[ol][li]I choose to define A as meaning the only entity capable of defining things as not permissable.[/li]
[li]There is no A.[/li]
[li]Ergo, everything is permissable. [/ol][/li]
In other news the cat I just named Tiddles has the name Tiddles.
Unless you can actually offer some basis for the proposition that this “god” thing of yours is in fact the only possible source of definition of what is not permissable, all you are doing is attempting to win the argument by stating that your position is correct by definition.
Newscrasher, would you like to tell me what beautifully nuanced scripture you are talking about and explain why it supercede the following verses that are, as you put it, black and white? They are all attributed to Jesus by the way. “He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” John 3:18
“Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or feet to be cast into everlasting fire. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.” Matthew 18:8, 9
“And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” Matthew 10:28
“But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which AFTER he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.” Luke 12:5 “Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Matthew 22:13
“The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; and shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.” Matthew 13:41-42 “And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.” Matthew 25:46
"Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide, and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter by it. For the gate is small, and the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it." Matthew 7:13-14
So basically, you don’t think we should take Jesus’ word for it.
If this were true, you’d be threatening us all with hell then, wouldn’t you. Christ did live as that, did he not?
I find anyone that worships such an selfish, anti-social, genocidal god a bit reprehensible, so I guess that makes us even.
Newscrasher, would you like to tell me what beautifully nuanced scripture you are talking about and explain why it supercede the following verses that are, as you put it, black and white? They are all attributed to Jesus by the way.
*“He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” John 3:18
“Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or feet to be cast into everlasting fire. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.” Matthew 18:8, 9
“And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” Matthew 10:28
“But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which AFTER he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.” Luke 12:5
“Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Matthew 22:13
“The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; and shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.” Matthew 13:41-42
“And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.” Matthew 25:46
"Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide, and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter by it. For the gate is small, and the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it." Matthew 7:13-14*
So basically, you don’t think we should take Jesus’ word for it.
If this were true, you’d be threatening us all with hell then, wouldn’t you. Christ did live as that, did he not?
I find anyone that worships such an selfish, anti-social, genocidal god a bit reprehensible, so I guess that makes us even.
While it doesn’t make me proud to relay it, I can’t help but feel that anyone who does believe in a God is just a little bit retarded, which, unsurprisingly, could come off as being a touch ‘asshole-ish’ I’d imagine…
Which, of course, is exactly the problem with atheistically-based systems of morality.
There is no more reason for an atheist to believe anything inconvenient than for a theist. Less, in fact - if atheists are to be believed, there is no more basis for altruism than fundamentalist Islam. It’s all subjective, and based on upbringing/arbitrary choice/personal whim.
You claim that atheists “have” to make your moral decisions based on the consequences to other persons. The trouble is, there is no “have to”. There is no rational basis for the belief that other people are important. It simply has to be taken on faith, just like a fundamentalist’s belief in the Bible.
“Scripture is true because it’s God’s Word. We know it is God’s Word because it is true.”
“Altruism is important because it is moral. It is moral because altruism is important.”
And, as usual, all the hatred in this thread comes from the fundamentalist atheists.
Precisely. So assume that there is no basis for the proposition that God is a possible source of definition. Any other basis that atheists can suggest is subject to the same limitation - it has to be taken on faith, or by stating that your position is correct by definition.
Regards,
Shodan
Abd how does a Christian decide which written standard is morally “correct?” You need a moral standard to choose a moral standard. Ultimately, Christians operate just as autocratically as anyone else. You can’t follow a religious code of conduct without first deciding independently of that code, that following it is the “right” thing to do. There is no way to avoid being your own judge of what is right or wrong. Objective morality does not and cannot exist.
Reason has nothing to do with it. It’s all just biologically programmed. Dogs don’t nurture their young because it’s “right” but because that’s what they’re programmed to do. People are no different. Moral systems are dictated by emotional responses to our own behavior. Atheists feel “guilt” just as easily as Christians do even if they don’t fear supernatural consequences because “guilt” (like “love”) is a biological response not a reasoned one.
I suppose that for individuals who have no empathic response (this has been shown to happen when young children are repeatedly traumatized or abused. That part of the brain shuts down and the individual no longer feels distressed by the sufferings of others. Their own actions no longer cause them to feel "guilt) the idea that most people can police themselves simply by adjusting to their own emotional responses might seem strange, unbelievable or irrational and they might have trouble understanding how anyone could operate “morally” without some kind of whip or fear of punishment. It’s like a person who never feels hunger not understanding how other people could possibly know when to eat without being told.
I am always forced to wonder about the kind of people who ask atheists why they don’t go around raping and murdering people if they don’t believe in God. This seems to indicate an assumption that aggressive, violent, narcissistic behavior is the default human impulse and that we all have to somehow be restrained from doing it. Aren’t they suggesting that if they didn’t fear God, they, themselves would be raving psychopaths?
Would you mind if I quoted you on this on another board? - I have been trying to make exactly this point in another debate, but failing because I couldn’t put it as succinctly and eloquently as this. If you’re happy for me to quote you, I will be sure to state that they are not my own words, but I won’t link either way, because of the potential board war thing.
You know, there comes a time when even Hopeful Universalist C’tians such as myself who hope & believe that the Lake of Fire is the Purifying Presence of God
do relish the thought that some hate-filled unbelievers will be peeing all over themselves & crying like little girls with skinned knees as they stand before Yahweh/Jesus for their Judgement.
I am NOT trying to say atheists are all evil or mean-spirited. As I said before, there are beautiful, kind, moral people of all colors, religions and beliefs. I stand beside the fact that Christians are FREQUENTLY Pompous Asshats (Admiral Class), especialy when it comes to claiming divine access to a moral code.
But that being said, on this board, why do you think venom and meanness is (usually) the domain of people claiming to hold no religious belief? The moral imperitive to treat people kindly and honor differing points of view (or at least to disagree civilly) seems to easily become too much to bear.
There are two (2) atheists in this thread (and on this board in general) who tend to be gratuitously hostile to theists. It’s a board which tilts heavily towards skeptical/rationalist personalities but the vast majority of them don’t act that way.
Visit Christian Forums some time and you’ll find all the arrogance and hostility towards non-believers you’ll ever want. It’s also been my experience that what anger does exist among non-theists (who are nothing close to an organized group, have no dogma and really have nothing in common except a lack of belief in gods) is often a defensive response to a culture which is overwhelmingly religious and tends to be overwhelmingly smug, superior, controlling and obnoxious about it. I would also point out that more than a few atheists (I would wager most of them in the US) have had some kind of religious upbringing and formerly been theists themselves. Sometimes they have had an abusive relationship with Christianity in their past and are lashing back. Anecdotally, It seems to me that those who are the most reactive against Christianity are the ones who have broken from the most hardcore traditions. Ex “fundies” tend to carry a lot more resentment than ex-Catholics or ex-Episcopalians.
Do you have a cite from the Boy Scouts that shows that they believe that athiests are immoral? I don’t think that can be extrapolated from the rule that only believers may join. The Boy Scouts are a religious organization, and they wish their members to come from that philosophical POV, that’s all.
Precisely. There is no rational basis for atheist morality. And therefore no way to argue for (or against) any morality. It’s all faith-based, and therefore any non-theist who argues that any action is right or wrong, or that someone “should” or “shouldn’t” do something, or that the Bible is an invalid basis for moral decisions, is making a meaningless statement.
Well, the record for atheist behavior is not significantly better than that of theists. I grant you, the atheists haven’t had enough political position much until the twentieth century or so, but they are certainly making up for lost time.
Probably for many of the reasons Diogenes lists above. The SDMB is a place where atheist trolls can lash back. Since, as Diogenes also mentions, their moral decisions are based on emotional response, they feel justified in doing what they do.
It’s just that the religious types who respond with venom and meanness get piled on, and the non-religious types who do the same don’t.
Part of the background noise that Christians hereabouts simply have to put up with.
Incorrect. Atheists lack the excuse of God. Denial of reality is at the core of any religion; not so for atheism. Not that atheists can’t be deluded, but it’s not inherent in the belief, unlike religion.
Of course there is. First, the people you hurt will either hurt you if they can, or cooperate badly if they can’t. Unlike a god, who being imaginary can do neither. Second, people really do have feelings and desires and thoughts just like you; that’s an objective fact, that has to be taken in consideration by anyone trying to maintain a grasp on reality. Third, given that we are all part of society, hurting other people tends to end up hurting you, given enough time.
After a lifetime of swimming in a sea of Christian hatred and stupidity, I have little tolerance left for a belief system as stupid, crazy, sadistic, brutal hateful and amoral as Christianity. I show no respect for your belief because it deserves none, any more than a human sacrifice cult devoted to the tooth fairy would. I’ve seen and experienced endless hatred from the Christians, and I hate them right back.
Nor is “venom and meanness” here restricted to us atheists like you claim. First, Christians tend to deliver their hate with a smirk, in their constant speeches, even in this thread, that they and they alone are moral. The implication that I’m an amoral monster is rather hateful, IMHO. Second, I’ve noted while that I’m here that it’s always the theists here who get warned by the mods while they argue with me, including the occasional death wish against me; I don’t recall ever being warned. Third, I expect the Christians who really feel like hurting people simply go out and do it, IRL; instead of ranting on a message board they go and bash a gay for Christ, or beat their wife to teach her to be properly submissive as God demands. Finally, as Diogenes the Cynic points out, the Christians on this board are highly atypical.
Yeah, those fundie atheists, what with all their gay bashing and Jew persecuting. :dubious:
For myself, I tend to keep my atheism to myself most of the time. It’s not like I go around trying to convert theists. Personally, I could care less what mythical sky pixie you choose to devote your life to. It’s no skin off my back. But when, as is often the case, it is skin off my back, then I’m going to speak up. If you try to legislate your god into my life, then fuck yeah, I’m going to fight back. If, as in the case of this thread, you’re going to claim that I have no morals, then fuck yeah, I’m going to argue with you.
You can’t go on the attack against someone and then claim they’re “angry as usual” when they try to defend themselves. Come on, Shodan, such a remark is beneath you.
It’s not faith-based, it’s biological. Belief has nothing to do with it. Claiming that morality is based on faith makes no more sense than claiming that people love their children based on faith. Faith does not play into it.
No.They are making subjective statements about their own emotional responses. The word “validity” has no meaning in relationship to those responses because they are experiential, not theoretical. The problem for “Biblical” morality (aside from the fact that it’s impossible to extract a consistent moral framework from the Bible to begin with) is that it can’t be used as a moral roadmap unless you first make a moral decision to do so. Like I said above, you need a morality to CHOOSE a morality. There is no way out of that box. All morality is ultimately pulled from the ass of each individual, or t put it more charitably, religious morality is based on the same emotional hardwiring as non-religious morality. It’s just expressed in more mystical terms.
The history of Christianity, though, is marked by various wars and slaughters waged by people who chose to interpret particular passages in particular ways. Even in the mild modern climate, two sincere people in a situation can each ask themselves “What would Jesus do?” and arrive at different, though sincere, answers. The standard you’re describing is not consistent even with itself, and is sufficiently large and complex that a passage could be found and interpreted to justify virtually any behaviour. Why were there wars between Catholics and Protestants, anyway?
Rather than “faith-based”, I like to call it “heuristics-based”, i.e. it’s not necessary (and in fact would be a huge waste of time) to run every decision through a detailed analysis and decide if scripture (i.e. God) or reason (i.e. not-God) suggests you should or should not trip the old lady walking past, comical though the results might be. Developing a set of shortcuts in the thought-process at least lets you make the decision while the old lady is still in tripping range.
The only difference is that theists claim their heuristics derive from some all-powerful entity, while D-the-C is claiming the system built up over millions of years of evolution. The latter argument has some scientific weight to it, while the former has none. In that sense, at least, the distinction isn’t meaningless at all.
By the way, I’d say one shouldn’t trip the old lady. I’m an atheist, though, so make of that what you will.
So a gang of hispanics beat you and take your wallet and all hispanics are subject to your response, no matter how unreasonable it is :dubious:
That must be the 15th commandment or something.
How would you know? Are most vegans truly represented by PETA? Is Charleton Heston representitive of the majority of RSA members?
There is a whole lotta truth in the phrase “vocal minority”. Think about it.
As to the OP, individuals commit acts that they perceive to be most edifying for them. No exceptions. The difference is that, in the case of ‘bad’ acts being carried out, the religious claim that their beliefs motivated them while atheists are nuts; both are selfish. I’ll tell you right now that the very christians you hate (notice I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here) can learn to see that atheists are not ungodly monsters. It’s all about dispelling ignorance, be it in religion or elsewhere.
