Republicans Belief in Evolution plummets

[Vol8188]

What makes either of those "bad" in your morally relative, non-prescriptive universe?

You need me to explain why it is "bad" to kill people for being non-Christian, disobeying their parents, or not keeping the Saturday day holy?

 

[Orange_Crush]

You need me to explain why it is "bad" to kill people for being non-Christian, disobeying their parents, or not keeping the Saturday day holy?

If you proclaim atheism, then yes. I do. Go. (And for the record, nowhere in the Bible does it say to kill anyone for not being a Christian.)

 

[MercyPercy]

Here we are again. Back to the Christians peddling the pathetic belief that morality is only inherent through the following of invisible Zeus god man.

Not only is it pathetic, but entirely disgusting to think that people are incapable of differentiating between right and wrong without the guidance of your god. It's arrogant, and insinuates that without the bible, we would be out acting like monsters.

And finally, how much is the Christian morality worth if they are only being good people in fear of eternal damnation? Not very selfless at all. Selfish morality to save yourself from punishment. Guess what, knuckle draggers? Some of us will be good people because we think it is the right thing to do. Not because we're frightened by fairy tales.

Believe that.

 

[Vol8188]

If you proclaim atheism, then yes. I do. Go. (And for the record, nowhere in the Bible does it say to kill anyone for not being a Christian.)

So the bible never mentions that we should stone people who "worship false idols"?

And I'm not playing your retarded game. This circular debate is old. If you truly believe that the only thing keeping people from killing their kids is the bible, then I guess your kids should be glad your a Christian.

 

[Orange_Crush]

You need me to explain why it is "bad" to kill people for being non-Christian, disobeying their parents, or not keeping the Saturday day holy?

For that matter, the Bible never says anything about killing kids for disobeying their parents either. Have you even tried to get familiar with what you are criticizing? Or are you just parroting Dawkins and the rest of the gang?

 

[Vol8188]

Here we are again. Back to the Christians peddling the pathetic belief that morality is only inherent through the following of invisible Zeus god man.

Not only is it pathetic, but entirely disgusting to think that people are incapable of differentiating between right and wrong without the guidance of your god. It's arrogant, and insinuates that without the bible, we would be out acting like monsters.

And finally, how much is the Christian morality worth if they are only being good people in fear of eternal damnation? Not very selfless at all. Selfish morality to save yourself from punishment. Guess what, knuckle draggers? Some of us will be good people because we think it is the right thing to do. Not because we're frightened by fairy tales.

Believe that.

Also if only Christianity worships the "true" god, then why do so many other religions (Buddhism being a good example) have pretty decent moral standards themselves? Where did those come from?

 

[Vol8188]

For that matter, the Bible never says anything about killing kids for disobeying their parents either. Have you even tried to get familiar with what you are criticizing? Or are you just parroting Dawkins and the rest of the gang?

I was a Christian until about 15. Then I started reading this crap.

Deuteronomy 21 18-21, clearly states that a disobedient child should be stoned. Have you ever actually read the bible? Or do you just go off what your cult leader (I mean pastor) tells you?

 

[Orange_Crush]

So the bible never mentions that we should stone people who "worship false idols"?

It said to kill Jews that worshiped false idols. Christianity didn't even exist at the time that specific law was given to a specific people for a specific purpose. How can it say to kill people for not being Christian?

And I'm not playing your retarded game.

You'd better not play it. You'll lose.

This circular debate is old. If you truly believe that the only thing keeping people from killing their kids is the bible, then I guess your kids should be glad your a Christian.

I'm not saying that at all. If you had read my posts you'd see that. I'm saying that, living as an objectively moral atheist, you have to smuggle that objective morality in from somewhere else. I'm not alone in noticing and voicing this.

Nietzsche recognized it. As an atheist, he wrote basically: "OK. Great. We've killed God. But you better understand what died with Him..."

As an atheist, you live a rationally conflicted life. You want an objective morality. You need one. If you are passed up unfairly for a promotion at the office, you can't help but feel slighted. But there is nothing in your mechanized, descriptive universe that prescribes why you ought to have gotten the promotion. Rationally, you have nothing that informs you that it was wrong-- except your inherent sense of objective right and wrong.

So I agree, to be honest. You should stop playing this game. Just go right back to blindly feeling and asserting the moral law that you live by while denying the lawgiver that is the only source of its objective value.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I was a Christian until about 15. Then I started reading this crap.

Deuteronomy 21 18-21, clearly states that a disobedient child should be stoned. Have you ever actually read the bible? Or do you just go off what your cult leader (I mean pastor) tells you?

When you take that in context, with the rest of the law, (even from the minor context that you quoted), you see that the stoning is concerning other sins of rebellion. The "disobedience" is refusing to stop other sins.

So, the law stated that the parents were to bring the child to a plurality of elders and let them judge the child's life. (Note: "Child" here in the original language meant son/daughter; not young child. It appears to have referenced adult children.) It wasn't a haphazard angry killing. It was a jury trial.

Edit: I am a pastor. I taught the entirety of Leviticus within a cultural study of what each law meant in the time it was given, and to the people that it was given to. Have you studied the OT law in context, studying the ancient near east customs that it dealt with, and with attention to the idolatrous practices that surrounded Israel at the time?

Like the fact that the multiple fabric law was directly related to an idolatrous practice that neighbored Israel at the time?

 

[MercyPercy]

I have never seen someone been so wrong yet so convicted in their wrongness on here since.. volmav.

 

[Vol8188]

When you take that in context, with the rest of the law, (even from the minor context that you quoted), you see that the stoning is concerning other sins of rebellion. The "disobedience" is refusing to stop other sins.

So, the law stated that the parents were to bring the child to a plurality of elders and let them judge the child's life. (Note: "Child" here in the original language meant son/daughter; not young child. It appears to have referenced adult children.) It wasn't a haphazard angry killing. It was a jury trial.

Edit: I am a pastor. I taught the entirety of Leviticus within a cultural study of what each law meant in the time it was given, and to the people that it was given to. Have you studied the OT law in context, studying the ancient near east customs that it dealt with, and with attention to the idolatrous practices that surrounded Israel at the time?

Like the fact that the multiple fabric law was directly related to an idolatrous practice that neighbored Israel at the time?

So you believe it is justifiable to kill sinners?

 

[Orange_Crush]

So you believe it is justifiable to kill sinners?

No. I do not. I am not a Jew living in the ancient near east, surrounded by a bunch of idolatrous nations that were sacrificing their children to Molech by heating bronze statues and burning them to death. I am a Christian in America who follows a savior that never tried to overthrow Rome and never commanded his church to.

I'll repeat. Have you studied the OT law for context, intent, and cultural importance?

 

[82_VOL_83]

Yeah. What's the problem? Does it make you upset to think you just die and thus your life has no meaning/reward?

Yeah, you missed the point too. Why do you care if people believe in God and an afterlife?

 

[Vol8188]

No. I do not. I am not a Jew living in the ancient near east, surrounded by a bunch of idolatrous nations that were sacrificing their children to Molech by heating bronze statues and burning them to death. I am a Christian in America who follows a savior that never tried to overthrow Rome and never commanded his church to.

I'll repeat. Have you studied the OT law for context, intent, and cultural importance?

I have. I took more than 1 OT course at Maryville.

The difference between you and I is that I see no context that makes killing sinners, adulterators, or anyone else acceptable if all sins are forgivable.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I have. I took more than 1 OT course at Maryville.

Then I would have thought you would have understood the context of the scripture you quoted.

The difference between you and I is that I see no context that makes killing sinners, adulterators, or anyone else acceptable if all sins are forgivable.

As an atheist, what in the universe informs you that this is objectively wrong?

 

[82_VOL_83]

Crush, I'm saddened by the fact that apparently the only thing between you killing me is your fear of gods retribution.

What you should be worried about is the fact that the only thing between you and a bullet from many of the posters here is getting caught by johnny law. Many profess not to believe in God, therefore there is no everlasting retribution, therefore no sanctity of life, therefore nothing to keep them from putting a cap in your ass but the fear of Bubba and a dropped bar of soap.

 

[Vol8188]

Then I would have thought you would have understood the context of the scripture you quoted.



As an atheist, what in the universe informs you that this is objectively wrong?

That would be the social animal instinct.

What was wrong with 9/11? Just a bunch sinners being out down by gods people, right? It's your willingness to base your entire moral compass off a 2000 yr old book that allows such atrocities. Your inability to think for yourself and say, "does this sound right? Should I put my son in the alter and sacrifice him?" "I should I drive a plane through this building".

Few things are truly more frightening to me than a society of people that would adhere to your beliefs that morality can only come from god.

 

[82_VOL_83]

That would be the social animal instinct.

What was wrong with 9/11? Just a bunch sinners being out down by gods people, right? It's your willingness to base your entire moral compass off a 2000 yr old book that allows such atrocities. Your inability to think for yourself and say, "does this sound right? Should I put my son in the alter and sacrifice him?" "I should I drive a plane through this building".

Good thing male chimps don't kill and eat the young of the females they capture.....oh wait. It's that social animal thing.

Even for you this is bull****.

 

[PKT_VOL]

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?

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 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.

This. I am not an atheist but seeing as how I am a nonbeliever (of Christianity) I guess I fall into the same camp as OC is trying to outline.

Atheism, or any non-belief of Christianity, is a disbelief in the divinity of the Christianity; not necessarily disbelief in Christian ethics/morality. One can be an atheist and still believe in the Jefferson Bible. Conversely, a Christian does not necessarily have to accept all "Christian" ethics/morality. Additionally, such ethics are not exclusive to Christianity. The essential difference between those Atheists/nonbelievers and Christians with respect to morality is that Christians believe their morality is grounded in and judged by a personal supernatural deity with either eternal happiness or damnation riding on it; not that one has morality and the other doesn't.

Religion =/= morality/ethics; Atheism =/= no morality/ethics.

 

[MercyPercy]

What you should be worried about is the fact that the only thing between you and a bullet from many of the posters here is getting caught by johnny law. Many profess not to believe in God, therefore there is no everlasting retribution, therefore no sanctity of life, therefore nothing to keep them from putting a cap in your ass but the fear of Bubba and a dropped bar of soap.

Do you believe a person can be good and moral without ever being in contact with the teachings of Jesus?

 

[Vol8188]

Good thing male chimps don't kill and eat the young of the females they capture.....oh wait. It's that social animal thing.

Even for you this is bull****.

So the only thing stopping Americans from eating their stepchildren is the Christian god?

Strange, I've never heard of this practice occurring in Hindu or Buddhist countries.

 

[Orange_Crush]

This. I am not an atheist but seeing as how I am a nonbeliever (of Christianity) I guess I fall into the same camp as OC is trying to outline.

Atheism, or any non-belief of Christianity, is a disbelief in the divinity of the Christianity; not necessarily disbelief in Christian ethics/morality. One can be an atheist and still believe in the Jefferson Bible. Conversely, a Christian does not necessarily have to accept all "Christian" ethics/morality. Additionally, such ethics are not exclusive to Christianity. The essential difference between those Atheists/nonbelievers and Christians with respect to morality is that Christians believe their morality is grounded in and judged by a personal supernatural deity with either eternal happiness or damnation riding on it; not that one has morality and the other doesn't.

Religion =/= morality/ethics; Atheism =/= no morality/ethics.

Do you believe in objective morality?

 

[MercyPercy]

You know, I might be starting to come around to this christianity thing. If the bible is the only thing keeping these nutjobs from stealing my stuff or killing me in cold blood, I'd be willing to say it's doing some good.

 

[PKT_VOL]

What you should be worried about is the fact that the only thing between you and a bullet from many of the posters here is getting caught by johnny law. Many profess not to believe in God, therefore there is no everlasting retribution, therefore no sanctity of life, therefore nothing to keep them from putting a cap in your ass but the fear of Bubba and a dropped bar of soap.

Basically, morality (not wanting to murder an innocent person), can only be achieved via God or the fear of the police?

The bolded makes no sense. Wouldn't the fact that there is no afterlife (to a nonbeliever) increase the "sanctity of life" (inviolability/sacredness) on this planet in the here and now?

 

[Orange_Crush]

This. I am not an atheist but seeing as how I am a nonbeliever (of Christianity) I guess I fall into the same camp as OC is trying to outline.

Atheism, or any non-belief of Christianity, is a disbelief in the divinity of the Christianity; not necessarily disbelief in Christian ethics/morality. One can be an atheist and still believe in the Jefferson Bible. Conversely, a Christian does not necessarily have to accept all "Christian" ethics/morality. Additionally, such ethics are not exclusive to Christianity. The essential difference between those Atheists/nonbelievers and Christians with respect to morality is that Christians believe their morality is grounded in and judged by a personal supernatural deity with either eternal happiness or damnation riding on it; not that one has morality and the other doesn't.

Religion =/= morality/ethics; Atheism =/= no morality/ethics.

Go back and reread my posts. Carefully. I never said atheists are inherently immoral. Just the opposite actually.

Geez... I ask people to think and they won't even read.