Republicans Belief in Evolution plummets

[Orange_Crush]

....and here we go!

What is an atheist? Why is the term needed? What special word do we have for non-alchemists, or non-astrologers? What special namesakes do we have for non-believers in anything else?

To answer the moral question one would have to assume that all "atheists" have some standard dogma they revert back to. The answer could be different for each one, and what they actually believe about the cosmos or anything else could be different. "Atheism" is simply a refusal to deny the obvious. The big moral items like murder, adultry, theft, perjury, etc..basically amount to common sense and have been standard rules for any successful society. Even in ancient Rome, with all the barbaric crucifixations and gladiator games, you couldn't just walk up to a person on the street and kill them, and punishments were carried out for stealing.

Minus all the diversions, we'll get to the point...

"Common sense?" Where does that come from? Where does the objective moral standard come from? Sorry. "Common sense" doesn't cut it. We don't all think alike. What makes your atheistic idea of right and wrong pertinent to me?

"Standard rules for any society...?" Are you saying morality is societal?


They didn't seem standard for the Nazis? For the USSR. For the Romans, for that matter, whose law could beat anyone without just cause as long they weren't a Roman citizen.

Where does it come from? How can one hold to an objective moral standard?

I disagree with the entire premise of the question.

Probably because you can't answer the premise of the question with any logical satisfaction.

 

[rjd970]

Minus all the diversions, we'll get to the point...

"Common sense?" Where does that come from? Where does the objective moral standard come from? Sorry. "Common sense" doesn't cut it. We don't all think alike. What makes your atheistic idea of right and wrong pertinent to me?

"Standard rules for any society...?" Are you saying morality is societal?


They didn't seem standard for the Nazis? For the USSR. For the Romans, for that matter, whose law could beat anyone without just cause as long they weren't a Roman citizen.

Where does it come from? How can one hold to an objective moral standard?



Probably because you can't answer the premise of the question with any logical satisfaction.

Where does the objective moral standard in Christianity come from?

 

[rjd970]

They didn't seem standard for the Nazis? For the USSR. For the Romans, for that matter, whose law could beat anyone without just cause as long they weren't a Roman citizen.

How is that any different than the church torturing and burning witches and heretics? The objective standard you are holding on a pedestal didn't seem to work there either.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Where does the objective moral standard in Christianity come from?

I would propose that it comes from God, a creative intelligence. But that's beside the point. Christianity was besmirched because of the actions of some of its supposed adherents which violated its commands.

But again... You are skirting the issue. I am asking about atheism. Where does atheism get its moral standard from. I mean, obviously, it was put up as a better, safer, far less destructive worldview, right? So, why should we trust the moral compass of this worldview? Where does it come from?

How can atheism account for an objective morality the defines how people should act?

I am asking a very specific and particular question of you and the others in here. It should not take this amount of side-stepping.

 

[Orange_Crush]

How is that any different than the church torturing and burning witches and heretics?

Stop side-stepping. I can take you to a dozen places in the Christian scriptures that show they were not abiding by the Christian moral law.

You answer my questions. Stop dancing. It should be easy enough.

The objective standard you are holding on a pedestal didn't seem to work there either.

Just because someone can't use logic doesn't mean logic doesn't exist. Just because a 5 year old think 2+2=5, does not mean that the laws of math are nonexistent.

Stop dancing. Answer the question.

 

[rjd970]

I would propose that it comes from God, a creative intelligence. But that's beside the point. Christianity was besmirched because of the actions of some of its supposed adherents which violated its commands.

But again... You are skirting the issue. I am asking about atheism. Where does atheism get its moral standard from. I mean, obviously, it was put up as a better, safer, far less destructive worldview, right? So, why should we trust the moral compass of this worldview? Where does it come from?

How can atheism account for an objective morality the defines how people should act?

I am asking a very specific and particular question of you and the others in here. It should not take this amount of side-stepping.

The question is stupid. And so is the term "atheist"......not all atheists believe the same thing, and equating that to leaving the door open to the possibility that someone could justify murder just because they don't have a compass to go back to is even more stupid. If you must have an answer to a worthless question, then the worthless answer is there is no standard.

If morality is coming from a higher intelligence that is personally known, then what common understanding is everybody drawing from that dictates said morality standard?

I don't understand. Are we to believe the Israelites made it all the way to Sinai without knowing murder, theft, adultery, and perjury were wrong?

 

[rjd970]

Stop side-stepping. I can take you to a dozen places in the Christian scriptures that show they were not abiding by the Christian moral law.

You answer my questions. Stop dancing. It should be easy enough.



Just because someone can't use logic doesn't mean logic doesn't exist. Just because a 5 year old think 2+2=5, does not mean that the laws of math are nonexistent.

Stop dancing. Answer the question.

I answered your worthless question in my previous post.

The double standard you are exhibiting here is atrocious. Its clear when believers behave badly they were not abiding by christian law, and when they do behave good they were.

Yet when a professed non-believer behaves badly it is clearly because they had no moral standard to draw from because of their "atheism", and when they do behave good their "atheism" could not have had anything to do with it.

Am I wrong?

 

[Obsessed]

I don't claim to be the smartest man in the world, but he writes me letters wanting to be my friend.

Just saying

 

[Orange_Crush]

The question is stupid. And so is the term "atheist"......not all atheists believe the same thing, and equating that to leaving the door open to the possibility that someone could justify murder just because they don't have a compass to go back to is even more stupid. If you must have an answer to a worthless question, then the worthless answer is there is no standard.

Let me rephrase then, since you are having such trouble understanding. (I don't think you are. To be frank, I think you understand perfectly well what I am getting at and are using a 'stupid question' copout.)

But alas, let me rephrase... In a strictly materialistic universe that can only describe what is, what do you rely on to prescribe what ought? I need to know this. I mean, atheism was held up on the previous page as such more enlightened and safer worldview than Christianity. If I am to believe this, I need to know what keeps all you atheists from getting together and killing everyone who doesn't agree. If we give control over to an atheist worldview, we need to consider this, no?

Wasn't it Dawkins that said religious people would be better rounded up and shot? I need to know what keeps him from doing this.

And your answer is that there is no standard? Ouch. That hurts your position. You have no good reason for telling someone that right is right and wrong is wrong? You have no good reason to convince anyone to believe you that rape is "wrong", because-- well, rape isn't "wrong". Now is it? Really?

You knew that didn't you? Come on. Come clean. You knew where this was headed, and thus the dancing and side-stepping as if Clint Eastwood was shooting at your feet.

If morality is coming from a higher intelligence that is personally known, then what common understanding is everybody drawing from that dictates said morality standard?

The specifics are in His revealed word. Almost everyone has the genreal, as a conscience.

I don't understand. Are we to believe the Israelites made it all the way to Sinai without knowing murder, theft, adultery, and perjury were wrong?

The book of Romans talks about the general law, which is written on the heart of humanity. It also says that no one can live up to it.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I answered your worthless question in my previous post.

The double standard you are exhibiting here is atrocious. Its clear when believers behave badly they were not abiding by christian law, and when they do behave good they were.

Yet when a professed non-believer behaves badly it is clearly because they had no moral standard to draw from because of their "atheism", and when they do behave good their "atheism" could not have had anything to do with it.

Am I wrong?

How is it a double standard, when comparing worldviews to:

• Point out when actions do not accord with the teaching of a worldview
• Point out when a worldview can't account for actions?

You seriously think that is a double standard? No. It is a very valid point-- one which you can't seem to reconcile.

 

[FLVOL_79]

Morality/Religion is a device to take power from the strong and give it to the weak. Its power redistribution; the welfare/ebt of the soul.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Morality/Religion is a device to take power from the strong and give it to the weak. Its power redistribution; the welfare/ebt of the soul.

Morality is a device to take power from the strong and give to the weak? Then what is there in the world to tell the strong man not to rape the weak woman? Or the strong gunman to not take from the weak, unarmed?

"Morality" seems to be self-defeating.

Second question:

Is it wrong that someone invented morality/religion to take power from the strong and give it to the weak? According to rjd, per your worldview, there's nothing wrong with that at all.

 

[FLVOL_79]

Morality is a device to take power from the strong and give to the weak? Then what is there in the world to tell the strong man not to rape the weak woman? Or the strong gunman to not take from the weak, unarmed?

"Morality" seems to be self-defeating.

There is nothing to tell a person to not rape the weak woman or kill at will. Morality is a device conceived out of humanity forming civilizations. Order needs to be kept therefore rules need to be created. You think the hunter-gather tribes of humans 20,000 years ago gave two sh!ts about killing someone? Could you imagine what a human would be like if it grew up in the wilderness from infancy, somehow surviving for years, then encountered modern humans? It will have no moral compass. It knows how to survive, that is it.

Second question:

Is it wrong that someone invented morality/religion to take power from the strong and give it to the weak? According to rjd, per your worldview, there's nothing wrong with that at all.

I don't see anything wrong with it. I'm not advocating everyone to be a blood lust berserker laying waste to anything it can. Just pointing out that it is a device for control, like most religion. If thats what you want to follow so be it.

 

[Orange_Crush]

There is nothing to tell a person to not rape the weak woman or kill at will. Morality is a device conceived out of humanity forming civilizations. Order needs to be kept therefore rules need to be created. You think the hunter-gather tribes of humans 20,000 years ago gave two sh!ts about killing someone? Could you imagine what a human would be like if it grew up in the wilderness from infancy, somehow surviving for years, then encountered modern humans? It will have no moral compass. It knows how to survive, that is it.

I recently read the accounts of a sex trafficking activist who went into the back alleys of foreign countries. She recounted the episode of pulling an 18 month old out of the clutches of a man who was raping it.

Was that man wrong?

 

[rjd970]

Let me rephrase then, since you are having such trouble understanding. (I don't think you are. To be frank, I think you understand perfectly well what I am getting at and are using a 'stupid question' copout.)

But alas, let me rephrase... In a strictly materialistic universe that can only describe what is, what do you rely on to prescribe what ought? I need to know this. I mean, atheism was held up on the previous page as such more enlightened and safer worldview than Christianity. If I am to believe this, I need to know what keeps all you atheists from getting together and killing everyone who doesn't agree. If we give control over to an atheist worldview, we need to consider this, no?

Wasn't it Dawkins that said religious people would be better rounded up and shot? I need to know what keeps him from doing this.

And your answer is that there is no standard? Ouch. That hurts your position. You have no good reason for telling someone that right is right and wrong is wrong? You have no good reason to convince anyone to believe you that rape is "wrong", because-- well, rape isn't "wrong". Now is it? Really?

You knew that didn't you? Come on. Come clean. You knew where this was headed, and thus the dancing and side-stepping as if Clint Eastwood was shooting at your feet.



The specifics are in His revealed word. Almost everyone has the genreal, as a conscience.



The book of Romans talks about the general law, which is written on the heart of humanity. It also says that no one can live up to it.

Pray tell, how did the Israelites know murder was wrong before it was revealed to them? I'll anxiously await your answer.

Some basic morality concepts are self-evident in a civilized society. That does not equate to no standard, as you are so trying to portray me as believing.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Pray tell, how did the Israelites know murder was wrong before it was revealed to them? I'll anxiously await your answer.

I already told you that God imprinted a general moral law on the consciences of people. I'm not sure why you don't take my replies to you into account.

Some basic morality concepts are self-evident in a civilized society.

I would agree. Without something to make them objective, they are personal. So, murder becomes a personal decision. Rape becomes a personal decision. You can't call anything right or wrong-- just relative opinions like which flavor of ice cream is better. Would you ever try to impose on me which flavor of ice cream I like better? What more right do you have to impose moral relativity?

That does not equate to no standard, as you are so trying to portray me as believing.

You said:

If you must have an answer to a worthless question, then the worthless answer is there is no standard.

You are acting inconsistently.

 

[rjd970]

But alas, let me rephrase... In a strictly materialistic universe that can only describe what is, what do you rely on to prescribe what ought? I need to know this. I mean, atheism was held up on the previous page as such more enlightened and safer worldview than Christianity. If I am to believe this, I need to know what keeps all you atheists from getting together and killing everyone who doesn't agree. If we give control over to an atheist worldview, we need to consider this, no?

The standard of not harming another individual can be a perfectly reasonable guide.

Mahivira, the Jain patriarch said:

Do not injure, abuse, oppress, enslave, insult, torment, torture or kill any creature or living being.

That single statement on morality eclipses anything said in the 500 page bible. How different would the history of Christianity be if this single statement was followed?

 

[Orange_Crush]

It's amazing these comparison still get used.

Communist Russia, Nazi Germany, China, Vietnam...etc, people were killed not for atheistic reasons or because atheism resulted in less respect for human life. People were killed for social, racial, and political dogmas. The fact that these were godless countries is irrelevant.

On the other hand, when christian, islamic, etc groups have committed atrocities or waged war...chapter and verse is quoted and the reasons are specifically religious.

It is not amazing that this comparison is used, when the question of "safe" worldviews is brought up. As I have mentioned, Christianity has a moral law that those people broke in its name. We can look at the teachings of the worldview and see that.

What does atheism offer pertaining to a moral law that would keep them from doing anything they want to. The recent quote that:

Morality was created to take the power from the strong and give it to the weak.

Validates the comparison. Without an objective teaching on morality, what is to keep the atheistic amoral government from abusing its power upon the weak?

It is a legitimate question-- especially considering that an atheist was calling Christianity a dangerous worldview.

 

[Orange_Crush]

The standard of not harming another individual can be a perfectly reasonable guide.

Mahivira, the Jain patriarch said:



That single statement on morality eclipses anything said in the 500 page bible. How different would the history of Christianity be if this single statement was followed?

Yah. But I don't agree with him. That's his opinion. Don't try to force it on me. I have more guns and more powerful friends, so I'd like to see you try. As a matter of fact... You wife sure looks real good right now...


Click, click, boom...

 

[Orange_Crush]

The standard of not harming another individual can be a perfectly reasonable guide.

Do you get my point with the above post?

What makes it "reasonable", more than an opinion?

It wasn't reasonable to the Nazi regime. Can you tell them both:

You were wrong.

and

Morality is a social construct.

and

"There is no standard."

???


They would say:

Who are you to judge?

It was my society.

Then shut up before I rip your throat out.

 

[rjd970]

I already told you that God imprinted a general moral law on the consciences of people. I'm not sure why you don't take my replies to you into account.

Then why the need to explicitly state murder is wrong if it was imprinted to begin with? The details are the only thing that need to be stated, right? You said this:

The specifics are in His revealed word. Almost everyone has the genreal, as a conscience.

In cases where it wasn't explicitely stated outside of personal revelation as a standard then one's own conscience is good enough, for all other cases that written standard in needed? Who's really being inconsistent here?

I would agree. Without something to make them objective, they are personal. So, murder becomes a personal decision. Rape becomes a personal decision. You can't call anything right or wrong-- just relative opinions like which flavor of ice cream is better. Would you ever try to impose on me which flavor of ice cream I like better? What more right do you have to impose moral relativity?

Good people will be good. Bad people will be bad. Religion or any other standard isn't going to change that. The history of christianity and other religious justifications for behaving badly should make that abundantly clear.

You said:



You are acting inconsistently.

I also said such an answer was worthless. You can't ask a worthless question, get a worthless answer, and then accuse me of being inconsistent. I stated from the beginning the premise of the question was stupid.

 

[FLVOL_79]

I recently read the accounts of a sex trafficking activist who went into the back alleys of foreign countries. She recounted the episode of pulling an 18 month old out of the clutches of a man who was raping it.

Was that man wrong?

Of course he was.

I never said I didnt have morals.

 

[rjd970]

Do you get my point with the above post?

What makes it "reasonable", more than an opinion?

It wasn't reasonable to the Nazi regime. Can you tell them both:

You were wrong.

and

Morality is a social construct.

and

"There is no standard."

???


They would say:

Who are you to judge?

It was my society.

Then shut up before I rip your throat out.

When God did the same thing in the OT, committing infanticide and genocide, what is materially different? Both appeal to a higher authority. No?

 

[VOLatile]

Then why the need to explicitly state murder is wrong if it was imprinted to begin with? The details are the only thing that need to be stated, right? You said this:



In cases where it wasn't explicitely stated outside of personal revelation as a standard then one's own conscience is good enough, for all other cases that written standard in needed? Who's really being inconsistent here?







Good people will be good. Bad people will be bad. Religion or any other standard isn't going to change that. The history of christianity and other religious justifications for behaving badly should make that abundantly clear.





I also said such an answer was worthless. You can't ask a worthless question, get a worthless answer, and then accuse me of being inconsistent. I stated from the beginning the premise of the question was stupid.

Bless your heart. You have so much more patience than I do.

 

[rjd970]

Yah. But I don't agree with him. That's his opinion. Don't try to force it on me. I have more guns and more powerful friends, so I'd like to see you try. As a matter of fact... You wife sure looks real good right now...


Click, click, boom...

Excellent. All your high and mighty posts about us sidestepping questions and you do this.

Again,

Do not injure, abuse, oppress, enslave, insult, torment, torture or kill any creature or living being.

Do you think the history of Christianity would be better if this precept was followed as opposed to what is written in the bible? At a minimum I see it to be harder to justify the inquisition and crusades.