Off-Topic

@hitsusatsu11 said:

@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.   
 

Once again missing the point . You said that if somebody disbelieves the Christian God he is a sociopath.Either acknowledge  this statement and back it up or admit it is wrong. 

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? 

 
 Support what I said above about you thinking we're sociopaths as those things could be done by anybody who has empathy or is able to love.
 


 
 
 
 

"There is no proof of emotions in animals"

  http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1906264/dolphins_helping_other_species.html?cat=7 
I have provided this link with a bunch of other links that prove my point.You haven't. Pus yes, there is proof it is the general consensus among the scientific community that animals atleast feel some kind of emotion  and that most if not every animal feels pain.

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

No the call is not available if you have no clue the call even exist or what the call is .

 

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)  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism
You know what let's say they do worship God.It still does not change that your statement was wrong as  atheism is simply defined as disbelief in God therefore you rebuttal to my study is not good.
 

 

 
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.   
 

 

OK  I am going to ask what do you mean by exclusively  homosexual?Do you mean all members of the specie are gay?Because if that is your argument it is bullshit.Nobody is going to argue that homosexuality exists with humans yet we're not all gay. Even if you only believe in bisexuality we'd be in the same situation.
Do you mean no specie exists in which they are exclusive homosexuals ? If that is the case your argument is once again wrong as I told you some rams and other species have exhibited homosexual behavioir that is exclusive.
Even if I was to fail at proving homosexuality is not a choice I still prove bisexuality that is enough to prove predispositions /favoritism.

 

Why is it then the opposite for Gays? 
 

For one they to reppress their sexuality and for two they have to stimulate themselves to do it
I am honestly surprised I am the only one  calling out those homophobic statements.
 

@hitsusatsu11

said:

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.  
 

No ,we say something is red because it  fits the definition of red as it reflects the right set of light  like we say something  is painful because it brings pain.Your saying God is absolutely good not based on a system but simply because he's good. Which is an arbitrary statement
 

@hitsusatsu11

said:

 
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.   
 

In one case people are born with a predisposition to the sin in the other people actually have to commit the sin.I proved my point that homosexuality is not a choice and therefore prove favoritism on the part of your God and from the perspective of most humanist prove he's an asshole (no pun intended).

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.  
 

Biology is most likely in this case either .If we were hard-wired by God we have to ask ourselves what is the point of the Bible's morals and dogmas  if they could just be implanted in our heads,why do we not care for several Christian morals unless we're told to care,what is the point of animals having morals,why are we born with predispositions to sinning and why does our empathy diminish the further people are from us. and why to we feel like saving ourselves and our off-springs when there is a danger.Biology can answer those questions .
Plus wouldn't the fact that it is a biological construct make God useless in the equation.
 

 

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.  
 

You have failed to prove my studies wrong,you have failed to show meaningful socio-economical differences between the less secular  American states and and the more secular ones,you have also failed to explain why atheist were less likely to go to jail.
You whole argument was based of some Christian countries having the lowest murder rates even know  the more secular countries were the one who GENERALLY had the lowest crime rates and murder rates. You then" twicked" what it means to be an atheist  to say there is no such thing as an atheist country even know you would still be wrong based on the fact the paper was about the most secular countries. You then tried to argue that simple murder was a bigger measure then murder,rape,robbery,fraud,drunk driving,etc. because laws vary on the other crimes  even know they also

@hitsusatsu11

said:

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? 

I am not dodging the question.You are . I said that if  the laws come from where you thin,k atheist should be more moral for upholding them.You answered with this question which is beside  point.

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.

The standard for something to be painful is to generate pain.
The standard for something to be moral is to  match one's principles.
You have failed to explain how Christian  principles escape being  just somebody else's principles aside from using circular reasoning which is completely arbitrary.
"2+2= 4"
Again you don't get it it is not about an answer.Your God would be doing the same as the marshmallow hating God in my analogy which is basically  saying something is painful without making it painful, that is  the same  your God says X is wrong but doesn't make it absolutely wrong for  people.
 
I don't even know why we're arguing about. It is a simple matter of definitions.
Morals:

• principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour: the matter boiled down to simple morality: innocent prisoners ought to be freed
  
• [count noun] a particular system of values and principles of conduct: a bourgeois morality
  

That is the definition if I think Y doesn't go against  my principles it is moral from MY perspective. It is therefore subjective. 
  Subjective:

• based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions: his views are highly subjective there is always the danger of making a subjective judgement Contrasted with objective
  
• dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence.
  
• 2 Grammar relating to or denoting a case of nouns and pronouns used for the subject of a sentence.
  

Morals are by definition subjective.Your God couldn't make them absolute unless he went against logic itself.

"your cap words don't intimidate me, nor your word count and"

I sure hope they don't since they are your words. As for the word the count,you were the one saying I was being long-winded.Wouldn't it be hypocrisy for you talk me down for you to call me out on this knowing you just made a post longer then mine.

"if you do this , you are intolerant with those kind of people (people who hurt you) . gotcha. God does exactly the same thing "

Elaborate on how atheism hurts people.

"i don't know what's the problem with this tolerance thing. Is it wrong to be intolerant under certain circumstances? no"

As I told you earlier the problem isn't with intolerance ,it is with unjustified intolerance.Nobody cares if you don't want a Neo-Nazi as your friend people because he adopts Nazi ideology do care if you don't want a Jew as your friend because he adopts Judaism.

"( as i said before, he is tolerant with evil people for a period of time) ."

I assume that by period of time you mean human lives, however as I said in the post you were originally responding to God ordered the murder of atheists.So what period of time were you referring to.

@SilverGalford said:

Why atheist people are like this? , Don't you understand when someone doesn't want to continue it's because he doesn't want to continue? Did i tell you to post my comments here ? what did i tell you? Do you want to show my comments here in order to show them to rest and make fun of me or something ? what do you want? .

1-Nothing is forcing you to talk with me if you don't want to.I also love your generalization.

2-I told you the conversation was being moved here and I posted my reply here before receiving a comment from you on the other thread saying you did not want to talk.

atheist is based on what everybody thinks ( there is no absolute morals) , then you tolerate what YOU consider it should be tolerated , but what you tolerate can affect someone .

Well atheism is not based on subjective morality it is based on the lack of a deity. Atheists tend to have a sense of right and wrong .The same sense most people have which is what hurts people is bad.

Also some atheists believe in objective morality but believe it to be biologic.

@SilverGalford said:

imagine that an atheist , not you of course , tolerate drugs . but then at the same time there is someone who does drugs and beats up his mother . you see? , i can list many situations , but it would take a lot of time. since different atheist people have different views about what morals are , the result is this world with problems.

Well for one nothing in the Bible discourages drugs, plus there is a difference between supporting something and supporting actions that follow usage of this thing or are done during the usage.

since different atheist people have different views about what morals are , the result is this world with problems. but you probably will say believers are like that , yeah and in times of jesus was like that too , but at the end hypocritical believers and people against God will be punished ,actually i have mentioned that before if i'm not wrong . non of them are good , hypocritical believers and people against God.

Well the facts that believers and even Jesus were like that is important.The whole core of this argument was you applying the slippery slope fallacy and saying that since I disapproved of intolerance towards homosexuals and atheists in the Bible I should disapprove of intolerance towards anything.When I explained to you that the problem is unmotivated intolerance.Example : Nobody cares if you hate Nazis,we do care if you hate Blacks and Jews since Nazis are violent and promote an hateful agenda and Blacks and Jews aren't anymore dangerous then anybody.If you wanna say the Bible has a right to be intolerant to those peoples then you need to show how gays and atheists are more of a threat then regular peoples especially since you said God's intolerance was to those who were harmful.

now i have heard that an atheist said rape and steal could be morally right , now i wonder , what is the next thing they are going to consider as morally "right"?. i don't want to imagine what is next.

Excuse me if I am wrong but the Bible says nothing about rape being wrong actually I think that the Bible said a man should marry a woman he rapes http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm.The fact that you view it that way chose that you yourself have an humanist moral code to an extent.

Again generalization,so because one atheist believes rape is correct all of them or majority will think so too?Actually as I have said above atheists tend to respect the law more just look at the studies I have linked to in my argument with hitsu.

God helps me to be a good person and people like you , Atheist , haven't done anything for me , they don't even care about me . that kind of love showed by God , atheism hasn't shown to me .

Not really relevant to discussion as I stated above we were talking about tolerance.I don't know what you are trying to get at.

there is just one way to prove who is wrong or right , in our real lives . if what you say is true , then it will bring good consequences and help many people . here on the inernet people lie like hell , but lets' put what we say into practice because words cannot prove anything here on anime vice . you do as you please and i will obey God, and let's see the result in our lives , maybe we cannot see the results today , but let's wait for them . and don't tell me the results . Since i cannot see your life , i won't understand and believe you . i can believe you are lying to me and you can too . let's keep that to ourselves .

I'd like to ask you what is the value of Christian morality over secular humanism.We take actions based on logic either because they are good for humanity or for us.You're morality basically says that we need to obey Yahweh whether what he prescribes protects humans and human welfare (don't steal,don't kill) or they don't (kill atheists,kill gays and adulterers),you may say that God's reasons are beyond human understandings but it would for one lead you to ask yourself how you can be so sure your interests even matter to him and it would still put you in a situation where your morality is arbitrary and not logically reasoned.

I have also explained to hitsu why the "God is good " card fails.