume you hold true, unless you want to specify exactly what you believe.  
 

As I said earlier , if you've read the paper it refers to the most secular countries. 
And atheism is defined as a disbelief in a deity ,you can be an atheist and believe in ghosts or in reincarnation .Buddhist stand as an example of that 


I disagree on your last point, the Buddhist system is actually historically unclear about venerating deities, originally Buddhism was somewhat connected to Hinduism, and worshiped the hindu gods.  
For our argument, I have thought of the 2 opposing views as "not believing in anything past the material  world" vs "believing in a supernatural force that is absolute"  
Is this not correct? Do you believe in some sort of supernatural force?  
 

Bisexuality is the evidence even know most gay people exclusively have sex with their gender or when they have sex with the opposite gender it is to experiment  or because of the pressure of society? 

It go's to show that there are a significant amount of LGBT ppl who are bi, which to me indicates a sexual deviance or choice rather than a "condition" that is set.  
 

This another case of Occam's razor, either people choose to be gay and simulate attraction towards the other gender  for no apparent reason based on it 's inability to die out and  because of bisexuals or it is biological as exemplified by the fact research has shown that when shown different types of pornography gay straight and bisexual people display different  level of arousals when exposed to either gay or straight pornography,the fact that they are several animals who exhibited homosexual behavior and they lack any real reason to "choose " based on the fact very few animals have sex for sheer pleasure and because if somebody wants to have sex with his own gender on a somewhat regular basis he/she need to be aroused.  
I should also had that the consensus among psychologist is that you can,t change your orientation

About the animals, no population of animals is strictly homosexual, they may be bissexual, but they of course regularly engage in heterosexual sex.. No one knows why this (the bisexuality) happens, but perhaps they engage in this to somehow benefit their heterosexual sex (i.e "keep the juices flowin" lol) But idk, im not a zoologist. All I can say is animals do a lot of things that aren't "moral" for humans, i.e killing their young in times of overpopulation. ect.  
 
About your last point, you realize that until 50 years ago the VAST consensus was that it was a mental disorder right? Frued and especially his daughter administered "corrective" treatment to homosexuals.  
 
Anyway as I said, no one "is" a sin.  
I'm naturally attracted to women, but its still a sin If I sleep around.   
 
What would your answer to pedophilia, bestiality, incest, or polygamy be? 
Are they as "moral" as homosexuality? 
 

If we are taking your statement that current law is the off-spring of the Christian law. Then atheist should by your logic be considered more moral. And from the humanist point of view which is adopted by most people (both Christians and atheist) upholding the law would generally be good for the rest of our society.

So what is the moral reason for an atheist to not tell a lie, or cheat on his wife if he is assured he will never be found out?  
Why would we feel bad about it? 
 


  As I said morality is a set principles,even if God is the creator of the notion of morality and he says that he is moral it would still not make him absolutely moral, let's say I am the Creator and I say that  eating marshmallow is physically painful now the statement would still not be an absolute because obviously it doesn't fit what  pain means to all or even most people therefore marshmallow can't be absolutely painful, that is the same thing with God  as morals are by definition a set of principles and principles may vary.


Right, but in the case of God he wouldn't say marshmallows are painful, he would make them so.   
I'm saying that the essence of God is absolute righteousness, the ONLY reason we "know" or "feel" what good is, is because it is God's characteristic and we are created in his image. 
Post by MrASSH0LE (2,330 posts) See mini bio Level 12
@hitsusatsu11 said:

@MrASSH0LE

You said that we're not wired  to feel empathy .That an atheist would have no reason  to love or respect someone . Those are the psychological attributes of a psychopath/sociopath

Right, we ARE hard wired to feel empathy BECAUSE of God 
If there were no God and we are merely evolved animals, empathy would be a defective trait for survival.  
 


That is not the point ,you said that if somebody doesn't believe in God he would have no reason to feel those things ,implying that without the Christian God we'd be sociopaths. 




As for animals , a certain number of them have shown signs of empathy.Dolphins,elelphants, chicken ,rats and apes are example

Those are nice theories, but still animals will invariably do what it takes to survive, no matter what.   
 

 


Yea,that is what we instinctively do too.And you're  missing the point if those emotions manifest in animals this is the proof that it is a biological construct.
 




I think in today's world the vast majority have heard of Christ.  
 
Many people do. 
 
 

 TODAY!And the vast majority lol  yea fuck the minority
The majority  would not not convert randomly which again leads to the conclusion that this is neither a fair system or a peaceful one.Sure there are those isolated incidents where somebody just randomly converts to Islam or Christianity or any religion but your chances of being a Christian can extremely high or low depending on where your born which would make it an unfair system



 


I disagree on your last point, the Buddhist system is actually historically unclear about venerating deities, originally Buddhism was somewhat connected to Hinduism, and worshiped the hindu gods.  

Current Buddhist don't worship a God that is all I have to show to refute your statement .And this still doesn't change the fact that atheism is defined as the lack of belief in a deity.
 
 
 

1.It go's to show that there are a significant amount of LGBT ppl who are bi, which to me indicates a sexual deviance or choice rather than a "condition" that is set.  
 
2.About the animals, no population of animals is strictly homosexual, they may be bissexual, but they of course regularly engage in heterosexual sex.. No one knows why this (the bisexuality) happens, but perhaps they engage in this to somehow benefit their heterosexual sex (i.e "keep the juices flowin" lol) But idk, im not a zoologist. All I can say is animals do a lot of things that aren't "moral" for humans, i.e killing their young in times of overpopulation. ect.  
 
About your last point, you realize that until 50 years ago the VAST consensus was that it was a mental disorder right? Frued and especially his daughter administered "corrective" treatment to homosexuals.  
 
Anyway as I said, no one "is" a sin.  
I'm naturally attracted to women, but its still a sin If I sleep around.   
 
What would your answer to pedophilia, bestiality, incest, or polygamy be? 
Are they as "moral" as homosexuality? 
 

Your second statement is besides the point you said that being gay is a choice and I showed what I judged to be evidence of this being a wrong statement by showing gay animals,gay people reacting to certain stimuli differently and that a straight person would not have any real capacity to live a gay lifestyle due to general lack of of motivation and also because of the arousal issue and the fact that the general consensus among psychologist is that you can't change it.You replied saying  that Freud even know he thought it was a mental disorder based on mommy issues or daddy issues and he failed to "cure " it,you then tried to disregard the animals by saying that they are not moral which is beside the point again,you compared being gay to bestiality and pedophilia which was a strawman knowing one is between consenting adults and the other is well taking advantage of minors and animal cruelty,you also said no animal has shown exclusivity when that is not true knowing that rams and other animals have exhibited it c like penguins although it is a rarity plus the fact they would even take part in this behaviour to begin with proves my point that sexual orientation is not a choice.
 
Your first statement is , no offense to you my friend  ,ridiculous  based on the reasons as I stated  above and because  as I stated most gay people who have slept with women did not do it because they wanted to but because of social pressure or to experiment .
 

@hitsusatsu11

said:


 
What is your definition of Good? 
Do we all have different definitions of Good?  
Is there any absolute definition of Good?  
 
God decrees what is good. The same way the Lord made water wet, the earth round, the sky blue, ect. he made "good" good.  
 

Well even know I don't remember making that statement,if X is simply good for no particular reason  it being good is arbitrary.It would be basically admitting God is good because God is good which is why I call out your circular reasoning.
 

So what is the moral reason for an atheist to not tell a lie, or cheat on his wife if he is assured he will never be found out?  
Why would we feel bad about it? 
 


Again besides the point if you believe our laws could only from Judeo-Christian morals and dogmas well then atheist would be more moral for upholding them.
 




Right, but in the case of God he wouldn't say marshmallows are painful, he would make them so.   I'm saying that the essence of God is absolute righteousness, the ONLY reason we "know" or "feel" what good is, is because it is God's characteristic and we are created in his image. 


Again your God can't make X wrong  simply by saying it is because  as I said it is a set of principles that is independent from one person to another the only way he could make X absolutely wrong would be to make everybody have the same principles which we don't just like the hypothetical God would make everybody feel pain when eating marshmallow to make them absolutely painful.
Post by Haofan123 (3,675 posts) See mini bio Level 13

I like how this arguement is never going to end
Post by Superevil225 (6,742 posts) See mini bio Level 17
There is truth in every belief, and by picking out those truths, we can piece together the world. :P
Post by hitsusatsu11 (10,747 posts) See mini bio Level 20
@MrASSH0LE:  
 

That is not the point ,you said that if somebody doesn't believe in God he would have no reason to feel those things ,implying that without the Christian God we'd be sociopaths.  

If there were no God we would have no reason to feel those things, our belief/disbelief doesn't change how we were created.   
 


  Yea,that is what we instinctively do too.And you're  missing the point if those emotions manifest in animals this is the proof that it is a biological construct. 


First of all, there is NO REAL proof of emotions in animals, I maintain that animals do what it takes to survive with no real regard to "morals" 
Second of all, I do not dispute that it MAY be a biological construct (i.e instinct), however such an instinct (if it exists at all) merely shows that animals are also endowed by their creator with certain, faint hints of empathy, ect.  
 

 TODAY!And the vast majority lol  yea fuck the minority
The majority  would not not convert randomly which again leads to the conclusion that this is neither a fair system or a peaceful one.Sure there are those isolated incidents where somebody just randomly converts to Islam or Christianity or any religion but your chances of being a Christian can extremely high or low depending on where your born which would make it an unfair system

Not fuck the minority, but the call is available to everyone on earth, everybody has a choice.  
 

Current Buddhist don't worship a God that is all I have to show to refute your statement .And this still doesn't change the fact that atheism is defined as the lack of belief in a deity. 


There are Gods, they live in the God realm, they are simply inferior to bodhisattva (heres an example of one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sitatapatra). They may not worship their Gods the same way we worship Jesus, but they believe in their existence. (likely as manifestations of a supreme force/energy who have worked up to certain levels of karma)  
 

  Your second statement is besides the point you said that being gay is a choice and I showed what I judged to be evidence of this being a wrong statement by showing gay animals,gay people reacting to certain stimuli differently and that a straight person would not have any real capacity to live a gay lifestyle due to general lack of of motivation and also because of the arousal issue and the fact that the general consensus among psychologist is that you can't change it.You replied saying  that Freud even know he thought it was a mental disorder based on mommy issues or daddy issues and he failed to "cure " it,you then tried to disregard the animals by saying that they are not moral which is beside the point again,you compared being gay to bestiality and pedophilia which was a strawman knowing one is between consenting adults and the other is well taking advantage of minors and animal cruelty,you also said no animal has shown exclusivity when that is not true knowing that rams and other animals have exhibited it c like penguins although it is a rarity plus the fact they would even take part in this behaviour to begin with proves my point that sexual orientation is not a choic


Ok, so certain people react to pedophilic or beastilaic (if those are words lol) stimuli, and they say they have no choice in the matter either, does it make them moral?  
 
In the case of animals, bisexuality is rare overall, AND NO animal population is exclusively homosexual, else they would die out. From a naturalistic perspective it would be a defect.   
 
Also, assuming you are right and its a biological thing and not a choice, does that make it right? Can we humans eat our young and do other "biological" things animals do? Aren't heterosexual lusts natural and biological? Still sexual immorality (heterosexual porneia) is immoral.   
 


  Your first statement is , no offense to you my friend  ,ridiculous  based on the reasons as I stated  above and because  as I stated most gay people who have slept with women did not do it because they wanted to but because of social pressure or to experiment .

If they slept with women they MUST have been physically aroused (i.e had an erection) how could this be? You said: 
 

straight person would not have any real capacity to live a gay lifestyle due to general lack of of motivation and also because of the arousal issue

Why is it then the opposite for Gays? 
 

if X is simply good for no particular reason  it being good is arbitrary.

EXACTLY, X cannot be good without a reason.  
The reason I believe things are good is because they exemplify the attributes of the omnipotent God, who is only good.  
 

It would be basically admitting God is good because God is good which is why I call out your circular reasoning.

Its like saying why is the color red red? Because it is. 
 
You still haven't explained why things should be right or wrong if there is no absolute morality and everything is subjective.  
 

Again besides the point 

Your dodging the question: 
 

So what is the moral reason for an atheist to not tell a lie, or cheat on his wife if he is assured he will never be found out?  
Why would we feel bad about it? 

But I'll answer your counter: 
 

if you believe our laws could only from Judeo-Christian morals and dogmas well then atheist would be more moral for upholding them

I don't believe that atheists uphold the law any better than Christians, a devout Christian is just as likely or more likely to obey the law then an atheist.  
 

Again your God can't make X wrong  simply by saying it is because  as I said it is a set of principles that is independent from one person to another the only way he could make X absolutely wrong would be to make everybody have the same principles which we don't just like the hypothetical God would make everybody feel pain when eating marshmallow to make them absolutely painful.

If "x" is wrong, it is wrong because God made it that way.  
 
In no way or fashion does people's beliefs on a moral change the outcome. 2+2=4, people may believe differently, but there is only one correct and true answer to 2+2, and an infinite number of incorrect answers. Some things are simply not subjective.
Mandatory Network

Submissions can take several hours to be approved.

Save ChangesCancel