# Is Atheism Morally Bankrupt



## SemperFiDawg

It seems when you cut yourself loose from all the moorings of a moral law you can't justify anything as wrong.


Christopher Hitchens is one of the principal leaders of the New Atheism movement. At the end of the Christian apologist Dr. William Lane Craig vs. atheist Christopher Hitchens debate there was an audience question and answer period.VIDEO The first audience member to ask a question twice asked Christopher Hitchens to label bestiality as an immoral act, but he refused to do so.

PZ Myers wrote about bestiality:
“	 So, to answer clueless thick-skulled Christian idiot’s question, I don’t object to bestiality in a very limited set of specific conditions, but do not support it in any way[7][8

The atheist philosopher Peter Singer defends the practice of bestiality (as well as abortion, infanticide and euthanasia).

Richard Dawkins
"With respect to those meanings of "human" that are relevant to the morality of abortion, any fetus is less human than an adult pig."

 Harry Hay (1912 - 2002) was a liberal atheist advocate of statutory rape and the widely acknowledged founder and progenitor of the activist homosexual agenda in the United States.  He was a vociferous advocate of man/boy love.  In 1986, Hay marched in a gay parade wearing a shirt emblazoned with the words "NAMBLA walks with me."

1. The atheist and homosexual David Thorstad was a founding member of the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA).


----------



## atlashunter

If God Is Dead, Is Everything Permitted?


----------



## 1gr8bldr

Am I understanding this right? That your saying that athiest have no morals? Not trying to start trouble, just wondering if I have misunderstood.


----------



## hummdaddy

SemperFiDawg said:


> It seems when you cut yourself loose from all the moorings of a moral law you can't justify anything as wrong.
> 
> 
> Christopher Hitchens is one of the principal leaders of the New Atheism movement. At the end of the Christian apologist Dr. William Lane Craig vs. atheist Christopher Hitchens debate there was an audience question and answer period.VIDEO The first audience member to ask a question twice asked Christopher Hitchens to label bestiality as an immoral act, but he refused to do so.
> 
> PZ Myers wrote about bestiality:
> “	 So, to answer clueless thick-skulled Christian idiot’s question, I don’t object to bestiality in a very limited set of specific conditions, but do not support it in any way[7][8
> 
> The atheist philosopher Peter Singer defends the practice of bestiality (as well as abortion, infanticide and euthanasia).
> 
> Richard Dawkins
> "With respect to those meanings of "human" that are relevant to the morality of abortion, any fetus is less human than an adult pig."
> 
> Harry Hay (1912 - 2002) was a liberal atheist advocate of statutory rape and the widely acknowledged founder and progenitor of the activist homosexual agenda in the United States.  He was a vociferous advocate of man/boy love.  In 1986, Hay marched in a gay parade wearing a shirt emblazoned with the words "NAMBLA walks with me."
> 
> 1. The atheist and homosexual David Thorstad was a founding member of the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA).



let me ask you a question...do you let every christian speak for you?


----------



## oldfella1962

Just because a person isn't accountable to a spiritual entity it doesn't mean they automatically behave differently. 

Churches all across Georgia are packed on Sundays with people who were doing who knows what the rest of the week. 

Every person is an individual, and not all people need a spiritual foot up their butt to keep them in line. Of course religions would be out of business if everyone thought this way!


----------



## SemperFiDawg

1gr8bldr said:


> Am I understanding this right? That your saying that athiest have no morals? Not trying to start trouble, just wondering if I have misunderstood.



No, not that they have no morals personally, they simply have nothing to attribute their morals to.  If an Atheist acts in a moral fashion it is because they are acting above and beyond what Atheism demands of them.


----------



## vowell462

SemperFiDawg said:


> No, not that they have no morals personally, they simply have nothing to attribute their morals to.  If an Atheist acts in a moral fashion it is because they are acting above and beyond what Atheism demands of them.



Ok. Now im lost. Please explain  what Atheism demands. It simply has a claim that there is no god. Thats what an Atheist believes. Nothing more, nothing less. So are you saying that if you are Atheist you are breaking some kind of rule for having morals?


----------



## mtnwoman

oldfella1962 said:


> Churches all across Georgia are packed on Sundays with people who were doing who knows what the rest of the week.



Most Christians don't go to church because they are perfect, they go because they realize they are imperfect.

What's the difference in that than going to a therapist, or a councelor or to rehab? I guess no atheists go to counceling of any kind or a therapist because they've got it all right?  Personally, I'd rather find my help in God than mortal man.  I think we ALL should be able to be who we want to be and not be ridiculed all the time.  I've never told a person in my life that they were stupid for believing differently than me, why can't that work towards my beliefs?


----------



## JB0704

One would need to acquire consent to prevent beastiality from producing a victim.  Consent from an animal would be impossible to prove.  The existence of a victim would eliminate the act from bring moral under most "moral codes."

There are a lot of threads on this topic, and I tend to believe that every individual chooses which morality to adhere to.  Whether it is Christians or atheists.  An absence of an absolute does not eliminate the absence of a person's choice to live "morally."

That being the case, I side with the atheists in general on this topic.....primarily because I have seen people from both sides live freely according to a system of choice.

However, an atheist would have difficulty proving an absolute truth, or morality, they only have systems of choice.  For instance, declaring the existence of a victim as morally wrong cannot be universal unless such condition can be proven as universally immoral.  It just seems to be the easiest standard to apply universally......if that makes sense.


----------



## JB0704

To follow up the above post.....a person could declare imperialism to be moral as it follows natural law, survival of the fittest.  That would be in direct conflict with most contemporary libertarian thinking, but it would be impossible to argue against without the existence of an absolute to the contrary.  So, we are left with civilization imposing morality, or truth, where absolutes may not exist.

Either way, to prevent an imperialist endeavor would be to impose one's will over another, and who is the victim of such exchange is a matter of perspective.

I believe in god, so I have absutes, and can avoid such quandries.


----------



## hummdaddy

mtnwoman said:


> Most Christians don't go to church because they are perfect, they go because they realize they are imperfect.
> 
> What's the difference in that than going to a therapist, or a councelor or to rehab? I guess no atheists go to counceling of any kind or a therapist because they've got it all right?  Personally, I'd rather find my help in God than mortal man.  I think we ALL should be able to be who we want to be and not be ridiculed all the time.  I've never told a person in my life that they were stupid for believing differently than me, why can't that work towards my beliefs?



finding help in god ,when you should have been medicated is the problem with a lot of these wacko's out there that give people like me with bi-polar (or other problem)a bad rap


----------



## SemperFiDawg

vowell462 said:


> Ok. Now im lost. Please explain  what Atheism demands. It simply has a claim that there is no god. Thats what an Atheist believes. Nothing more, nothing less. So are you saying that if you are Atheist you are breaking some kind of rule for having morals?



That's the point.  Atheism demands at best nothing.  If we all just evolved from a primordial soup then we are bound by only the laws of nature where it's survival of the fittest.  That's the most that Atheist are bound to.  And that's why Peter Singer, Richard Dawkins and the others quoted above said what they did.  They had to say what they did, because they absolutely knew that to say otherwise, for instance "beastiality is immoral" would betray the foundation of Atheism, because atheism by definition is the denial of morals.  For Atheism to even acknowledge morals, right and wrong, good and bad is to deny itself.  To say something is good or bad is to also say there is a standard in which we judge by.  Then to say there is a standard, by definition, implies there's a standard giver or a God which is exactly what Atheism denies.  So athiest are left unable to call anything immoral.  They know it, and that is why they say such things as quoted above.  They are being true to the tenants of Atheism no matter how offensive it may be.


----------



## hummdaddy

SemperFiDawg said:


> That's the point.  Atheism demands at best nothing.  If we all just evolved from a primordial soup then we are bound by only the laws of nature where it's survival of the fittest.  That's the most that Atheist are bound to.  And that's why Peter Flew, Richard Dawkins and the others quoted above said what they did.  They had to say what they did, because they absolutely knew that to say otherwise, for instance "beastiality is immoral" would betray the foundation of Atheism, because atheism by definition is the denial of morals.  For Atheism to even acknowledge morals, right and wrong, good and bad is to deny itself.  To say something is good or bad is to also say there is a standard in which we judge by.  Then to say there is a standard, by definition, implies there's a standard giver or a God which is exactly what Atheism denies.  So athiest are left unable to call anything immoral.  They know it, and that is why they say such things as quoted above.  They are being true to the tenants of Atheism no matter how offensive it may be.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6][7] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[8][9] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[9][10]
The term atheism originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god(s)", used as a pejorative term applied to those thought to reject the gods worshipped by the larger society. With the spread of freethought, skeptical inquiry, and subsequent increase in criticism of religion, application of the term narrowed in scope. The first individuals to identify themselves using the word "atheist" lived in the 18th century.[11]
Arguments for atheism range from the philosophical to social and historical approaches. Rationales for not believing in any supernatural deity include the lack of empirical evidence,[12][13] the problem of evil, the argument from inconsistent revelations, and the argument from nonbelief.[12][14] Although some atheists have adopted secular philosophies,[15][16] there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere.[17] Many atheists hold that atheism is a more parsimonious worldview than theism, and therefore the burden of proof lies not on the atheist to disprove the existence of God, but on the theist to provide a rationale for theism.[18]
Atheism is accepted within some religious and spiritual belief systems, including Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Raelism, Neopagan movements[19] such as Wicca,[20] and nontheistic religions. Jainism and some forms of Buddhism do not advocate belief in gods,[21] whereas Hinduism holds atheism to be valid, but some schools view the path of an atheist to be difficult to follow in matters of spirituality.[22]
Since conceptions of atheism vary, determining how many atheists exist in the world today is difficult.[23] According to one estimate, atheists make up about 2.3% of the world's population, while a further 11.9% are nonreligious.[24] According to another, rates of self-reported atheism are among the highest in Western nations, again to varying degrees: United States (4%), Italy (7%), Spain (11%), Great Britain (17%), Germany (20%), and France (32%).[25] According to a 2012 report by the Pew Research Center, people describing themselves as "atheist" were 2% of the total population in the US, and within the religiously unaffiliated (or "no religion") demographic, atheists made up 12%.[26] According to a 2012 global poll conducted by WIN/GIA, 13% of the participants say they are atheists.[2


----------



## atlashunter

SemperFiDawg said:


> That's the point.  Atheism demands at best nothing.  If we all just evolved from a primordial soup then we are bound by only the laws of nature where it's survival of the fittest.  That's the most that Atheist are bound to.  And that's why Peter Flew, Richard Dawkins and the others quoted above said what they did.  They had to say what they did, because they absolutely knew that to say otherwise, for instance "beastiality is immoral" would betray the foundation of Atheism, because atheism by definition is the denial of morals.  For Atheism to even acknowledge morals, right and wrong, good and bad is to deny itself.  To say something is good or bad is to also say there is a standard in which we judge by.  Then to say there is a standard, by definition, implies there's a standard giver or a God which is exactly what Atheism denies.  So athiest are left unable to call anything immoral.  They know it, and that is why they say such things as quoted above.  They are being true to the tenants of Atheism no matter how offensive it may be.



You are one confused individual.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Maybe, but the contention is sound.


----------



## atlashunter

Not at all. You're so far out in left field you aren't even in the game any more. Read the essay in post 2.


----------



## stringmusic

SemperFiDawg said:


> That's the point.  Atheism demands at best nothing.  If we all just evolved from a primordial soup then we are bound by only the laws of nature where it's survival of the fittest.  That's the most that Atheist are bound to.  And that's why Peter Singer, Richard Dawkins and the others quoted above said what they did.  They had to say what they did, because they absolutely knew that to say otherwise, for instance "beastiality is immoral" would betray the foundation of Atheism, because atheism by definition is the denial of morals.  For Atheism to even acknowledge morals, right and wrong, good and bad is to deny itself.  To say something is good or bad is to also say there is a standard in which we judge by.  Then to say there is a standard, by definition, implies there's a standard giver or a God which is exactly what Atheism denies.  So athiest are left unable to call anything immoral.  They know it, and that is why they say such things as quoted above.  They are being true to the tenants of Atheism no matter how offensive it may be.



Spot on.

I've had "the moral" argument 100 times in here with these guys, and there is no way to get around the above argument. No matter how much someone tries to dress up a moral code, it's logically impossible at its core because their argument is rooted in nothing.


----------



## Four

There are a LOT of red herrings here...

Atheism is.


The Position that there is/are no god(s)

Atheism is not


Anything to do with morality
About how man evolved or anything to do with evolution / abiogenesis
A moral framework
The denial of morality

There are ethical/moral frameworks that are secular in nature, or at least don't require a god as a premise. We can talk about them some of you want...

The last thing i would like to mention, is that if, as a theist, and your definition of morality includes god, then we're discussing a word using different definitions. In that case yes, atheism is immoral (if you define morality as adherence to gods will or some such)

That leaves us at a bit of a dead end.


----------



## TripleXBullies

stringmusic said:


> Spot on.
> 
> I've had "the moral" argument 100 times in here with these guys, and there is no way to get around the above argument. No matter how much someone tries to dress up a moral code, it's logically impossible at its core because their argument is rooted in nothing.



So you're rooted in an idea of something. Not anything real, just an idea. Just as all other religions are rooted in the idea, thought of a supreme being. Other religions have morals based on the thought of their supreme being. Some of those religions may be peaceful enough for you to be ok with the morals that they have, others maybe not. Either way, you're rooted in an idea, not anything real. Which really isn't anything unlike atheism. 

I agree, though, that it would seem that their answers about beastiality may be because they had to in order to avoid sounding contradictory. I am sure plenty of republicans don't really care specifically about being pro-choice, but they have to say that they do.


----------



## TripleXBullies

mtnwoman said:


> Most Christians don't go to church because they are perfect, they go because they realize they are imperfect.
> 
> What's the difference in that than going to a therapist, or a councelor or to rehab? I guess no atheists go to counceling of any kind or a therapist because they've got it all right?  Personally, I'd rather find my help in God than mortal man.  I think we ALL should be able to be who we want to be and not be ridiculed all the time.  I've never told a person in my life that they were stupid for believing differently than me, why can't that work towards my beliefs?



Where in the world are you getting that from? I have been to a therapist before... It's a lot more helpful than speaking to myself in my head...


----------



## stringmusic

Four said:


> There are a LOT of red herrings here...
> 
> Atheism is.
> 
> 
> The Position that there is/are no god(s)
> 
> Atheism is not
> 
> 
> Anything to do with morality
> About how man evolved or anything to do with evolution / abiogenesis
> A moral framework
> The denial of morality



I think the contention is *atheists* and not necessarily atheism. Atheists that deny the existence of God, still have to deal with morality,how man evolved, a moral frame work etc. The claim is that without God, the problems that arrise out of the moral framework that can be conjured up by an atheist, is by definition "moraly bankrupt", and must allow for the most objectionably moral atrocities.


----------



## TripleXBullies

SemperFiDawg said:


> It seems when you cut yourself loose from all the moorings of a moral law you can't justify anything as wrong.
> 
> 
> Christopher Hitchens is one of the principal leaders of the New Atheism movement. At the end of the Christian apologist Dr. William Lane Craig vs. atheist Christopher Hitchens debate there was an audience question and answer period.VIDEO The first audience member to ask a question twice asked Christopher Hitchens to label bestiality as an immoral act, but he refused to do so.
> 
> PZ Myers wrote about bestiality:
> “	 So, to answer clueless thick-skulled Christian idiot’s question, I don’t object to bestiality in a very limited set of specific conditions, but do not support it in any way[7][8
> 
> The atheist philosopher Peter Singer defends the practice of bestiality (as well as abortion, infanticide and euthanasia).
> 
> Richard Dawkins
> "With respect to those meanings of "human" that are relevant to the morality of abortion, any fetus is less human than an adult pig."
> 
> Harry Hay (1912 - 2002) was a liberal atheist advocate of statutory rape and the widely acknowledged founder and progenitor of the activist homosexual agenda in the United States.  He was a vociferous advocate of man/boy love.  In 1986, Hay marched in a gay parade wearing a shirt emblazoned with the words "NAMBLA walks with me."
> 
> 1. The atheist and homosexual David Thorstad was a founding member of the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA).



By that account, god and the catholic church should just join nambla? Or did they create their own club? I am cautious of church members with my daughter just as I am with any one. I don't believe all catholics are little boy lovers because it's happened... countless... times I guess...


----------



## stringmusic

TripleXBullies said:


> So you're rooted in an idea of something. Not anything real, just an idea. Just as all other religions are rooted in the idea, thought of a supreme being. Other religions have morals based on the thought of their supreme being. Some of those religions may be peaceful enough for you to be ok with the morals that they have, others maybe not. Either way, you're rooted in an idea, not anything real. Which really isn't anything unlike atheism.


Yes, I'm rooted in the idea that God is the foundation and the reason we have morals, and I'm also rooted in the idea that a biblical based Christian moral framework is the moral framework in which humanity lives best.

I'm not really sure what you mean in the last sentence or two of your post. 



> I agree, though, that it would seem that their answers about beastiality may be because they had to in order to avoid sounding contradictory.



Right, do you find that to be a problem with atheism?


----------



## TripleXBullies

I find it to be a problem with people.


----------



## TripleXBullies

stringmusic said:


> Yes, I'm rooted in the idea that God is the foundation and the reason we have morals, and I'm also rooted in the idea that a biblical based Christian moral framework is the moral framework in which humanity lives best.



All of that is just an idea. Your moral framework and ultimate authority on morals is from an old book. It's not much more than any atheist could build a moral framework from. You have nothing more concrete to lay down your moral law than any other person.


----------



## stringmusic

TripleXBullies said:


> I find it to be a problem with people.



Theistic people or atheistic people?


----------



## TripleXBullies

stringmusic said:


> Theistic people or atheistic people?



People in general. Like I pointed out, I'm sure there are republicans who are in fact pro-choice, but can't say that they are. And the other way around.


----------



## stringmusic

TripleXBullies said:


> All of that is just an idea.


Yea, I get that you don't agree.



> Your moral framework and ultimate authority on morals is from an old book.


I believe core morality is inherent because we are created in the image of and by God. I also get some of my moral framework from the bible, and then, some from the culture I live in, the latter being mostly subjective. All this being guided by the Holy Spirit.




> It's not much more than any atheist could build a moral framework from. You have nothing more concrete to lay down your moral law than any other person.



In one sentence you say I don't have much more to base my argument on indicating that I do have more, and then in the next sentence you say I have nothing more, which is it?

And if you will notice, you named something concrete(the bible) that I base my morality on and then you state that I don't have anything concrete to base my morality on, which is it?


----------



## stringmusic

TripleXBullies said:


> People in general. Like I pointed out, I'm sure there are republicans who are in fact pro-choice, but can't say that they are. And the other way around.



People in general have different moral framework, do you find the one that *must* find ways to accept beastiality, raping of children and any other kind of vile act to not find theirselves in contradiction with the premise of their beliefs?


----------



## TripleXBullies

I'm certain that there are many individual atheists that I don't agree with and wouldn't want to associate with. I don't attend the church of atheism that these guys preach at every Tuesday morning. IMO what they do, doesn't reflect on me, just as normal church goers molesting children and raping women don't reflect on you.


----------



## dawg2

hummdaddy said:


> let me ask you a question...do you let every christian speak for you?


You have been known to single out a single Christian's point of view / opinion as a blanket representation of all Christian's.


----------



## dawg2

TripleXBullies said:


> By that account, god and the catholic church should just join nambla? Or did they create their own club? I am cautious of church members with my daughter just as I am with any one. I don't believe all catholics are little boy lovers because it's happened... countless... times I guess...



That post smacks of ignorance.  Catholics do not have a "monopoly" on that problem.  It just gets publicized more than other religions or groups.


----------



## TripleXBullies

stringmusic said:


> Yea, I get that you don't agree.
> 
> 
> I believe core morality is inherent because we are created in the image of and by God. I also get some of my moral framework from the bible, and then, some from the culture I live in, the latter being mostly subjective. All this being guided by the Holy Spirit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In one sentence you say I don't have much more to base my argument on indicating that I do have more, and then in the next sentence you say I have nothing more, which is it?
> 
> And if you will notice, you named something concrete(the bible) that I base my morality on and then you state that I don't have anything concrete to base my morality on, which is it?



I could base morality on the The Little Puppy Who Lost His Way if I wanted to. I'm sure I could find some morality in there. You are basing your morality off of a book, it's something, but it's based on ideas - ideas that you agree can't be PROVEN.. You believe, and trust in them, but still can't be proven. Just like all of the other religious ideas that you don't believe in.

If I am understanding you correctly, an atheist has less morality than a Hindu because they have no ultimate framework for morality. Hindu's morality is as much based off of ideas as yours or mine.


----------



## TripleXBullies

dawg2 said:


> Catholics do not have a "monopoly" on that problem.  It just gets publicized more than other religions or groups.



You're right that it happens with other groups too. I apologize, but I was just using an example.  I said "church members" I have never taken my daughter in to a Catholic church, so I was not referring to them. If it is ignorant, it is no more ignorant than the post it was in response to.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

atlashunter said:


> Not at all. You're so far out in left field you aren't even in the game any more. Read the essay in post 2.



Read it.  It's full of more holes than a turkey shoot target.


----------



## dawg2

TripleXBullies said:


> By that account, god and the catholic church should just join nambla? Or did they create their own club? I am cautious of church members with my daughter just as I am with any one. I don't believe all catholics are little boy lovers because it's happened... countless... times I guess...





TripleXBullies said:


> You're right that it happens with other groups too. I apologize, but I was just using an example.  I said "church members" I have never taken my daughter in to a Catholic church, so I was not referring to them. If it is ignorant, it is no more ignorant than the post it was in response to.


See highlighted part.  That is specifically what I am referring to.  It is pretty clear you named a specific denomination and painted with a very broad brush.

I find it "funny" you guys take off on a tangent because the OP uses a singular point with which to define ALL atheists.  Then you guys do the same with Christians.  How ironic.


----------



## TripleXBullies

The OP was using that broad brush, so I was using the same broad brush.... After I used that broad brush, I then said, "I DO NOT BELIEVE ALL CATHOLICS ARE LITTLE BOY LOVERS." It's ironic that I'm being realistic?

What is TRULY ironic, is that we can't even use that broad brush when we speak about christian values generally... because every christian still believes in something a little bit different than the the next. We can't use the broad brush on THE BIBLE... because no one understands it the same way, or wants to believe the same things about it.


----------



## Four

stringmusic said:


> I think the contention is *atheists* and not necessarily atheism. Atheists that deny the existence of God, still have to deal with morality,how man evolved, a moral frame work etc. The claim is that without God, the problems that arrise out of the moral framework that can be conjured up by an atheist, is by definition "moraly bankrupt", and must allow for the most objectionably moral atrocities.



Then its a semantics problem.

If you want to bring up things that seem intrinsically immoral, like murder, rape, etc. We can talk about how different secular frameworks handle it.. because they do account for them....

But we really cant discuss morality if you begin with the principle/axiom that morality requires a diety.


----------



## dawg2

TripleXBullies said:


> The OP was using that broad brush, so I was using the same broad brush.... After I used that broad brush, I then said, "I DO NOT BELIEVE ALL CATHOLICS ARE LITTLE BOY LOVERS." It's ironic that I'm being realistic?
> 
> What is TRULY ironic, is that we can't even use that broad brush when we speak about christian values generally... because every christian still believes in something a little bit different than the the next. We can't use the broad brush on THE BIBLE... because no one understands it the same way, or wants to believe the same things about it.


Broad brushes to make points is sophmoric.  Regardless of who uses them.  You are right, there is no broad brush for Christians nor Atheists to use that defines their morals, beliefs or disbeliefs, or them as "people."


----------



## dawg2

Four said:


> Then its a semantics problem.
> 
> If you want to bring up things that seem intrinsically immoral, like murder, rape, etc. We can talk about how different secular frameworks handle it.. because they do account for them....
> 
> But we really cant discuss morality if you begin with the principle/axiom that morality requires a diety.



I before E except after C...except for -->"Deity"


----------



## Four

dawg2 said:


> I before E except after C...except for -->"Deity"



I like to pronounce it Die-itty.

Forgive, i'm hooked on phonics


----------



## dawg2

Four said:


> I like to pronounce it Die-itty.
> 
> Forgive, i'm hooked on phonics



It's OK to be wrong


----------



## TheBishop

To the Op.

Were morals around before Christ?

Do other people of other faiths have morals?

Which denomination is the most moral? 

Define morality.


----------



## atlashunter

I'm glad our resident theists have an objective source of morality to let them know slavery is moral and sex with minors isn't. Otherwise how would they really know?


----------



## TheBishop

dawg2 said:


> Broad brushes to make points is sophmoric.  Regardless of who uses them.  You are right, there is no broad brush for Christians nor Atheists to use that defines their morals, beliefs or disbeliefs, or them as "people."



Talking christianity, athiesm, and how they relate to the ever changing morallity is painting with an extremely  broad brush. It's like saying conservatives are fear mongering racist, that carry guns and go to church on sunday. Though truth may be found in that statement, it's using truth to manipulate the uniformed.


----------



## TheBishop

atlashunter said:


> I'm glad our resident theists have an objective source of morality to let them know slavery is moral and sex with minors isn't. Otherwise how would they really know?



It's only moral if god says so....


----------



## JB0704

atlashunter said:


> I'm glad our resident theists have an objective source of morality to let them know slavery is moral and sex with minors isn't. Otherwise how would they really know?



That's the reason why I think individual morality is chosen.  Our (Theists) "objective" source is subject, in action, to our interpretation (not in truth). 

-Lot's of folks see my objective source (The Bible) differently, thus, the various denominations.
-I tend to think those who commit "evil" in the name of God view the source (The Bible) incorrectly.
-The above statement is subjective to my interpretation of the source (Atlas will obviously disagree with my assessment of the source, as I believe it in no way advocates slavery or sex with minors).

That being the case, I think every belief system is subjective to personal choice.  We choose our basis for morality.  Whether that is a contemporary interpretation of the Bible, or a humanistic code, objectivism, whatever.....each includes a human element in acting upon that code.

The only difference is I have a "source" outside of my personal opinion.....that "source," however, is limited by my interpretation.....or, more likely, I limit the source with my interpretation.


----------



## hummdaddy

dawg2 said:


> You have been known to single out a single Christian's point of view / opinion as a blanket representation of all Christian's.



do you think the only christians i know are on here?the world is full of them and i talk to many of them all the time


----------



## TheBishop

JB0704 said:


> The only difference is I have a "source" outside of my personal opinion.....that "source," however, is limited by my interpretation.....or, more likely, I limit the source with my interpretation.



The fact that your source needs interpretation, makes it subjective, and a poor choice for anything you are trying to assign an objective value.


----------



## JB0704

TheBishop said:


> The fact that your source needs interpretation, makes it subjective, and a poor choice for anything you are trying to assign an objective value.



Is that the source's limitation, or my own?


----------



## atlashunter

JB0704 said:


> That's the reason why I think individual morality is chosen.  Our (Theists) "objective" source is subject, in action, to our interpretation (not in truth).
> 
> -Lot's of folks see my objective source (The Bible) differently, thus, the various denominations.
> -I tend to think those who commit "evil" in the name of God view the source (The Bible) incorrectly.
> -The above statement is subjective to my interpretation of the source (Atlas will obviously disagree with my assessment of the source, as I believe it in no way advocates slavery or sex with minors).
> 
> That being the case, I think every belief system is subjective to personal choice.  We choose our basis for morality.  Whether that is a contemporary interpretation of the Bible, or a humanistic code, objectivism, whatever.....each includes a human element in acting upon that code.
> 
> The only difference is I have a "source" outside of my personal opinion.....that "source," however, is limited by my interpretation.....or, more likely, I limit the source with my interpretation.



I've known many christians who claim the bible as their source of morality but I haven't known any for which that is actually true.


----------



## JB0704

atlashunter said:


> I've known many christians who claim the bible as their source of morality but I haven't known any for which that is actually true.



According to you, perhaps.  But not according to them.  Which is my point.

We each choose our "moral code."  The basis for that is what varies.  I have a book to point too, you maybe would have natural law, Ayn Rand, or whatever else, but it is chosen by the individual.


----------



## TheBishop

JB0704 said:


> Is that the source's limitation, or my own?



The sources credibility rises with diminished ambiguity. The more it can be interpretated the less qualified it becomes as a reliable source.


----------



## JB0704

TheBishop said:


> The more it can be interpretated the less qualified it becomes as a reliable source.



....that is a personal judgement call.  Your neighbor could declare you a liberal based on your choice of vehicle (I have no idea what you drive, it is a hypothetical).  That wouldn't make you a liberal.  That would be their fault for misreading the indicators.


----------



## atlashunter

JB0704 said:


> According to you, perhaps.  But not according to them.  Which is my point.



I wouldn't expect them to admit they don't really get their sense of morality from the bible. But it isn't hard to see that is the case.


----------



## JB0704

atlashunter said:


> I wouldn't expect them to admit they don't really get their sense of morality from the bible.



You are basing that on what you see in the Bible.  What you see in the Bible is based on your perspective.  How is that any different than their experience?

Why are you right, and they wrong?


----------



## mtnwoman

hummdaddy said:


> finding help in god ,when you should have been medicated is the problem with a lot of these wacko's out there that give people like me with bi-polar (or other problem)a bad rap



Why a bad rap? Any meds that anyone takes was created by God and scientists simply discovered it. Those things these meds are made out of were already here from creation. I take a sleep medication, because I need one. But I know in essence that medication came from something God created, I have no problem saying that nor do I care for people who would give me a bad rap for it by saying just ask God to heal you. Well I have and He did by providing the 'chemicals' I needed. My stance on it, is God gave scientists/doctors wisdom to discover these combo platters of meds that some of us have/need to take. 

The compounds of meds that any of us take were essentially created by God for our good...the OT tells us that. That's one reason I don't have a problem with people or give them a bad rap for smoking weed....satan didn't create it but may cause some to abuse it, but I truly believe even things like weed were made for us.....not sure it was made to smoke, just saying it was made for our good. Obviously some new discoveries/studies/whatever have given credit for good uses of pot.

Addiction to pain killers and stuff like that is misused by some for other reasons than what is was 'compounded' for...those are the types of problems that we need strength above our own or other men's strength. I'm sure you don't consider that you are addicted to 'your' bipolar medication, just like my sister doesn't consider herself addicted to insulin, whereas some people use insulin to lose weight which I consider abuse and dangerous, like the illegal use of many other things that have a good use for all of us. 

Hope that makes sense.


----------



## mtnwoman

atlashunter said:


> I've known many christians who claim the bible as their source of morality but I haven't known any for which that is actually true.



But you don't like Christians, so I doubt you hang out with that many and would compliment anything any of us do. But I agree. Our morality stinks as much as anyone else's....we try but we fail at things just like any other human.  Just because I believe everything in the Bible, I've found it to be almost impossible to abide by as far as my own actions go....that's why I need Jesus to be my scapegoat and thankful that He was provided to forgive my sins...no matter how hard I try, I miss the mark every single day of my life.


----------



## dawg2

TheBishop said:


> The sources credibility rises with diminished ambiguity. The more it can be interpretated the less qualified it becomes as a reliable source.



Same goes with the fish we catch or the deer, turkey etc. we hunt.  Everyone disagrees on what a "trophy" is.


----------



## ted_BSR

Morality is a generally accepted code of conduct. There is no religious basis to it, it is what YOU accept. There really is no place for a discussion about morality on this forum. It is automatically not applicable due to the various belief systems that are displayed here.

If you want to talk about what is right and wrong, then talk about the absolute truth, whatever you think it is.

Abortion is legal in this country, and therefore is probably generally considered to be moral. I don't think it is moral. But my perception of absolute truth is anchored in my belief in God. Someone else's morality may not be. It may be anchored in common sense. My common senses also tells me that abortion is not moral, but I am just a guy who believes in God. Morality fits whatever mold you want to put it in. The absolute truth is much more harsh.


----------



## ted_BSR

TheBishop said:


> The sources credibility rises with diminished ambiguity. The more it can be interpretated the less qualified it becomes as a reliable source.



Sort of like, if YOU went to a Christian dedication ceremony at a church to dedicate one of your children to a god you don't believe in, then your credibility as an atheist would be "less qualified as a reliable source." Yeah, I get it.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Four said:


> There are a LOT of red herrings here...
> 
> Atheism is.
> 
> 
> The Position that there is/are no god(s)
> 
> Atheism is not
> 
> 
> Anything to do with morality
> About how man evolved or anything to do with evolution / abiogenesis
> A moral framework
> The denial of morality



I agree with all of your points with only one comment on your last. "Atheism is not the denial of morality." I would add Atheism is not affirmation of morality either. I think that's what you meant by "Atheism is not anything to do with morality" which I believe is correct. 
 Atheism is in fact amoral, and can neither affirm nor deny if some act or position is right or wrong.  Everything simply is as it is.  An actual Atheist may make a moral judgement but he is betraying his belief by borrowing from something other than Athiesm to do so.  That's exactly why the quotes I posted above by some of Athiesms most prominent thinkers, while they may strike the ordinary person ask shocking, are completely understandable to Athiest.  To the Atheist these 'Top Guns' 
if you will, are simply being true to the tenants of Atheism.


----------



## bullethead

ted_BSR said:


> Morality is a generally accepted code of conduct. There is no religious basis to it, it is what YOU accept. There really is no place for a discussion about morality on this forum. It is automatically not applicable due to the various belief systems that are displayed here.
> 
> If you want to talk about what is right and wrong, then talk about the absolute truth, whatever you think it is.
> 
> Abortion is legal in this country, and therefore is probably generally considered to be moral. I don't think it is moral. But my perception of absolute truth is anchored in my belief in God. Someone else's morality may not be. It may be anchored in common sense. My common senses also tells me that abortion is not moral, but I am just a guy who believes in God. Morality fits whatever mold you want to put it in. The absolute truth is much more harsh.



I'm gonna have to agree with a lot of this.


----------



## bullethead

SemperFiDawg said:


> I agree with all of your points with only one comment on your last. "Atheism is not the denial of morality." I would add Atheism is not affirmation of morality either. I think that's what you meant by "Atheism is not anything to do with morality" which I believe is correct.
> Atheism is in fact amoral, and can neither affirm nor deny if some act or position is right or wrong.  Everything simply is as it is.  An actual Atheist may make a moral judgement but he is betraying his belief by borrowing from something other than Athiesm to do so.  That's exactly why the quotes I posted above by some of Athiesms most prominent thinkers, while they may strike the ordinary person ask shocking, are completely understandable to Athiest.  To the Atheist these 'Top Guns'
> if you will, are simply being true to the tenants of Atheism.



What exactly are the tenets of Atheism?


----------



## bullethead

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/18/good-minus-god/


----------



## bullethead

SemperFiDawg said:


> Atheism is in fact amoral, and can neither affirm nor deny if some act or position is right or wrong. .


According to you maybe......

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismatheistsmorals/a/AtheistsMoral.htm


----------



## atlashunter

JB0704 said:


> You are basing that on what you see in the Bible.  What you see in the Bible is based on your perspective.  How is that any different than their experience?
> 
> Why are you right, and they wrong?



I guess we would just have to walk through some examples.


----------



## atlashunter

bullethead said:


> What exactly are the tenets of Atheism?



Bullet please. It's not tenets it is tenants. Apparently there is a landlord somewhere named Atheism and SFD knows their renters. If you either affirm or deny morality then you are in disagreement with them.


----------



## JB0704

atlashunter said:


> I guess we would just have to walk through some examples.



Ok.  Which perspective if the bible are we going to use to judge their morality by?


----------



## atlashunter

JB0704 said:


> Ok.  Which perspective if the bible are we going to use to judge their morality by?



Well let's start from the point of deciding whether or not to include the OT as our objective source of morality. Should christians still use it to determine what is and isn't moral?


----------



## JB0704

atlashunter said:


> Should christians still use it to determine what is and isn't moral?



It depends on the application.  If we are discussing the Law, then no.  Same as if we are discussing how we deal with opposition in light of the examples set later in the book when grace comes into play.  If a person is looking for wisdom and reads Proverbs, I don't see how that would contradict later teachings.

Can we get more specific?


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> It depends on the application.  If we are discussing the Law, then no.  Same as if we are discussing how we deal with opposition in light of the examples set later in the book when grace comes into play.  If a person is looking for wisdom and reads Proverbs, I don't see how that would contradict later teachings.
> 
> Can we get more specific?



What if we are discussing the Jewish faith and the Christian faith? Same God without the New Testament.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

atlashunter said:


> Well let's start from the point of deciding whether or not to include the OT as our objective source of morality. Should christians still use it to determine what is and isn't moral?



Better yet.  Why not start with the point in the OP and address it, instead of ignoring it and attempting to derail the thread.


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> What if we are discussing the Jewish faith and the Christian faith? Same God without the New Testament.



I let y'all pick the perspective.  Just go with one, and we can discuss it.


----------



## Artfuldodger

SemperFiDawg said:


> Better yet.  Why not start with the point in the OP and address it, instead of ignoring it and attempting to derail the thread.



I wouldn't see it as a derail. If a Christain is going to proclaim an Atheist has no basis for morals, it is only fair to show where your morals come from and in what scriptures. Just as important would be why the Christian God would give morals to Hindus and not Atheist.


----------



## mtnwoman

atlashunter said:


> I've known many christians who claim the bible as their source of morality but I haven't known any for which that is actually true.



So thou shalt not kill, or steal, or covet your neighbors wife are not moral codes. I don't have it in me to kill, unless it would be a life threatening situation. I have done many other things....I've cheated before, but wouldn't now because I'm back in the word.  I guess I have something in me now that I just can't explain here.....the Holy Spirit is like an umpire in my soul leading me...'don't go here, don't go there, don't do this, don't do that'....or maybe it's more like a 'sponsor' except in spirit and not in flesh. There's no way to explain that to anyone, that's why we believe by faith, it's there, we know it's there but we can't prove it because we are not perfect, and we know it's there because we can't be perfect especially on our own. And I'm speaking of myself. It's my support system and it works for me. You may be strong enough to fix all your problems yourself, but I know for a fact that I am not.


----------



## mtnwoman

TripleXBullies said:


> Where in the world are you getting that from? I have been to a therapist before... It's a lot more helpful than speaking to myself in my head...



I've been to a therapist before, too....I guess you missed my point, that I also seek help in God. All I was trying to do was make the point that wisdom and knowledge is given to doctors/scientists/whatever to help us. Just so happens we have all the ingredients available to us to make paxil, xanax, vicodin, aspirin, etc etc, and they are of good use to us, to me that's not by accident we have those things. God created the ingredients that are used to heal and/or help us. That's all I'm sayin'.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

bullethead said:


> http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/18/good-minus-god/



The contention of this entire article are pretty much summed up in the authors statement:
"We “moralistic atheists” do not see right and wrong as artifacts of a divine protection racket.  Rather, we find moral value to be immanent in the natural world, arising from the vulnerabilities of sentient beings and from the capacities of rational beings to recognize and to respond to those vulnerabilities and capacities in others." Yet, she doesn't even attempt to offer any evidence to support her position.  The rest of the article is a rather weak attempt to prove that morality doesn't come from God.  I find it interesting that her only book is a compilation of essays from other writers.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Artfuldodger said:


> I wouldn't see it as a derail. If a Christain is going to proclaim an Atheist has no basis for morals, it is only fair to show where your morals come from and in what scriptures. Just as important would be why the Christian God would give morals to Hindus and not Atheist.



That's fine and I have no problem defending Christian morals, but based on the depth and breadth of the issue I think again it would be better served with a separate thread.  If you want to start it I'll gladly contribute.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

ted_BSR said:


> Morality is a generally accepted code of conduct.



Care to elaborate on that?



ted_BSR said:


> There is no religious basis to it, it is what YOU accept.



Evidence please?



ted_BSR said:


> There really is no place for a discussion about morality on this forum.



You're kidding me right.  So let me get this straight.  It's perfectly fine to question the morals of the Christian, Jewish, Islamic beliefs, but when it to Atheist, then there's no place for it.  



ted_BSR said:


> It is automatically not applicable due to the various belief systems that are displayed here.



Bahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaas!


----------



## gtparts

I believe that an individual's moral code is derived from what he or she reads or hears, and what they have experienced. I also think that most can articulate what they believe and usually, to a lesser degree, the source or origin of that personally held position. 

Local traditions, cultural strictures, and imposed laws of governing bodies seem to form a loose framework for secular morality. Often those cultural influences are derived in part or in whole from the religion(s) of the indigenous people. Typically, the majority find sufficient common ground from which they build community. 

Then, there are those who place their reliance on the wisdom and character of a "higher being" to establish and guide their moral code and character. Often there is friction between those who form their own concept of morality and those who are yielded to a "higher authority". The former group seem to be as "moral" as they care to be. The latter group seem to always be focused on improving their personal performance in light of a higher standard.


----------



## bullethead

gtparts said:


> I believe that an individual's moral code is derived from what he or she reads or hears, and what they have experienced. I also think that most can articulate what they believe and usually, to a lesser degree, the source or origin of that personally held position.
> 
> Local traditions, cultural strictures, and imposed laws of governing bodies seem to form a loose framework for secular morality. Often those cultural influences are derived in part or in whole from the religion(s) of the indigenous people. Typically, the majority find sufficient common ground from which they build community.
> 
> Then, there are those who place their reliance on the wisdom and character of a "higher being" to establish and guide their moral code and character. Often there is friction between those who form their own concept of morality and those who are yielded to a "higher authority". The former group seem to be as "moral" as they care to be. The latter group seem to always be focused on improving their personal performance in light of a higher standard.



Thought it was well said until the last paragraph.
I know personally I have always tried to represent my parents, family, neighborhood and area as best as I could. I always try to keep that in my children's minds too. I/we always strive to do the right thing as our actions are a reflection of our upbringing, family and place we live in. Improvement is always on my mind because I think that is the right thing to do, proper way to conduct myself and proper way to raise my Son's. I hope it is how they raise their children also. Being the best a person can be does not require a God. Giving a wallet full of cash back to it's rightful owner does not need to be so because of a higher power outside of this world. The only higher power necessary for me is Family. I want to represent them in the best way possible out of respect. When I hear that my boys are "well mannered young men" "very respectful" "courteous" "honest" "helpful" it is a reflection on their upbringing IE: Me/Wife, and mine was from my parents and theirs from their parents. I don't try to be my best because I fear a god or because I'm trying to gain brownie points in a god's eye. I have high moral standards and act accordingly because that is how I was raised. Give respect and be respected.


----------



## TheBishop

ted_BSR said:


> Sort of like, if YOU went to a Christian dedication ceremony at a church to dedicate one of your children to a god you don't believe in, then your credibility as an atheist would be "less qualified as a reliable source." Yeah, I get it.



Yeagh, absolutely nothing like that.


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> Thought it was well said until the last paragraph.
> I know personally I have always tried to represent my parents, family, neighborhood and area as best as I could. I always try to keep that in my children's minds too. I/we always strive to do the right thing as our actions are a reflection of our upbringing, family and place we live in. Improvement is always on my mind because I think that is the right thing to do, proper way to conduct myself and proper way to raise my Son's. I hope it is how they raise their children also. Being the best a person can be does not require a God. Giving a wallet full of cash back to it's rightful owner does not need to be so because of a higher power outside of this world. The only higher power necessary for me is Family. I want to represent them in the best way possible out of respect. When I hear that my boys are "well mannered young men" "very respectful" "courteous" "honest" "helpful" it is a reflection on their upbringing IE: Me/Wife, and mine was from my parents and theirs from their parents. I don't try to be my best because I fear a god or because I'm trying to gain brownie points in a god's eye. I have high moral standards and act accordingly because that is how I was raised. Give respect and be respected.



I think the point is, that while both a Christian and an Atheist can have high moral standards, Christianity denounces immoral behavior on account of God, while Atheism cannot objectively denounce anything, immoral or not. Hence the disgusting quotes in the OP.


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> I think the point is, that while both a Christian and an Atheist can have high moral standards, Christianity denounces immoral behavior on account of God, while Atheism cannot objectively denounce anything, immoral or not. Hence the disgusting quotes in the OP.



People do not wear their atheism badges like most religious people do. There are no badges to wear. They do not have or feel the need to include being an Atheist or Atheism. If they don't believe in a god that is about as far as it goes. Not near as much thought goes into it as you guys seem to think it does.
Speaking for myself I "do" because I feel it is the best thing, "right" thing for me to do. I denounce things that I consider to be immoral on account of myself, friends, family, and society. 
You are using Atheism as some sort of cult or religion that has some sort of rules. At best, you and others are guessing and assuming things that are just plain wrong. Quite frankly, You are giving atheism more credit than it needs, wants or deserves. Atheism cannot denounce anything but someone who does not believe in a god certainly can.


----------



## bullethead

Atheism/Atheist is a term given to people that do not believe in a god or gods.
I am certainly not a card carrying member of any sort of club. I do not adhere to a strict code of atheism.......in fact I could not tell you if there is such a thing. I am able to go on with everyday life doing everything I did as a "christian" without upsetting the apple cart. There is absolutely zero change in my persona, manners or morals. It is highly doubtful that any neighbor, acquaintance or customer of mine has any clue to my affiliation with a religion or not, let alone a system of belief or disbelief.


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> I think the point is, that while both a Christian and an Atheist can have high moral standards, Christianity denounces immoral behavior on account of God, while Atheism cannot objectively denounce anything, immoral or not. Hence the disgusting quotes in the OP.



This may come as a surprise to you but some of the biggest scum bags possessing the lowest set of morals I have ever witnessed tout themselves as being followers of Christ.
Unlike what you have done above, I don't lump everyone in the same category because of the actions of a few nit-wits.
You make it sound like the quotes in the OP are the result of those people not believing in a God. Believing or not believing has little to do with it. Individuals should be held responsible for their actions because they are individuals.


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> Atheism/Atheist is a term given to people that do not believe in a god or gods.
> I am certainly not a card carrying member of any sort of club. I do not adhere to a strict code of atheism.......in fact I could not tell you if there is such a thing. I am able to go on with everyday life doing everything I did as a "christian" without upsetting the apple cart. There is absolutely zero change in my persona, manners or morals. It is highly doubtful that any neighbor, acquaintance or customer of mine has any clue to my affiliation with a religion or not, let alone a system of belief or disbelief.



I have no doubt all of that's true.

But to the point I have been making, that is a personal choice based on your source, as is mine.  The only difficulty I see would be in determining 'why' things ought be a certain way.  That in no way means you disregard all codes, just that all might begin equally, or, are equally defensible if the only source is personal preference.

Morality is an interesting thing, visit the political forum to see full effort at justifying discrimination from a moral perspective, giving evidence to the concept that even folks with the same source can have very different perspectives.


----------



## hummdaddy

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/12/where-do-morals-come-from/

being nice to others and cooperating with them aren't uniquely human traits. Frans de Waal, director of Emory University's Living Links Center at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center in Lawrenceville, Georgia, studies how our close primate relatives also demonstrate behaviors suggestive of a sense of morality.

differences that may explain how bonobos and chimpanzees don't look or act like us even though we share about 99% of our DNA.

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/06/bonobo-genome-sequenced.html


----------



## ted_BSR

TheBishop said:


> Yeagh, absolutely nothing like that.



Seems like an easy club to join. You don't have to believe in anything, or stand up for anything. Just do whatever you want and answer to no one. I can see how it has appeal, but I am one to stand up for beliefs, or lack of them. Wishy washy has no appeal for me.

Edited to be crystal clear: Bishop - My point is, that you don't have credibility as an atheist or an agnostic, because you dabble in religion for whatever reason you have to meet your own needs. Undoubtedly, it is difficult to lack credibility as a non-believer, but you have accomplished it. Congratulations.


----------



## ted_BSR

bullethead said:


> This may come as a surprise to you but some of the biggest scum bags possessing the lowest set of morals I have ever witnessed tout themselves as being followers of Christ.
> Unlike what you have done above, I don't lump everyone in the same category because of the actions of a few nit-wits.
> You make it sound like the quotes in the OP are the result of those people not believing in a God. Believing or not believing has little to do with it. Individuals should be held responsible for their actions because they are individuals.



Who should they be held responsible to?


----------



## ted_BSR

bullethead said:


> People do not wear their atheism badges like most religious people do. There are no badges to wear. They do not have or feel the need to include being an Atheist or Atheism. If they don't believe in a god that is about as far as it goes. Not near as much thought goes into it as you guys seem to think it does.
> Speaking for myself I "do" because I feel it is the best thing, "right" thing for me to do. I denounce things that I consider to be immoral on account of myself, friends, family, and society.
> You are using Atheism as some sort of cult or religion that has some sort of rules. At best, you and others are guessing and assuming things that are just plain wrong. Quite frankly, You are giving atheism more credit than it needs, wants or deserves. Atheism cannot denounce anything but someone who does not believe in a god certainly can.



Lot of atheist badges on this forum.


----------



## ted_BSR

bullethead said:


> Thought it was well said until the last paragraph.
> I know personally I have always tried to represent my parents, family, neighborhood and area as best as I could. I always try to keep that in my children's minds too. I/we always strive to do the right thing as our actions are a reflection of our upbringing, family and place we live in. Improvement is always on my mind because I think that is the right thing to do, proper way to conduct myself and proper way to raise my Son's. I hope it is how they raise their children also. Being the best a person can be does not require a God. Giving a wallet full of cash back to it's rightful owner does not need to be so because of a higher power outside of this world. The only higher power necessary for me is Family. I want to represent them in the best way possible out of respect. When I hear that my boys are "well mannered young men" "very respectful" "courteous" "honest" "helpful" it is a reflection on their upbringing IE: Me/Wife, and mine was from my parents and theirs from their parents. I don't try to be my best because I fear a god or because I'm trying to gain brownie points in a god's eye. I have high moral standards and act accordingly because that is how I was raised. Give respect and be respected.



This is a nice fantasy. And you don't even have an ancient mythical book to base it on.


----------



## ted_BSR

SemperFiDawg said:


> Care to elaborate on that?
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence please?
> 
> 
> 
> You're kidding me right.  So let me get this straight.  It's perfectly fine to question the morals of the Christian, Jewish, Islamic beliefs, but when it to Atheist, then there's no place for it.
> 
> 
> 
> Bahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaas!



I don't think you understand what morality is.


----------



## mtnwoman

TripleXBullies said:


> I'm certain that there are many individual atheists that I don't agree with and wouldn't want to associate with. I don't attend the church of atheism that these guys preach at every Tuesday morning. IMO what they do, doesn't reflect on me, just as normal church goers molesting children and raping women don't reflect on you.



Thank you, that was a very nice post. I can't group Christians or Atheists all in the same box. I appreciate what you said.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

stringmusic said:


> I think the point is, that while both a Christian and an Atheist can have high moral standards, Christianity denounces immoral behavior on account of God, while Atheism cannot objectively denounce anything, immoral or not. Hence the disgusting quotes in the OP.



Bingo


----------



## SemperFiDawg

bullethead said:


> People do not wear their atheism badges like most religious people do. There are no badges to wear. They do not have or feel the need to include being an Atheist or Atheism. If they don't believe in a god that is about as far as it goes. Not near as much thought goes into it as you guys seem to think it does.
> Speaking for myself I "do" because I feel it is the best thing, "right" thing for me to do. I denounce things that I consider to be immoral on account of myself, friends, family, and society.
> You are using Atheism as some sort of cult or religion that has some sort of rules. At best, you and others are guessing and assuming things that are just plain wrong. Quite frankly, You are giving atheism more credit than it needs, wants or deserves. Atheism cannot denounce anything but someone who does not believe in a god certainly can.



Bullet, based on your post you obviously have morals.  I honestly have no doubt in that.  To be honest they probably put mine to shame.  Again being honest.  You say you uphold them in essence to well represent the the ones you love, your family.  Absolutely nothing wrong with that.  It's very admirable.  My point is where do you attribute them coming from, because you can't honestly say atheism.  It is an amoral belief system.


----------



## ted_BSR

SemperFiDawg said:


> Bullet, based on your post you obviously have morals.  I honestly have no doubt in that.  To be honest they probably put mine to shame.  Again being honest.  You say you uphold them in essence to well represent the the ones you love, your family.  Absolutely nothing wrong with that.  It's very admirable.  My point is where do you attribute them coming from, because you can't honestly say atheism.  It is an amoral belief system.



Morals aside, I think it is the antithesis of a belief system. He doesn't have to attribute his morals coming from anywhere but himself (his upbringing, his peers, his family).


----------



## SemperFiDawg

ted_BSR said:


> I don't think you understand what morality is.



Again, enlighten me.


----------



## bullethead

ted_BSR said:


> This is a nice fantasy. And you don't even have an ancient mythical book to base it on.



Cranky much?


----------



## SemperFiDawg

bullethead said:


> Atheism/Atheist is a term given to people that do not believe in a god or gods.
> I am certainly not a card carrying member of any sort of club. I do not adhere to a strict code of atheism.......in fact I could not tell you if there is such a thing. I am able to go on with everyday life doing everything I did as a "christian" without upsetting the apple cart. There is absolutely zero change in my persona, manners or morals. It is highly doubtful that any neighbor, acquaintance or customer of mine has any clue to my affiliation with a religion or not, let alone a system of belief or disbelief.



Well no one is gonna accuse you of proselytizing with that ringing endorsement.  That's for sure.  The sad point is you're probably surrounded by neighbors, acquaintances and customers who are Christians,  yet who have not made an impression on you that anything is different about them than everyone else.  Not your fault.  Theirs.  P.S.  I pray you're not one of my co-workers, else I'm worse than I thought.


----------



## bullethead

SemperFiDawg said:


> Bullet, based on your post you obviously have morals.  I honestly have no doubt in that.  To be honest they probably put mine to shame.  Again being honest.  You say you uphold them in essence to well represent the the ones you love, your family.  Absolutely nothing wrong with that.  It's very admirable.  My point is where do you attribute them coming from, because you can't honestly say atheism.  It is an amoral belief system.



I tribute them coming from the earliest humans needs to be social. We are not loners. We need to be social. The more people gathered together to live the more social behavior formed. Morals went hand in hand as to what is acceptable, tolerated, and unacceptable by society.
I do not think they come from atheism. I don't think anything comes from atheism. It is not like a bunch of non believers of god got together and formed a gang and picked that name. It is a name society uses to describe a non belief in higher powers/gods.
Morals have been around longer than religions.

But I wonder that if I say my morals come from Odin, Zeus or Krishna would I get any less grief from the God crowd?


----------



## SemperFiDawg

hummdaddy said:


> http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/12/where-do-morals-come-from/
> 
> being nice to others and cooperating with them aren't uniquely human traits. Frans de Waal, director of Emory University's Living Links Center at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center in Lawrenceville, Georgia, studies how our close primate relatives also demonstrate behaviors suggestive of a sense of morality.
> 
> differences that may explain how bonobos and chimpanzees don't look or act like us even though we share about 99% of our DNA.
> 
> http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/06/bonobo-genome-sequenced.html




Let me know when his primates reach this stage 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forgiving_Dr._Mengele


----------



## bullethead

SemperFiDawg said:


> Well no one is gonna accuse you of proselytizing with that ringing endorsement.  That's for sure.  The sad point is you're probably surrounded by neighbors, acquaintances and customers who are Christians,  yet who have not made an impression on you that anything is different about them than everyone else.  Not your fault.  Theirs.  P.S.  I pray you're not one of my co-workers, else I'm worse than I thought.



It is people like you that drive others away from religion with total whacked out statements like that.

Chalk up another answered prayer to your God. But then again anyone worth their internet skills would see that I am in Pennsylvania so why pray for something you know is already in your favor.


----------



## StriperAddict

SemperFiDawg said:


> Let me know when his primates reach this stage
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forgiving_Dr._Mengele



Great link, thanks. More of her incredible story here:
*A Holocaust Survivor's Path to Peace*


----------



## SemperFiDawg

ted_BSR said:


> Morals aside, I think it is the antithesis of a belief system.



O.K.  You lost me.  What are you talking about.



ted_BSR said:


> He doesn't have to attribute his morals coming from anywhere but himself (his upbringing, his peers, his family).


 
 Are you implying nature vs nurture or nature plus nurture?  Either way its coming from somewhere other than himself, but certainly not Atheism according to you, which again reinforces my original point.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

bullethead said:


> It is people like you that drive others away from religion with total whacked out statements like that.
> 
> Chalk up another answered prayer to your God. But then again anyone worth their internet skills would see that I am in Pennsylvania so why pray for something you know is already in your favor.



Bullet, please go back and re-read this post.  It was said with a wink but the utmost humility on my part.  What I'm attempting to say after the original jest is:  As a Christian if I'm not conducting my life in a manner that others( you) take notice of and want to emulate, then I'm not doing a very good job". It's not a reflection on you in any way, but on me and my failings.


----------



## atlashunter

JB0704 said:


> It depends on the application.  If we are discussing the Law, then no.  Same as if we are discussing how we deal with opposition in light of the examples set later in the book when grace comes into play.  If a person is looking for wisdom and reads Proverbs, I don't see how that would contradict later teachings.
> 
> Can we get more specific?




This is really odd to me. At one time there was knowledge of morality to be gleaned from the OT law. Now there isn't. Did the morality of these laws change? At one time they were moral but now they are immoral? That doesn't sound very objective at all. Sounds more like our morality has evolved over time. And if Christians shouldn't get their morality from OT law then why do they so often tout the ten commandments for that very purpose?

Anyway, not a big deal for the purpose of this discussion. We can stick with new testament. It instructs slaves to obey their masters, to fear and respect them, and to serve them sincerely. Is that moral?

And one last question. Going back to the OP if a topic such as bestiality isn't addressed in the NT does that mean christians should take a neutral stand on it even if the OT law forbade it?


----------



## bullethead

SemperFiDawg said:


> Bullet, please go back and re-read this post.  It was said with a wink but the utmost humility on my part.  What I'm attempting to say after the original jest is:  As a Christian if I'm not conducting my life in a manner that others( you) take notice of and want to emulate, then I'm not doing a very good job". It's not a reflection on you in any way, but on me and my failings.



I must have missed the wink.
We are on equal ground except I worship one less god than you do. That is about the only difference.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

StriperAddict said:


> Great link, thanks. More of her incredible story here:
> *A Holocaust Survivor's Path to Peace*



Documentary is on Netflix.  It is soul wrenching no matter what your belief system is.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

bullethead said:


> I tribute them coming from the earliest humans needs to be social. We are not loners. We need to be social. The more people gathered together to live the more social behavior formed. Morals went hand in hand as to what is acceptable, tolerated, and unacceptable by society.
> I do not think they come from atheism. I don't think anything comes from atheism. It is not like a bunch of non believers of god got together and formed a gang and picked that name. It is a name society uses to describe a non belief in higher powers/gods.
> Morals have been around longer than religions.
> 
> But I wonder that if I say my morals come from Odin, Zeus or Krishna would I get any less grief from the God crowd?



O.K.  Social is your answer, but lets see how it stands up.  Say you are living in Germany during the Nazi regime.  Do you go along with the pop culture and rat out your neighbor, the Jew or do you do the morally correct thing and help him escape.  Here's another.  Your 13 year old daughter wants to hang out with some friends of hers that you know use drugs and are very, very promiscuous,but Hey it's the socially accepted thing these days.  Do you let her?  My point is 'the need to be social' is not always synonymous with morality.  I think you need to look elsewhere for a source.


----------



## bullethead

Lots of soul wrenching going on in the Bible. God had a mass murder or two(dozen) of his own.


----------



## atlashunter

bullethead said:


> Lots of soul wrenching going on in the Bible. God had a mass murder or two(dozen) of his own.



Indeed. Killing all the first born of Egypt comes to mind. Was that a moral act?


----------



## bullethead

SemperFiDawg said:


> O.K.  Social is your answer, but lets see how it stands up.  Say you are living in Germany during the Nazi regime.  Do you go along with the pop culture and rat out your neighbor, the Jew or do you do the morally correct thing and help him escape.  Here's another.  Your 13 year old daughter wants to hang out with some friends of hers that you know use drugs and are very, very promiscuous,but Hey it's the socially accepted thing these days.  Do you let her?  My point is 'the need to be social' is not always synonymous with morality.  I think you need to look elsewhere for a source.



Yes, Social
I think if you were born and raised elsewhere you would not be so quick to follow Jesus.
If you were born in Iran to devout muslim parents and you catch your neighbor secretly reading the Christian Bible, do you A. Bash his head in with a rock? B. Bash his head in with the butt of an AK47? or C. tell the neighborhood and allow everyone to bash him with rocks and AK's?

I can play loaded phony what if's too.


----------



## bullethead

atlashunter said:


> Indeed. Killing all the first born of Egypt comes to mind. Was that a moral act?



ssshhhhhhh! we don't talk about the "old" god anymore, just focus on the new and improved god.


----------



## ted_BSR

SemperFiDawg said:


> O.K.  You lost me.  What are you talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you implying nature vs nurture or nature plus nurture?  Either way its coming from somewhere other than himself, but certainly not Atheism according to you, which again reinforces my original point.



SFDawg - I think you are confusing absolute truth (which is a concept I strongly believe in) with morality. I also believe that morality exists, but it waivers from culture to culture (even within cultures). Morality is what is generally socially accepted. It answers to no higher power. It is what the average Joe would believe is the correct model of behavior. If Joe is Jose, or Muhammad, or Thor, the morality changes according to what is generally accepted within the social majority of their specific cultures.

For example, in tribal cultures of New Guinea, it is morally accepted that cannibalism is the best form of burial. The closest loved ones to the deceased will eat the brain of the deceased. This is weird and immoral to those of us who are not from tribal cultures of New Guinea. I do not pretend to know if this is the absolute truth, but I know that it is morally weird for me.


----------



## ted_BSR

atlashunter said:


> Indeed. Killing all the first born of Egypt comes to mind. Was that a moral act?



Morals are man made. God is not subject to them.


----------



## atlashunter

ted_BSR said:


> Morals are man made. God is not subject to them.



Agree with the first sentence. On the second, would that not render God amoral?


----------



## ted_BSR

bullethead said:


> ssshhhhhhh! we don't talk about the "old" god anymore, just focus on the new and improved god.



Huh? That was a bad cheer BH.

Atlas Atlas he's our man, 'cause Asath has been sittin' on the can!


----------



## ted_BSR

atlashunter said:


> Agree with the first sentence. On the second, would that not render God amoral?



Yes, He is above it (in the form of absolute truth).


----------



## bullethead

atlashunter said:


> Agree with the first sentence. On the second, would that not render God amoral?



Now we're getting somewhere.


----------



## ted_BSR

bullethead said:


> Lots of soul wrenching going on in the Bible. God had a mass murder or two(dozen) of his own.



Bit of a warrior I reckon.


----------



## bullethead

ted_BSR said:


> Huh? That was a bad cheer BH.
> 
> Atlas Atlas he's our man, 'cause Asath has been sittin' on the can!



Ok, tonight it seems you want to go bare knuckles. Fine with me.


----------



## bullethead

ted_BSR said:


> Bit of a warrior I reckon.



The Germany sfd was talking about had the same "warriors" then.


----------



## ted_BSR

bullethead said:


> Now we're getting somewhere.



No we're not. God is not subject to or responsible for morals.


----------



## ted_BSR

bullethead said:


> The Germany sfd was talking about had the same "warriors" then.



You should not equate human warriors with God. Their motivations differ too much.


----------



## bullethead

ted_BSR said:


> No we're not. God is not subject to or responsible for morals.



Says...............?

Both you and SFD are speaking for God. I am confused as to which one of you to believe.


----------



## bullethead

ted_BSR said:


> You should not equate human warriors with God. Their motivations differ too much.



You now know what motivates something that is beyond the understanding of humans.
I might worship you.


----------



## atlashunter

ted_BSR said:


> Yes, He is above it (in the form of absolute truth).



Seems to me the mass slaughter of children would place one below human morality, not above it.

I don't agree that we can't look at the actions of God and form moral judgments about those actions. However I do often get that from believers who have no problem declaring the goodness of God. A little consistency would be nice. It should work for judgments of both good and evil.


----------



## ted_BSR

bullethead said:


> Says...............?
> 
> Both you and SFD are speaking for God. I am confused as to which one of you to believe.



I don't think you are confused, and I don't think you believe either of us. I don't know if you should believe either one of us. After all, there is no profound scientific logical proof that either one of us is right, but that is just the way it is.


----------



## bullethead

atlashunter said:


> Seems to me the mass slaughter of children would place one below human morality, not above it.
> 
> I don't agree that we can't look at the actions of God and form moral judgments about those actions. However I do often get that from believers who have no problem declaring the goodness of God. A little consistency would be nice. It should work for judgments of both good and evil.


     

Oh I'm sorry was I cheering again?


----------



## atlashunter

bullethead said:


> Oh I'm sorry was I cheering again?


----------



## ted_BSR

atlashunter said:


> Seems to me the mass slaughter of children would place one below human morality, not above it.
> 
> I don't agree that we can't look at the actions of God and form moral judgments about those actions. However I do often get that from believers who have no problem declaring the goodness of God. A little consistency would be nice. It should work for judgments of both good and evil.



Yes, in the minds of men, I agree. Unfortunately we cannot know the mind of God (it is beyond our understanding). This is the mystery.


----------



## bullethead

ted_BSR said:


> I don't think you are confused, and I don't think you believe either of us. I don't know if you should believe either one of us. After all, there is no profound scientific logical proof that either one of us is right, but that is just the way it is.



I am confused.
Is it allowable to use human judgement for God's "good" acts, but sit here and act stupefied when God does things that are "bad" because at those times he is above our comprehension??


----------



## ted_BSR

bullethead said:


> I am confused.
> Is it allowable to use human judgement for God's "good" acts, but sit here and act stupefied when God does things that are "bad" because at those times he is above our comprehension??



He is always above our comprehension. God does not do bad things, but He does allow bad things to happen to good people.


----------



## atlashunter

So what we are left with is a source of morality who is neither immoral or moral. Oh, and whose "objective" moral commands just happened to endorse the genocide committed by the ancient tribe who served as the conduit of these moral codes.


----------



## ted_BSR

atlashunter said:


> So what we are left with is a source of morality who is neither immoral or moral. Oh, and whose "objective" moral commands just happened to endorse the genocide committed by the ancient tribe who served as the conduit of these moral codes.



God is not, and never has been a source of morality.


God is the source of absolute truth.


----------



## atlashunter

ted_BSR said:


> Yes, in the minds of men, I agree. Unfortunately we cannot know the mind of God (it is beyond our understanding). This is the mystery.



So men cannot say god is good any more than they can say he is evil?


----------



## bullethead

ted_BSR said:


> Yes, in the minds of men, I agree. Unfortunately we cannot know the mind of God (it is beyond our understanding). This is the mystery.



Another mystery:
We don't know the mind of God but some of us know what motivates him.


Gonna have to start Matthew2 and write down everything ted_BSR says. It makes just enough sense to make no sense so someone will certainly follow it after I bury it for a couple hundred years.


----------



## atlashunter

ted_BSR said:


> God is not, and never has been a source of morality.
> 
> 
> God is the source of absolute truth.



That is going to make SFD's head spin.


----------



## ted_BSR

atlashunter said:


> So men cannot say god is good any more than they can say he is evil?



Men can say whatever they want.


----------



## bullethead

ted_BSR said:


> He is always above our comprehension. God does not do bad things, but He does allow bad things to happen to good people.



Thou shalt not kill.............unless your the head honcho, then do as I say not as I do.


----------



## ted_BSR

bullethead said:


> Another mystery:
> We don't know the mind of God but some of us know what motivates him.
> 
> 
> Gonna have to start Matthew2 and write down everything ted_BSR says. It makes just enough sense to make no sense so someone will certainly follow it after I bury it for a couple hundred years.



Nonsense in red, the rest is plausible. The book of BH! Stay tuned!!!


----------



## bullethead

ted_BSR said:


> Nonsense in red, the rest is plausible. The book of BH! Stay tuned!!!



YOU told me "You should not equate human warriors with God. Their motivations differ too much. "
Was that a guess?
or
Should that be in Red also?


----------



## atlashunter

ted_BSR said:


> Yes, in the minds of men, I agree. Unfortunately we cannot know the mind of God (it is beyond our understanding). This is the mystery.



As Sam Harris says, this is how you play tennis without the net.


----------



## ted_BSR

bullethead said:


> Thou shalt not kill.............unless your the head honcho, then do as I say not as I do.



Yes, the head Honcho has a different set of rules. In your new biblical accounts, will you please capitalize Honcho?


----------



## ted_BSR

atlashunter said:


> As Sam Harris says, this is how you play tennis without the net.



Yeah, No, I don't want to watch any videos. I am interested in Your opinions. If you can't express them without an internet link, I am not interested at all.


----------



## ted_BSR

bullethead said:


> YOU told me "You should not equate human warriors with God. Their motivations differ too much. "
> Was that a guess?
> or
> Should that be in Red also?



Total guess.


----------



## bullethead

ted_BSR said:


> Yes, the head Honcho has a different set of rules. In your new biblical accounts, will you please capitalize Honcho?



Noted.


----------



## bullethead

ted_BSR said:


> Total guess.



That will be included in tHe wRiTiNgS
Now I am not sure what I should capitalize..
I just cannot take you seriously if your guessing.


----------



## ted_BSR

bullethead said:


> That will be included in tHe wRiTiNgS
> Now I am not sure what I should capitalize..
> I just cannot take you seriously if your guessing.



No need to take me seriously. I am pretty sure you are guessing too.


----------



## ted_BSR

So, back to the OP. Is atheism morally bankrupt?

No, it is just a different set of morals from Christianity.


----------



## atlashunter

ted_BSR said:


> Yeah, No, I don't want to watch any videos. I am interested in Your opinions. If you can't express them without an internet link, I am not interested at all.



No one asked you to watch it or whether you were interested.


----------



## atlashunter

ted_BSR said:


> So, back to the OP. Is atheism morally bankrupt?
> 
> No, it is just a different set of morals from Christianity.



It isn't a set of morals at all. It has as much to say about morality as it does about how to change a flat tire.


----------



## ted_BSR

atlashunter said:


> It isn't a set of morals at all. It has as much to say about morality as it does about how to change a flat tire.



So then I guess it is morally bankrupt, by your own statement, not mine.


----------



## ted_BSR

atlashunter said:


> No one asked you to watch it or whether you were interested.



So you quoted my previous post and just put up the link for informational purposes for whoever happened to be watching this thread? OK. No blood no foul.


----------



## atlashunter

ted_BSR said:


> So then I guess it is morally bankrupt, by your own statement, not mine.



Not the terminology I would use simply because of the confusion it could cause and the implication that it should have anything to do with morality. I would say it is amoral.


----------



## atlashunter

Anyway I think I'm done with this one. Thanks for the conversation Ted! Enjoyed it.


----------



## stringmusic

“If chance be the Father of all flesh, 
Disaster is his rainbow in the sky, 
And when you hear 
State of Emergency! 
Sniper Kills Ten! 
Troops on Rampage! 
Whites go Looting! 
Bomb Blasts School! 
It is but the sound of man worshiping his maker.” 

~Steve Turner


----------



## SemperFiDawg

bullethead said:


> ssshhhhhhh! we don't talk about the "old" god anymore, just focus on the new and improved god.



I don't have a problem talking about the OT God.  He is the same as the NT God.  But again to pass judgement on his judgement is to posit omniscience, which is to posit God.  This leaves you affirming what you are denying which is an illogical but commonly used argument among you guys.


----------



## JB0704

SemperFiDawg said:


> I don't have a problem talking about the OT God.  He is the same as the NT God.  .



The interaction is different.  These guys all grew up Christian, so they understand the basic flow of it all, but it doesn't fit the dialogue, so they will take it back to the OT because that is the easier target.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

JB0704 said:


> The interaction is different.  These guys all grew up Christian, so they understand the basic flow of it all, but it doesn't fit the dialogue, so they will take it back to the OT because that is the easier target.



I don't doubt what you say one bit.  There's a lot of intentional misrepresentation of the truth from the Athiest here.  But hey, what can you expect from people who deny there is no higher moral standard than the one they create themselves.  That leaves a lot of wiggle room for the conscious.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Sorry I missed this post somehow.




TheBishop said:


> To the Op.
> 
> 
> 
> TheBishop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Were morals around before Christ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but not before God.
> 
> 
> 
> TheBishop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do other people of other faiths have morals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone has morals.
> 
> 
> 
> TheBishop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which denomination is the most moral?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong headed question.  Morals require action on an individual level, not a class, societal or denominational level.
> 
> 
> 
> TheBishop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Define morality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The intrinsic knowledge of difference between right and wrong, good and bad and the acknowledgement of ones individual obligation to do right.
Click to expand...


----------



## bullethead

SemperFiDawg said:


> I don't have a problem talking about the OT God.  He is the same as the NT God.  But again to pass judgement on his judgement is to posit omniscience, which is to posit God.  This leaves you affirming what you are denying which is an illogical but commonly used argument among you guys.



I have not seen a glimpse of any god, let alone one that is omniscient. You are expecting me to treat this invisible friend as if it was real and I should take your word for it that it is omniscient, despite that there is no evidence of any such thing.
I can and do judge based off of what evidence I am able to gather. I do not base it off of what someone who has never seen, never talked to or has never interacted with any sort of magical being thinks is happening or better yet wants/needs to happen.


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> The interaction is different.  These guys all grew up Christian, so they understand the basic flow of it all, but it doesn't fit the dialogue, so they will take it back to the OT because that is the easier target.



If a target is easy there is a reason.


----------



## hummdaddy

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=753956

read about your morals and values from fellow christians


----------



## SemperFiDawg

ted_BSR said:


> SFDawg - I think you are confusing absolute truth (which is a concept I strongly believe in) with morality. I also believe that morality exists, but it waivers from culture to culture (even within cultures). Morality is what is generally socially accepted. It answers to no higher power. It is what the average Joe would believe is the correct model of behavior. If Joe is Jose, or Muhammad, or Thor, the morality changes according to what is generally accepted within the social majority of their specific cultures.



So in essence you are saying morality is relative.  According to your definition it can't be fixed or unchanging. It changes according to whatever is accepted by a society. If societies outlook on something changes then the definition of morality changes with it.   I understand but disagree.  I think you are gonna have a hard time defending that position. By your definition it was morally O.K. for Hitler to wipe out 12 million people, because that society bought into it.  Again if someone molests your child, it may not be morally acceptable today, but say in 20 years society has accepted child molestation as acceptable behavior.  Is it gonna be ok with you then.  Do you see the absurdity of looking to society, in essence looking to ourselves, as the source for morality.  It must come from something outside of us that is static/unchanging and exclusive.

QUOTE=ted_BSR;7815128]For example, in tribal cultures of New Guinea, it is morally accepted that cannibalism is the best form of burial. The closest loved ones to the deceased will eat the brain of the deceased. This is weird and immoral to those of us who are not from tribal cultures of New Guinea. I do not pretend to know if this is the absolute truth, but I know that it is morally weird for me.[/QUOTE]

Weird? Yes.  Disgusting? Yes.   However, not immoral unless someone killed him.


----------



## hummdaddy

SemperFiDawg said:


> So in essence you are saying morality is relative.  According to your definition it can't be fixed or unchanging. It changes according to whatever is accepted by a society. If societies outlook on something changes then the definition of morality changes with it.   I understand but disagree.  I think you are gonna have a hard time defending that position. By your definition it was morally O.K. for Hitler to wipe out 12 million people, because that society bought into it.  Again if someone molests your child, it may not be morally acceptable today, but say in 20 years society has accepted child molestation as acceptable behavior.  Is it gonna be ok with you then.  Do you see the absurdity of looking to society, in essence looking to ourselves, as the source for morality.  It must come from something outside of us that is static/unchanging and exclusive.
> 
> QUOTE=ted_BSR;7815128]For example, in tribal cultures of New Guinea, it is morally accepted that cannibalism is the best form of burial. The closest loved ones to the deceased will eat the brain of the deceased. This is weird and immoral to those of us who are not from tribal cultures of New Guinea. I do not pretend to know if this is the absolute truth, but I know that it is morally weird for me.



Weird? Yes.  Disgusting? Yes.   However, not immoral unless someone killed him.[/QUOTE]

you really need to read what i posted    and you think Christian's stand taller than others


----------



## SemperFiDawg

hummdaddy said:


> http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=753956
> 
> read about your morals and values from fellow christians



Don't get it.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

bullethead said:


> If a target is easy there is a reason.



And if people are misrepresenting the truth there is a reason also.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

hummdaddy said:


> you really need to read what i posted    and you think Christian's stand taller than others



What am I missing?


----------



## SemperFiDawg

bullethead said:


> I have not seen a glimpse of any god, let alone one that is omniscient. You are expecting me to treat this invisible friend as if it was real and I should take your word for it that it is omniscient, despite that there is no evidence of any such thing.
> I can and do judge based off of what evidence I am able to gather. I do not base it off of what someone who has never seen, never talked to or has never interacted with any sort of magical being thinks is happening or better yet wants/needs to happen.



And all this makes your point logical exactly how?


----------



## bullethead

SemperFiDawg said:


> And all this makes your point logical exactly how?



I have been wondering that exact same thing about your posts.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

bullethead said:


> I have been wondering that exact same thing about your posts.



OP is logical enough even some of the Athiest on this board agree with it.


----------



## ted_BSR

SemperFiDawg said:


> So in essence you are saying morality is relative.  According to your definition it can't be fixed or unchanging. It changes according to whatever is accepted by a society. If societies outlook on something changes then the definition of morality changes with it.   I understand but disagree.  I think you are gonna have a hard time defending that position. By your definition it was morally O.K. for Hitler to wipe out 12 million people, because that society bought into it.  Again if someone molests your child, it may not be morally acceptable today, but say in 20 years society has accepted child molestation as acceptable behavior.  Is it gonna be ok with you then.  Do you see the absurdity of looking to society, in essence looking to ourselves, as the source for morality.  It must come from something outside of us that is static/unchanging and exclusive.
> 
> QUOTE=ted_BSR;7815128]For example, in tribal cultures of New Guinea, it is morally accepted that cannibalism is the best form of burial. The closest loved ones to the deceased will eat the brain of the deceased. This is weird and immoral to those of us who are not from tribal cultures of New Guinea. I do not pretend to know if this is the absolute truth, but I know that it is morally weird for me.



Weird? Yes.  Disgusting? Yes.   However, not immoral unless someone killed him.[/QUOTE]

It is not my definition. From Dictionary.com:

_World English Dictionary

moral  (ËˆmÉ’rÉ™l) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide] 

— adj   
1.  concerned with or relating to human behaviour, esp the distinction between good and bad or right and wrong behaviour: moral sense   
2.  adhering to conventionally accepted standards of conduct  
3.  based on a sense of right and wrong according to conscience: moral courage ; moral law   
4.  having psychological rather than tangible effects: moral support   
5.  having the effects but not the appearance of (victory or defeat): a moral victory ; a moral defeat   
6.  having a strong probability: a moral certainty   
7.  law  (of evidence, etc) based on a knowledge of the tendencies of human nature  

— n   
8.  the lesson to be obtained from a fable or event: point the moral   
9.  a concise truth; maxim  
10.  ( plural ) principles of behaviour in accordance with standards of right and wrong  

[C14: from Latin mÅ�rÄ�lis  relating to morals or customs, from mÅ�s  custom]  _


The standards by which morals are created are flexible according to a society. I believe you are referring to absolute truth, which I would whole heartedly agree exists, and has biblical substance, and far supersedes morals.


----------



## TheBishop

ted_BSR said:


> Seems like an easy club to join. You don't have to believe in anything, or stand up for anything. Just do whatever you want and answer to no one. I can see how it has appeal, but I am one to stand up for beliefs, or lack of them. Wishy washy has no appeal for me.
> 
> Edited to be crystal clear: Bishop - My point is, that you don't have credibility as an atheist or an agnostic, because you dabble in religion for whatever reason you have to meet your own needs. Undoubtedly, it is difficult to lack credibility as a non-believer, but you have accomplished it. Congratulations.




I like how you pretend to know someone you have never met before in your life. Judge much there Christian?


----------



## TheBishop

SemperFiDawg said:


> I don't doubt what you say one bit.  There's a lot of intentional misrepresentation of the truth from the Athiest here.  But hey, what can you expect from people who deny there is no higher moral standard than the one they create themselves.  That leaves a lot of wiggle room for the conscious.


----------



## TheBishop

SemperFiDawg said:


> So in essence you are saying morality is relative.  According to your definition it can't be fixed or unchanging. It changes according to whatever is accepted by a society. If societies outlook on something changes then the definition of morality changes with it.   I understand but disagree.  I think you are gonna have a hard time defending that position. By your definition it was morally O.K. for Hitler to wipe out 12 million people, because that society bought into it.  Again if someone molests your child, it may not be morally acceptable today, but say in 20 years society has accepted child molestation as acceptable behavior.  Is it gonna be ok with you then.  Do you see the absurdity of looking to society, in essence looking to ourselves, as the source for morality.  It must come from something outside of us that is static/unchanging and exclusive.




Your not  big student of history are you? Morality is one of the most inconsistent things mankind has ever invented.


----------



## stringmusic

TheBishop said:


> Your not  big student of history are you? Morality is one of the most inconsistent things mankind has ever invented.



You ever think that humans are the ones that are inconsistent?


----------



## TheBishop

stringmusic said:


> You ever think that humans are the ones that are inconsistent?



Absolutely, that's why the thing they invent are inconsistent, like religion and morality.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

TheBishop said:


> Your not  big student of history are you? Morality is one of the most inconsistent things mankind has ever invented.



Wow!  You start out with an condescending insult and we just met.  Well you're in good company here.  Care to offer any proof with that assertion regarding morality or are you like the rest here in that regard too.


----------



## TheBishop

SemperFiDawg said:


> Wow!  You start out with an condescending insult and we just met.  Well you're in good company here.  Care to offer any proof with that assertion regarding morality or are you like the rest here in that regard too.



At one time in the United States, it was considered immoral for a jew to marry a catholic, black to marry a white, to work on sunday, to drink on sunday, for a women to wear anything that exposed her ankle, ect, ect


----------



## SemperFiDawg

No doubt superficial morals change with the times and cultures, but then there's the deep morals that transcend time and culture like respecting your parents/elders, the sanctity of life, protecting children, the high value placed on truth, honesty and integrity, the universal recognition of the importance and strength of love and commitment.  Those deeper morals and others like them are written within all people across the ages.


----------



## Artfuldodger

SemperFiDawg said:


> No doubt superficial morals change with the times and cultures, but then there's the deep morals that transcend time and culture like respecting your parents/elders, the sanctity of life, protecting children, the high value placed on truth, honesty and integrity, the universal recognition of the importance and strength of love and commitment.  Those deeper morals and others like them are written within all people across the ages.



That is true and from island to island all over the world. I am a Christian but I can't contribute morals of men coming from my God. Do you think our God gives Hindus morals but not ancient Pagan Norsemen? How can Atheist not have morals but ancient Native Americans can? The only way I could believe morals come from God would be if I didn't believe in freewill.


----------



## atlashunter

SemperFiDawg said:


> No doubt superficial morals change with the times and cultures, but then there's the deep morals that transcend time and culture like respecting your parents/elders, the sanctity of life, protecting children, the high value placed on truth, honesty and integrity, the universal recognition of the importance and strength of love and commitment.  Those deeper morals and others like them are written within all people across the ages.



To which category does the morality of slavery belong? Superficial or deep?


----------



## ted_BSR

TheBishop said:


> I like how you pretend to know someone you have never met before in your life. Judge much there Christian?



Not judging, just reporting the facts. Perhaps you remember a post you wrote titled: So I dedicated my daughter yesterday....

In it, you chronicled how you stood up in a church, in front of a bunch of Christians, and "without participating", you dedicated your child to a God you don't believe in, in order to appease your wife. The thread went for over 400 posts.

Please stand up for your beliefs, or lack of them.

Morally Bankrupt has been defined by TheBishop. Well done.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

atlashunter said:


> To which category does the morality of slavery belong? Superficial or deep?



I would say slavery,as an institution, is amoral; just as all forms of government are amoral.  Any form of government is great if it is ruled by a benevolent loving ruler, and there would be nothing wrong with slavery if the master loved his slaves as much as himself as Christ commanded.  The problem with both systems is the inherent evilness of man and his inability to do so, not the institutions themselves.  Same argument applies to guns.  Guns are amoral.  No problem with guns at all if mankind was not evil, but.........


----------



## Four

SemperFiDawg said:


> I would say slavery,as an institution, is amoral; just as all forms of government are amoral.  Any form of government is great if it is ruled by a benevolent loving ruler, and there would be nothing wrong with slavery if the master loved his slaves as much as himself as Christ commanded.  The problem with both systems is the inherent evilness of man and his inability to do so, not the institutions themselves.  Same argument applies to guns.  Guns are amoral.  No problem with guns at all if mankind was not evil, but.........



I dont think you can love slaves as much as you love yourself, unless you yourself would love to be a slave.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Artfuldodger said:


> That is true and from island to island all over the world. I am a Christian but I can't contribute morals of men coming from my God. Do you think our God gives Hindus morals but not ancient Pagan Norsemen? How can Atheist not have morals but ancient Native Americans can? The only way I could believe morals come from God would be if I didn't believe in freewill.



Maybe this will help you.

Romans 2:14-15

“So, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, instinctively do what the law demands, they are a law to themselves even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts. Their consciences confirm this. Their competing “thoughts will either accuse or excuse them”


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Four said:


> I dont think you can love slaves as much as you love yourself, unless you yourself would love to be a slave.



Why?  If you loved a slave as much as you loved yourself the bond of slavery would disappear except in legalese which would eventually disappear. this is exactly what happened after the reformation in Christian countries.  Why after the reformation?  I would suggest that it was the first time in history that the word of the Christ became available to the wholesale public, largely due to the invention of the printing press.  If you recall, the Catholic Church imposed the death penalty on anyone caught printing Bibles during the Middle Ages.  What the Bible said, and thus what God said was interpreted to the masses by the Church up until then.  I don't think it's an accident that both the abolition of slavery or the first Republic grew out of Christianity.  Slavery still exists today, but its almost entirely confined to either Hindu or Muslim dominated regions.


----------



## atlashunter

SemperFiDawg said:


> I would say slavery,as an institution, is amoral; just as all forms of government are amoral.  Any form of government is great if it is ruled by a benevolent loving ruler, and there would be nothing wrong with slavery if the master loved his slaves as much as himself as Christ commanded.  The problem with both systems is the inherent evilness of man and his inability to do so, not the institutions themselves.  Same argument applies to guns.  Guns are amoral.  No problem with guns at all if mankind was not evil, but.........



And with that you and your source lose all credibility to tell the rest of us about morality.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

atlashunter said:


> And with that you and your source lose all credibility to tell the rest of us about morality.



Really? Wow!


----------



## TheBishop

ted_BSR said:


> Not judging, just reporting the facts. Perhaps you remember a post you wrote titled: So I dedicated my daughter yesterday....
> 
> In it, you chronicled how you stood up in a church, in front of a bunch of Christians, and "without participating", you dedicated your child to a God you don't believe in, in order to appease your wife. The thread went for over 400 posts.
> 
> Please stand up for your beliefs, or lack of them.
> 
> Morally Bankrupt has been defined by TheBishop. Well done.



Ted I don't know what kinda of vendetta you have or why this is even part of this discussion.  I take your morally bankrupt comment as a personal attack, and suggest you remove that post. Do pretend to know me or my morals. You don't.  What I did had nothing to do with morality so stop trying to somehow draw comparisons.  If you want to discuss my actions I suggest you revisist that thread and stop making a fool of yourself by injecting something that is unrelated.


----------



## TheBishop

ted_BSR said:


> Not judging, just reporting the facts. Perhaps you remember a post you wrote titled: So I dedicated my daughter yesterday....
> 
> In it, you chronicled how you stood up in a church, in front of a bunch of Christians, and "without participating", you dedicated your child to a God you don't believe in, in order to appease your wife. The thread went for over 400 posts.
> 
> Please stand up for your beliefs, or lack of them.
> 
> Morally Bankrupt has been defined by TheBishop. Well done.


----------



## TheBishop

SemperFiDawg said:


> No doubt superficial morals change with the times and cultures, but then there's the deep morals that transcend time and culture like respecting your parents/elders, the sanctity of life, protecting children, the high value placed on truth, honesty and integrity, the universal recognition of the importance and strength of love and commitment.  Those deeper morals and others like them are written within all people across the ages.



None of those are universilly defined, therefore do not transcend anything. They ALL have different meaning to different individuals.


----------



## JFS

SemperFiDawg said:


> but then there's the deep morals that transcend time and culture like respecting your parents/elders



Ah yes, which the christian god has declared to be a capital offense.  So in those immutable, trancendent morals we can all see how we still kill people for those really important things like not respecting your parents.  Or woking on the sabbath.  Or cursing, dang it.  

_
For cursing or blaspheming 

And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him. Leviticus 24:16 

For disobeying parents 

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother ... Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city ... And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die. Deuteronomy 21:18-21 

For breaking the Sabbath 

They found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. ... And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones.... And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses. Numbers 15:32-56_


----------



## Artfuldodger

I hate to say it is happening but some of these responses appear to be personal attacks. It doesn't make for a very good debate if all you can come up with is something personal about someone or their use of punctuation.


----------



## Artfuldodger

SemperFiDawg said:


> Maybe this will help you.
> 
> Romans 2:14-15
> 
> “So, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, instinctively do what the law demands, they are a law to themselves even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts. Their consciences confirm this. Their competing “thoughts will either accuse or excuse them”



Could you explain this a little better? Were the Gentiles Pagan or Christian? Does God give Pagans the ability to be moral? Maybe it's "ignorance of the law is no excuse"
Could it mean Pagan Gentiles who fulfill God’s law because of their own morality and therefore merit his favor?
Could it be hypothetical moral pagan Gentiles?
Paul was writing to Christians so they could be Gentile Christians, i'm not real sure.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

TheBishop said:


> None of those are universilly defined, therefore do not transcend anything. They ALL have different meaning to different individuals.



Riiiiiight,   forgot who I was talking to.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

JFS said:


> Ah yes, which the christian god has declared to be a capital offense.  So in those immutable, trancendent morals we can all see how we still kill people for those really important things like not respecting your parents.  Or woking on the sabbath.  Or cursing, dang it.
> 
> _
> For cursing or blaspheming
> 
> And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him. Leviticus 24:16
> 
> For disobeying parents
> 
> If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother ... Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city ... And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die. Deuteronomy 21:18-21
> 
> For breaking the Sabbath
> 
> They found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. ... And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones.... And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses. Numbers 15:32-56_



Christians are not bound by the Old Testament law.  For one able to quote scripture so well implies you very well know that, but yet you have no problem posting a blatant lie in your first sentence.  It doesn't surprise me a bit.  Atheism is the antithesis of truth so it only follows that if someone denies the ultimate truth they will surely have no regard for lesser truths.  Way to represent brother.


----------



## TheBishop

SemperFiDawg said:


> Riiiiiight,   forgot who I was talking to.



I'm sorry, but what is that suppose to mean? If you make a statement as such, please be prepared to back it up. I am fully. 

You said universal morals that transcend time like respecting parents.  Well that most certainly is not universal.  Respect means different to different people.  Amish certainly would think I'm disrespectful to my parents, but my parents don't feel that way. 

You said the importance of love and commitment, whats the divorce rate again? How bout among christians? Is it immoral for christians to get divorce?


----------



## TheBishop

SemperFiDawg said:


> Christians are not bound by the Old Testament law.  For one able to quote scripture so well implies you very well know that, but yet you have no problem posting a blatant lie in your first sentence.  It doesn't surprise me a bit.  Atheism is the antithesis of truth so it only follows that if someone denies the ultimate truth they will surely have no regard for lesser truths.  Way to represent brother.



You have no clue what atheism is.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Artfuldodger said:


> Could you explain this a little better? Were the Gentiles Pagan or Christian? /QUOTE]
> In this verse Paul was referring to Pagan Gentiles.
> 
> 
> 
> Artfuldodger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does God give Pagans the ability to be moral? /QUOTE]
> 
> Yes.  The verse I gave makes it clear the knowledge of right and wrong/good and evil is written on the hearts of everyone.  Remember the name of the tree of the forbidden fruit?
> 
> 
> 
> Artfuldodger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe it's "ignorance of the law is no excuse"
> Could it mean Pagan Gentiles who fulfill God’s law because of their own morality and therefore merit his favor?/QUOTE]
> 
> There is no ignorance of the law.  The law of morality is written into everyone's conscious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## SemperFiDawg

TheBishop said:


> You have no clue what atheism is.



The denial if God.


----------



## TheBishop

SemperFiDawg said:


> The denial if God.



Which god?


----------



## Artfuldodger

SemperFiDawg said:


> Artfuldodger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could you explain this a little better? Were the Gentiles Pagan or Christian? /QUOTE]
> In this verse Paul was referring to Pagan Gentiles.
> 
> 
> 
> Artfuldodger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does God give Pagans the ability to be moral? /QUOTE]
> 
> Yes.  The verse I gave makes it clear the knowledge of right and wrong/good and evil is written on the hearts of everyone.  Remember the name of the tree of the forbidden fruit?
> 
> 
> 
> Artfuldodger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe it's "ignorance of the law is no excuse"
> Could it mean Pagan Gentiles who fulfill God’s law because of their own morality and therefore merit his favor?/QUOTE]
> 
> There is no ignorance of the law.  The law of morality is written into everyone's conscious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why are my folkways & mores different from the ones in an isolated African village or even the United States in 1930?
> Does everyone in the whole world know who God is by him giving us this universal morality standard?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## SemperFiDawg

TheBishop said:


> I'm sorry, but what is that suppose to mean? If you make a statement as such, please be prepared to back it up. I am fully.
> 
> You said universal morals that transcend time like respecting parents.  Well that most certainly is not universal.  Respect means different to different people.  Amish certainly would think I'm disrespectful to my parents, but my parents don't feel that way.



You just disproved your own point that morals aren't transcendent by citing a case where they are transcendent of culture.  The fact that you and the Amish show respect in different ways is in no way proof that respect isn't being shown.  It is proof that it is.  



TheBishop said:


> You said the importance of love and commitment, whats the divorce rate again? How bout among christians? Is it immoral for christians to get divorce?



The fact that people can't follow the moral code is not proof that it doesn't exist no more than our inability to abide by the speed limit is proof that it doesn't exist.  Jesus said we can't abide by the moral code because we are inherently wicked.  Atheism says there's no moral law to follow.  Athiest however feel the tug of the moral law on them everyday just as the rest of humanity does, yet either deny it or attribute its cause to anything but God.  Personally I think this accounts for the bitterness many athiest have toward God: Having to internally deny him to theirselves on a continual basis in order to justify their pride.  Those are the two main characteristics I find most evident in atheist, pride and an excessive bitterness toward God.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Artfuldodger said:


> SemperFiDawg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Artfuldodger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could you explain this a little better? Were the Gentiles Pagan or Christian? /QUOTE]
> In this verse Paul was referring to Pagan Gentiles.
> 
> 
> 
> Artfuldodger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does God give Pagans the ability to be moral? /QUOTE]
> 
> Yes.  The verse I gave makes it clear the knowledge of right and wrong/good and evil is written on the hearts of everyone.  Remember the name of the tree of the forbidden fruit?
> 
> 
> 
> Then why are my folkways & mores different from the ones in an isolated African village or even the United States in 1930?
> Does everyone in the whole world know who God is by him giving us this universal morality standard?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See post 183
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## stringmusic

SemperFiDawg said:


> You just disproved your own point that morals aren't transcendent by citing a case where they are transcendent of culture.  The fact that you and the Amish show respect in different ways is in no way proof that respect isn't being shown.  It is proof that it is.
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that people can't follow the moral code is not proof that it doesn't exist no more than our inability to abide by the speed limit is proof that it doesn't exist.  Jesus said we can't abide by the moral code because we are inherently wicked.  Atheism says there's no moral law to follow.  Athiest however feel the tug of the moral law on them everyday just as the rest of humanity does, yet either deny it or attribute its cause to anything but God.  Personally I think this accounts for the bitterness many athiest have toward God: Having to internally deny him to theirselves on a continual basis in order to justify their pride.  Those are the two main characteristics I find most evident in atheist, pride and an excessive bitterness toward God.



One of the best posts I've ever read in here.


----------



## TheBishop

SemperFiDawg said:


> You just disproved your own point that morals aren't transcendent by citing a case where they are transcendent of culture.  The fact that you and the Amish show respect in different ways is in no way proof that respect isn't being shown.  It is proof that it is.


 
Yeagh no. What it shows is that is respect is by no means universal. (by the way amish moralilty has changed also, along with their view of respect, hence the off shoots).   



> The fact that people can't follow the moral code is not proof that it doesn't exist no more than our inability to abide by the speed limit is proof that it doesn't exist.  Jesus said we can't abide by the moral code because we are inherently wicked.



Were is this moral code and can you list out its tenets?



> Atheism says there's no moral law to follow.



Atheism doesn't say anything. 



> Athiest however feel the tug of the moral law on them everyday just as the rest of humanity does, yet either deny it or attribute its cause to anything but God.  Personally I think this accounts for the bitterness many athiest have toward God: Having to internally deny him to theirselves on a continual basis in order to justify their pride.  Those are the two main characteristics I find most evident in atheist, pride and an excessive bitterness toward God.



How do you have bitterness twards something you do not think is there?

My "bitterness" comes from the arrogance of those who claim to know the unknowable, and assert it as truth without substantiating evidence.


----------



## TheBishop

stringmusic said:


> One of the best posts I've ever read in here.



Wow, you set the bar really low.


----------



## JFS

SemperFiDawg said:


> Christians are not bound by the Old Testament law.



So much for immutable moral laws.


----------



## JFS

SemperFiDawg said:


> The fact that people can't follow the moral code is not proof that it doesn't exist no more than our inability to abide by the speed limit is proof that it doesn't exist.



Most places have a speed limit.  Most people eventually feel a speed at which they feel they might be going too fast.  Yet neither the common existence of a limit nor the internal feeling are evidence of a divine law giver.  Most moral laws have a foundation in preserving an individual or society.  Search a few months back for the evolutionary aspects as well.


----------



## ted_BSR

TheBishop said:


> Ted I don't know what kinda of vendetta you have or why this is even part of this discussion.  I take your morally bankrupt comment as a personal attack, and suggest you remove that post. Do pretend to know me or my morals. You don't.  What I did had nothing to do with morality so stop trying to somehow draw comparisons.  If you want to discuss my actions I suggest you revisist that thread and stop making a fool of yourself by injecting something that is unrelated.




Bishop – I have no “vendetta”. I read many of your posts and do not comment on them at all. I don’t really care.

This is part of the discussion, because I think it is a good example of saying one thing and doing another (this is not moral by most definitions).

You arrogantly throw your lack of belief around this forum, but when it comes time to stand up for what you do not believe in, to the people that I think you love the most in this world, you do not do it.

I feel bad that you take my comment personally, but it was your OP in the old thread, and your admittance to your actions. No accusations or assumptions were made by me.

What you did has EVERYTHING to do with the morality you have created for yourself. It is meaningless if you do not adhere to it, and therefore, is bankrupt.

The comparisons are not drawn; they are etched in your actions. Your displeasure in my post solidifies its truth.


----------



## TheBishop

ted_BSR said:


> Bishop – I have no “vendetta”. I read many of your posts and do not comment on them at all. I don’t really care.
> 
> This is part of the discussion, because I think it is a good example of saying one thing and doing another (this is not moral by most definitions).
> 
> You arrogantly throw your lack of belief around this forum, but when it comes time to stand up for what you do not believe in, to the people that I think you love the most in this world, you do not do it.
> 
> I feel bad that you take my comment personally, but it was your OP in the old thread, and your admittance to your actions. No accusations or assumptions were made by me.
> 
> What you did has EVERYTHING to do with the morality you have created for yourself. It is meaningless if you do not adhere to it, and therefore, is bankrupt.
> 
> The comparisons are not drawn; they are etched in your actions. Your displeasure in my post solidifies its truth.



This is the biggest farce to cover for a personal attack.  The situation your talking about has nothing to do with morality and you are reaching to draw any kind of comparison.  Like I said, we can go back and view the thread if you like, but it does not in anyway give you insight to my morality.  

I not ashamed of what I did, I did exactly what was necessary to make my wife happy.  I sacrificed my time, and my pride to give her what she wanted, and I would do it again. If anything it was selfless, and part of being husband.  

What gives you the right to sit there and pass judgment on me and my morality, based on act of appeasement? How arrogant and self righteous can you be? Would you rather I strain my marriage, just because I didn't believe in the stupid ceremony? I have things I stand for, and unlike you I can point to them, and say, see there they are.  They are my family, my friends, my freedom, and my life. 

What you believe ted, does not make you any better than your actions, and right now your actions speak volumes.


----------



## Artfuldodger

TheBishop said:


> This is the biggest farce to cover for a personal attack.  The situation your talking about has nothing to do with morality and you are reaching to draw any kind of comparison.  Like I said, we can go back and view the thread if you like, but it does not in anyway give you insight to my morality.
> 
> I not ashamed of what I did, I did exactly what was necessary to make my wife happy.  I sacrificed my time, and my pride to give her what she wanted, and I would do it again. If anything it was selfless, and part of being husband.
> 
> What gives you the right to sit there and pass judgment on me and my morality, based on act of appeasement? How arrogant and self righteous can you be? Would you rather I strain my marriage, just because I didn't believe in the stupid ceremony? I have things I stand for, and unlike you I can point to them, and say, see there they are.  They are my family, my friends, my freedom, and my life.
> 
> What you believe ted, does not make you any better than your actions, and right now your actions speak volumes.



I would agree, it would be no different from me going to a Catholic or Baptist funeral because I don't believe in the Trinity. I would never go to a Oneness Church service and tell them they are wrong. I would never refuse attending a Methodist Church even tho I don't believe in infant Baptism.  I appease and keep my mouth shut all the time. I too feel this makes me the better man.

I don't see how bringing this up is about morality. It appears to be a personal cut to me.


----------



## ted_BSR

TheBishop said:


> This is the biggest farce to cover for a personal attack.  The situation your talking about has nothing to do with morality and you are reaching to draw any kind of comparison.  Like I said, we can go back and view the thread if you like, but it does not in anyway give you insight to my morality.
> 
> I not ashamed of what I did, I did exactly what was necessary to make my wife happy.  I sacrificed my time, and my pride to give her what she wanted, and I would do it again. If anything it was selfless, and part of being husband.
> 
> What gives you the right to sit there and pass judgment on me and my morality, based on act of appeasement? How arrogant and self righteous can you be? Would you rather I strain my marriage, just because I didn't believe in the stupid ceremony? I have things I stand for, and unlike you I can point to them, and say, see there they are.  They are my family, my friends, my freedom, and my life.
> 
> What you believe ted, does not make you any better than your actions, and right now your actions speak volumes.



Again, there is no personal attack or judgment.

I doubt your wife thought the ceremony was stupid. You thought it was stupid, but you participated anyway to avoid a disagreement with her. You are so passionate about your beliefs, here on this forum, but your actions don’t back it up.

I would rather you walk the talk Bishop.

After all my posts about being a believer on this forum, if I posted a thread about how I renounced God in a circle of my peers because it was convenient, you would call me a hypocrite (or worse).

Living on both sides of the fence destroys your credibility on both sides of the fence.


----------



## ted_BSR

Artfuldodger said:


> I would agree, it would be no different from me going to a Catholic or Baptist funeral because I don't believe in the Trinity. I would never go to a Oneness Church service and tell them they are wrong. I would never refuse attending a Methodist Church even tho I don't believe in infant Baptism.  I appease and keep my mouth shut all the time. I too feel this makes me the better man.
> 
> I don't see how bringing this up is about morality. It appears to be a personal cut to me.



Perhaps it seems personal because one person talks about one thing, and does another?


----------



## Artfuldodger

I would like to see more Christians come to the defense of the Atheist in regards to not having morals. At least Stringmusic now has an alibi.
Semperfidawg is stating that all morals come from the God of Abraham. Do all the Christians on here agree? If God gives this to the whole world, does this include pre-salvation? It sounds too pre-destination to me. Why go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation? If God gave them morals, he'll give them salvation.  
One would think cultures would develop some of the same morals as civilization requires. Murder, stealing, incest, nudity, etc. are universal. Morals do change over time. We all do have some basic morals but we still perform them differently. If they were from God why do we all perform them differently and why do they change? I can tell you why, MAN. 
I also think it reaching kinda far to say Atheist don't believe in God because of the morals required by God. Morals/The Law is not the reason to believe in God/Jesus. The reason is because we can't keep Morals/The Law. That is the reason why we believe. We can't keep any of that stuff thus the need for Jesus. I don't really care what or why they don't believe. Maybe they don't have a choice. We can only offer. I don't feel it is a Christian's job to figure out why they don't believe. Jews, Hindus, & Muslims don't believe either. Jesus said: "Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.
Matters not to me whether they are Atheist or Eckankar.
Animals also have morals, why? They don't need salvation.


----------



## Artfuldodger

ted_BSR said:


> Perhaps it seems personal because one person talks about one thing, and does another?



So you couldn't attend a wedding ceremony in a Hindu Temple? You always voice your religious and political opinion at all events even to family elders? You never show respect by just remaining silent? 
You feel it is better to be an assertive Christian than a meek Christian?


----------



## Artfuldodger

Maybe because I took a sociology class, I view mores & folkways differently that others. To me it's no different from other cultural differences and stereotypes. It is no different than having different governments and following the bible about the governments.
True most morals are based on religions but we have many different cultures and religions. Just because they were once isolated and overlap in basic morals is no different than other basic similarities of needs. All humans are social creatures who require certain things like love. 
I don't feel God micro-manages the lives of every person and event including things like who will get salvation or AIDS. Maybe this is a unique belief of mine. Maybe God granted me this unique belief. I'm glad he did.


----------



## Artfuldodger

ted_BSR said:


> Perhaps it seems personal because one person talks about one thing, and does another?



From a Christian prospective, I believe he did the right thing.
We're getting into a whole different topic of denying Jesus than a discussion on morals when we don't mention Jesus at every chance we get. Some chances will get you fired. Would you want your teacher/wife to lead in a Christian prayer in school and lose her job?


----------



## SemperFiDawg

TheBishop said:


> Yeagh no. What it shows is that is respect is by no means universal. (by the way amish moralilty has changed also, along with their view of respect, hence the off shoots).



 Uhhhhhh right.    I think the record speaks for itself.



TheBishop said:


> Were is this moral code and can you list out its tenets?



Mark 12:30-31

 “30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.,
31 “The second is: Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no other command greater than these.”





TheBishop said:


> Atheism doesn't say anything.



Really?  Well you Atheist are a pretty vocal group for claiming allegiance to a belief system that "doesn't say anything"
And y'all call Christians hypocrites for not adhering to their tenets.  That's down right funny.





TheBishop said:


> How do you have bitterness twards something you do not think is there?
> 
> My "bitterness" comes from the arrogance of those who claim to know the unknowable, and assert it as truth without substantiating evidence.



You mean the arrogance of those people who claim there is no such thing as an omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient being when the only possible, conceivable, logical, and reasonable way they could know that is if they themselves were omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient.  I agree they do tend to be arrogant, but should be pitied instead of reviled.  For them whatever life they are living now is gone be as good as it gets.  After its over, its all downhill for that crew.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

JFS said:


> Most places have a speed limit.  Most people eventually feel a speed at which they feel they might be going too fast.  Yet neither the common existence of a limit nor the internal feeling are evidence of a divine law giver.  Most moral laws have a foundation in preserving an individual or society.  Search a few months back for the evolutionary aspects as well.



I don't think you want to go to evolution to justify the presence of a moral law.


----------



## ted_BSR

Artfuldodger said:


> So you couldn't attend a wedding ceremony in a Hindu Temple? You always voice your religious and political opinion at all events even to family elders? You never show respect by just remaining silent?
> You feel it is better to be an assertive Christian than a meek Christian?



I could, but not if it was my child being married in a Hindu temple. A friend perhaps, or a co worker. I would be silent for the sake of deference, but not if it was my child.

No, I do not always voice it, but when it is discussed, I discuss back, even to and especially to my elders.

I would sacrifice my job/career for my beliefs in a heartbeat. If my employer wants to fire me for my beliefs, then so be it.


----------



## ted_BSR

Artfuldodger said:


> From a Christian prospective, I believe he did the right thing.
> We're getting into a whole different topic of denying Jesus than a discussion on morals when we don't mention Jesus at every chance we get. Some chances will get you fired. Would you want your teacher/wife to lead in a Christian prayer in school and lose her job?



You lost me. He did not deny Jesus. He pretended to believe in Jesus. If I pretended to NOT believe in Jesus for whatever social reason, I would be acting against my morals.

I pose that pretending to believe something you profess not to believe for the sake of social convenience is not moral. That is all.


----------



## ted_BSR

SemperFiDawg said:


> I don't think you want to go to evolution to justify the presence of a moral law.



I'm so hungry I could eat a whole zebra!!!


----------



## Artfuldodger

ted_BSR said:


> You lost me. He did not deny Jesus. He pretended to believe in Jesus. If I pretended to NOT believe in Jesus for whatever social reason, I would be acting against my morals.
> 
> I pose that pretending to believe something you profess not to believe for the sake of social convenience is not moral. That is all.



I guess I'm not very moral either. My extended family is Christian, Agnostic, Atheist, Baptist, Holiness, Republican, Democrat, Gay, Straight,Trinitarian, Southern, and Yankee.
I don't deny God or Jesus but sometimes it's better to just keep quiet in certain situations. Maybe I'm not as strong in my faith as you. I don't know what I would do if someone was holding a gun to my head.
I would never bring up my non Trinity beliefs in a Trinity Church. I guess you could say I don't have any morals by going to a Trinity Church. I have discussed this belief with my family, I don't bring it up when I visit a Trinity Church. When It comes to my children, I teach them what I believe. The problem comes when two parents believe different things such as a Protestant/Catholic marriage. Then one parent has to become unmoral.
I don't see it as one parent pretending, it's more of a compromise.


----------



## TheBishop

ted_BSR said:


> You lost me. He did not deny Jesus. He pretended to believe in Jesus. If I pretended to NOT believe in Jesus for whatever social reason, I would be acting against my morals.
> 
> I pose that pretending to believe something you profess not to believe for the sake of social convenience is not moral. That is all.



Dude really? You are  contorting my actions to support your agenda. By manilpulating the truth your attempting  publicly tarnish an individuals character, and somehow lend credence to your slanderous claim. Now how moral is that?

You are a hypocrit and nothing more. 



> After re-reading those who objected to my decision posts, I have come to the conclusion the objectors reasoning for faulting me. It is soley becuase I refuse to let my children be indoctrinated as they have been and not becuase I chose to participate in a ritual that made my wife happy. Some are so infruriated that I choose to steer my children away from their delusions, they contort the situation, use misinformation, and just make stuff up to perpetrate me as the wrong doer. That is simply not the case.
> 
> I think after re-reading this thread I understand why I have been viewed in such negativity by the believers. It's becuase they are looking at it throught the eyes of a believer and cannot fathom how I see it. If I were a believer and was against god, what I did world have been unforgiveable, but I am not. So I do not believe in the church, the god, or jesus the preacher was asking me and the others to dedicates our children too. So essentially to me, I was performing a ritual for show and nothing more. My wife knew, and persisted on me to ACT the part, I complied. Becuase I believe the ideals of the church are more fantasy than fact it was quite easy. The more I attend, the more I listen, the more acts my wife asks me to do (their will be more children I am told), the more resolve I have for making my children understand the fantasy part.
> 
> When my children grow up, I hope they will see how silly the church's fantasy is, how it just silly to make stuff up you obviously have no clue about (then find sources that actually validate your cluelessness), and that sometimes its ok to sit through something you find silly ot appease someone you love.


http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=619790&page=3


----------



## TheBishop

SemperFiDawg said:


> Uhhhhhh right.    I think the record speaks for itself.



It does. How many offshoots of amish are there? Are there morals and view the same?



> Mark 12:30-31
> 
> “30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.,
> 31 “The second is: Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no other command greater than these.”



Those are extremely good princinpals.  But not solely championed by "christians".  By the way which christians are we talking about being so moral? With all the denominations out there it might be a good idea to tell us which one has this morality thing right. Catholics? Baptist? They both have differing views on what is right and what is wrong.




> Really?  Well you Atheist are a pretty vocal group for claiming allegiance to a belief system that "doesn't say anything"
> And y'all call Christians hypocrites for not adhering to their tenets.  That's down right funny.



There is no such thing as an atheist belief system.  I think thats what you don't understand. There is absolutety no coherence other than the absence of belief in a god. 




> You mean the arrogance of those people who claim there is no such thing as an omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient being when the only possible, conceivable, logical, and reasonable way they could know that is if they themselves were omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient.  I agree they do tend to be arrogant, but should be pitied instead of reviled.  For them whatever life they are living now is gone be as good as it gets.  After its over, its all downhill for that crew.



Anyone that claims belief as knowledge is making an arrogant mistake.


----------



## ted_BSR

I have no agenda Bishop.


----------



## JFS

SemperFiDawg said:


> I don't think you want to go to evolution to justify the presence of a moral law.



I'll go to evolution and sociology over fairy tales every day of the week (and twice on Sunday).


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Be our guest.


----------



## JFS

SemperFiDawg said:


> Be our guest.



OK, I'll take empathy, social order and reproduction.

I'll give you your invisible sky friend.

What morals require your invisible friend to explain?


----------



## TTom

The false flag argument is that since one very out there public and vocal atheist couldn't form a universal argument for immorality of bestiality, then ALLLLLLLLLLLLL Atheists must also be similarly inclined.

It is a false choice and the OP knows that such phrasing when pointed his way towards his preferred path is a false argument but still chooses to use the tactic to further his own attack on atheists.

Atheist do have the issue of not having some book they pro-port as truth to point back to, to justify the morals they have. ( So one might ask, If one requires a book to point at and say this is where my morals come from, then, before Moses wrote the first 4 books of the bible I would have to assume that morals didn't exist for Judea- Christians either, since it was not written down anywhere. )

A theist has the option of deflecting responsibility for choices onto a book/ or a deity in order to get the get out of jail free card in an argument about whether their moral framework is flawed or not.
An Atheist has no such cop out to guard them from criticism.

A Judea Christian who believes that certain classes of people should be treated as second class citizens can point to a book and say SEE it says so right there and that's the end of their argument. No need to think, just read and regurgitate. An atheist who believes the same thing has nothing to hide behind. Their moral code is their own creation and as such they are entirely responsible for everything in it.


----------



## Artfuldodger

What the OP is stating is that all morals come from the God of Abraham, not a book. Therefore all men in every land has the same morals. He doesn't see the morals as coincidences of each tribe or village learning to live in a social group. We are all predestined to have the same morals and for some reason Atheist don't have to have any morals to fit into a social culture. 
He fails to see the comparison that to believe in a god but not  the God of Abraham is as morally wrong as being an Atheist. Jesus said whoever is not with me is against me. Using that verse from a Christian prospective all other religions are myths. If they do have a Godly reason to have morals then so do Atheist.
 I've used the same argument against  Freemasonry and the Boy Scouts allowing other religions to join but not Atheist, they are all the same to me and Jesus.


----------



## Artfuldodger

I don't understand why the topic of morals shows up so much on this forum anyway. Christians are saved by God's grace because we can't follow morals or "The Law" any better than the other religions or Atheist. 
Take a look at marriage, abortion, war, gossiping, profanity, gambling, cheating, lying, drugs, drunkenness, affairs, and not forgiving others as examples.
Protestants, Mormons, & Catholics have morals that vary from each other. Christian morals vary by what country they live in. Christian morals vary from other religions. Everyone's morals vary with time. Women can wear pants now. We can't have slaves. Blacks can marry whites. We can play cards if we don't gamble. We can play the fiddle.
I'm just thankful for God's grace. Maybe if all morals come from God he also gives everyone the guidance to follow them. Everyone knows right from wrong. Just follow your heart and it'll be alright. At least the living now part.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

TTom said:


> The false flag argument is that since one very out there public and vocal atheist couldn't form a universal argument for immorality of bestiality, then ALLLLLLLLLLLLL Atheists must also be similarly inclined.
> 
> It is a false choice and the OP knows that such phrasing when pointed his way towards his preferred path is a false argument but still chooses to use the tactic to further his own attack on atheists.
> 
> Atheist do have the issue of not having some book they pro-port as truth to point back to, to justify the morals they have. ( So one might ask, If one requires a book to point at and say this is where my morals come from, then, before Moses wrote the first 4 books of the bible I would have to assume that morals didn't exist for Judea- Christians either, since it was not written down anywhere. )
> 
> A theist has the option of deflecting responsibility for choices onto a book/ or a deity in order to get the get out of jail free card in an argument about whether their moral framework is flawed or not.
> An Atheist has no such cop out to guard them from criticism.
> 
> A Judea Christian who believes that certain classes of people should be treated as second class citizens can point to a book and say SEE it says so right there and that's the end of their argument. No need to think, just read and regurgitate. An atheist who believes the same thing has nothing to hide behind. Their moral code is their own creation and as such they are entirely responsible for everything in it.



Wow, another derogatory post from an atheist.  Who woulda thunk it.  Way to represent.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

JFS said:


> OK, I'll take empathy, social order and reproduction.
> 
> I'll give you your invisible sky friend.
> 
> What morals require your invisible friend to explain?




And another.  Skrong work brother!  Skrong!


----------



## bullethead

SemperFiDawg said:


> Wow, another derogatory post from an atheist.  Who woulda thunk it.  Way to represent.



Don't blame the Atheists, blame your God for making them.


----------



## TTom

As opposed to the derogatory and inflammatory original post?
LOL you're not seriously calling me to task while giving yourself a pass are you?


BTW Not an atheist but a pagan by your standards.
But I'd sooner side with them than the idea of the OP.


----------



## TTom

Morals are a framework of values by which one lives their lives there is no corner on the market possessed by the Judea Christians on doing so. Pagan of various types, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoist, Greek and other Philosophers from all corners of the world, have all come up with frameworks of values and live their lives to various levels of success by those values.

The fact that they do not match YOUR morals does not mean they are not simply a different maybe even very different set of morals. You can argue that your set is superior but not that theirs are absent in total. But that means you have devolved the issue to one of discussing what flavor is better, which is impossible to win.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

TTom said:


> As opposed to the derogatory and inflammatory original post?
> LOL you're not seriously calling me to task while giving yourself a pass are you?
> 
> 
> BTW Not an atheist but a pagan by your standards.
> But I'd sooner side with them than the idea of the OP.



No doubt,but if you would care to go back and read through the conversation of the thread you would understand that the OP was not stating that Atheist are immoral, but that Atheism is amoral.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

TTom said:


> Morals are a framework of values by which one lives their lives there is no corner on the market possessed by the Judea Christians on doing so. Pagan of various types, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoist, Greek and other Philosophers from all corners of the world, have all come up with frameworks of values and live their lives to various levels of success by those values.
> 
> The fact that they do not match YOUR morals does not mean they are not simply a different maybe even very different set of morals. You can argue that your set is superior but not that theirs are absent in total. But that means you have devolved the issue to one of discussing what flavor is better, which is impossible to win.



Are you implying morals are relative?


----------



## TTom

No you should read more carefully, I am not infering anything of the sort, you may be implying that I believe as such.

I am stating as fact that your idea that they are amoral (without any moral beliefs)is incorrect as my evidence proves.

Morals are a framework (any such framework meets the definition qualifies) of values by which a person lives their life. To be Amoral they would have to be without any such framework at all.
The eight fold path, the Tao, and the other frameworks including secular ones and individual ones qualify by any unbiased definition as a moral framework.

Ergo your contention that they are Amoral (without any morals) is dis-proven.


----------



## JFS

SemperFiDawg said:


> And another.  Skrong work brother!  Skrong!



Any time you are ready I'd love to hear your side.  But down here in AAA we tend to focus on arguments- self-congratulatory pompous missives from deluded holy rollers aren't really worth the bandwidth drain.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

JFS said:


> Any time you are ready I'd love to hear your side.  But down here in AAA we tend to focus on arguments- self-congratulatory pompous missives from deluded holy rollers aren't really worth the bandwidth drain.



What you focus on is argumenative denigration as evidenced by your post.  What you don't focus on is the truth.


----------



## atlashunter

TTom said:


> No you should read more carefully, I am not infering anything of the sort, you may be implying that I believe as such.
> 
> I am stating as fact that your idea that they are amoral (without any moral beliefs)is incorrect as my evidence proves.
> 
> Morals are a framework (any such framework meets the definition qualifies) of values by which a person lives their life. To be Amoral they would have to be without any such framework at all.
> The eight fold path, the Tao, and the other frameworks including secular ones and individual ones qualify by any unbiased definition as a moral framework.
> 
> Ergo your contention that they are Amoral (without any morals) is dis-proven.



IMO, atheism is amoral because it by definition has nothing to say one way or the other about morality. It is only a lack of belief in deities. That doesn't imply atheists are amoral. Entirely possible to be an atheist and hold pretty much any view on morality you can think of.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

TTom said:


> No you should read more carefully, I am not infering anything of the sort, you may be implying that I believe as such.
> 
> I am stating as fact that your idea that they are amoral (without any moral beliefs)is incorrect as my evidence proves.
> 
> Morals are a framework (any such framework meets the definition qualifies) of values by which a person lives their life. To be Amoral they would have to be without any such framework at all.
> The eight fold path, the Tao, and the other frameworks including secular ones and individual ones qualify by any unbiased definition as a moral framework.
> 
> Ergo your contention that they are Amoral (without any morals) is dis-proven.



Not implying anything.  It was a simple question, but "if any such framework meets the definition" then you are in fact implying morals are relative.

With regards to your last statement, if you go back and read, is that the assertion was Atheism is amoral, not all beliefs.


----------



## atlashunter

JFS said:


> Any time you are ready I'd love to hear your side.  But down here in AAA we tend to focus on arguments- self-congratulatory pompous missives from deluded holy rollers aren't really worth the bandwidth drain.



SFD is the type that likes to dish it out but cry foul when it gets dished back to him. There is a word for someone who holds others to a different standard than they hold themselves.


----------



## JFS

SemperFiDawg said:


> What you don't focus on is the truth.



LOL, the truth?  You can't handle the truth!  Sorry, that was too easy.  I've given you a framework that explains why "morals" vary between cultures but generally stay within certain parameters.   You've done nothing to explain how some supernatural source creates, modifies or disseminates morality.   But I'm willing to hear it if you've got it.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

No Thanks.  I'm learning very quickly that most of you guys on here,with a few exceptions, are incapable of even engaging  in reasonable dialog.  When you start out in this thread with a denigrating post instead of an intelligent or reasonable one, I honestly see no reason to waste any time on anything further you have to say.


----------



## JB0704

SemperFiDawg said:


> I'm learning very quickly that most of you guys on here,with a few exceptions, are incapable of even engaging  in reasonable dialog.



That's on both sides.  Stick around, keep it respectful, shrug off the snippy comments, and some great conversations will eventually happen in here.


----------



## Four

How on earth did something that is basically a semantics difference turn into this long of a thread?

A theist defines morality by gods will, if someone doesn't believe in that (or any) deity, than by definition that person is immoral / has no morals...

An atheist defines morality differently, and exactly how depends on what secular ethical framework they subscribe to.


----------



## TheBishop

Four said:


> How on earth did something that is basically a semantics difference turn into this long of a thread?
> 
> A theist defines morality by gods will, if someone doesn't believe in that (or any) deity, than by definition that person is immoral / has no morals...
> 
> An atheist defines morality differently, and exactly how depends on what secular ethical framework they subscribe to.



^^^^This.


----------



## JB0704

Four said:


> A theist defines morality by gods will, if someone doesn't believe in that (or any) deity, than by definition that person is immoral / has no morals...





Maybe I missed something, but I don't think that is the argument.  I believe an atheist can be just as "moral" as any theist.  We each determine which "code" we live by, making morals "subjective."  Many theists will choose their Holy Book as their code.  Athesits will choose whatever they wish, or make a choice of nothing.  I see the source as the primary difference, not the existence or lack of morals.


----------



## stringmusic

Four said:


> How on earth did something that is basically a semantics difference turn into this long of a thread?
> 
> A theist defines morality by gods will, if someone doesn't believe in that (or any) deity, than by definition that person is immoral / has no morals...
> 
> An atheist defines morality differently, and exactly how depends on what secular ethical framework they subscribe to.



I think the main difference is one framework has inherent reason to denounce immoral acts and one doesn't.


----------



## TheBishop

SemperFiDawg said:


> Are you implying morals are relative?



They most certainly are. Relative to ones time, place, uprining, enviroment, social status, religious belief, lack thereof, gender, age, ethnic background, circumstances, ect, ect,ect, 

History proves this over and over and over and over and over and over......


----------



## TheBishop

atlashunter said:


> IMO, atheism is amoral because it by definition has nothing to say one way or the other about morality. It is only a lack of belief in deities. That doesn't imply atheists are amoral. Entirely possible to be an atheist and hold pretty much any view on morality you can think of.



Leave it to atlas to put one in the bleachers, with a common sense statement.


----------



## Four

JB0704 said:


> Maybe I missed something, but I don't think that is the argument.  I believe an atheist can be just as "moral" as any theist.  We each determine which "code" we live by, making morals "subjective."  Many theists will choose their Holy Book as their code.  Athesits will choose whatever they wish, or make a choice of nothing.  I see the source as the primary difference, not the existence or lack of morals.



You're a pretty rare bird. I believe most of the arguments from a theist start with a premise that god's will IS morality.


----------



## stringmusic

TheBishop said:


> They most certainly are. Relative to ones time, place, uprining, enviroment, social status, religious belief, lack thereof, gender, age, ethnic background, circumstances, ect, ect,ect,
> 
> History proves this over and over and over and over and over and over......



Bishop, I know we've been through the ringer on moral many times, but you're still stuck on this illogical argument. The adherence, or lack thereof, to an objective moral in no way proves that morals are relative.

Sexually molesting and 6 month old child is immoral, ones time, place, uprining, enviroment, social status, religious belief, lack thereof, gender, age, ethnic background, circumstances, ect, ect,ect, can negate that fact.


----------



## JB0704

Four said:


> You're a pretty rare bird. I believe most of the arguments from a theist start with a premise that god's will IS morality.



Hmm....gonna think on that one.  A detailed response would have to pull in some NT scripture which basically places non-believers outside of believer's judgement, and I tend to think that the reason for that is that there is no common basis....either way, I don't think I can, or should, appraise your actions according to my beliefs.  We would have to find a common basis for that sort of thing, and the only current method would be existing law.....gummint.


----------



## JFS

stringmusic said:


> Sexually molesting and 6 month old child is immoral, ones time, place, uprining, enviroment, social status, religious belief, lack thereof, gender, age, ethnic background, circumstances, ect, ect,ect, can not negate that fact.



Not sure who is arguing against that.  But what about the age of consent, is it 12, 14, 16, 21?  What is the divine, unchanging guidance on that?

ETA:  You got me to wondering though, does moral judgment incorporate the same level of intent that laws do?  If someone doesn't understand the social conventions or lacks the mental capacity to understand their own actions, are those actions still "immoral" when they violate the societal rule or are they just wrongful?


----------



## TheBishop

JB0704 said:


> Maybe I missed something, but I don't think that is the argument.  I believe an atheist can be just as "moral" as any theist.  We each determine which "code" we live by, making morals "subjective."  Many theists will choose their Holy Book as their code.  Athesits will choose whatever they wish, or make a choice of nothing.  I see the source as the primary difference, not the existence or lack of morals.



The source is the exact same, the only difference is were the credit is given.  Our morality is our individual interpretation of life experience to determine what is good and bad.  

If the bible was even remotely concise on morality, you would not have the wide variety of moral views that exsist among the seeminlg endless list of demonations, and each one claiming to have the interpretations right.  You would expect the inconsistencies of these denominations to be minor since their source is something divinely inspired, but that is not at all the case.  Even among the same denominations,morals vary between individuals, allowing an outside rational observer to conclude, the moral source for which all these vastly different view stem from is, flawed.


----------



## TheBishop

stringmusic said:


> Bishop, I know we've been through the ringer on moral many times, but you're still stuck on this illogical argument. The adherence, or lack thereof, to an objective moral in no way proves that morals are relative.
> 
> Sexually molesting and 6 month old child is immoral, ones time, place, uprining, enviroment, social status, religious belief, lack thereof, gender, age, ethnic background, circumstances, ect, ect,ect, can not negate that fact.



Were is not molesting a child outlined in the bible?


----------



## Four

JB0704 said:


> Hmm....gonna think on that one.  A detailed response would have to pull in some NT scripture which basically places non-believers outside of believer's judgement, and I tend to think that the reason for that is that there is no common basis....either way, I don't think I can, or should, appraise your actions according to my beliefs.  We would have to find a common basis for that sort of thing, and the only current method would be existing law.....gummint.



A christian that is a subjective moralist... niiiffttyyy! 

It does solve the problem of what happens to all the "good" non-believers, or people who existed prior to the bibles creation.


----------



## JFS

stringmusic said:


> The adherence, or lack thereof, to an objective moral in no way proves that morals are relative.



And the existence of common morality doesn't prove it's objective either.


----------



## stringmusic

JFS said:


> Not sure who is arguing against that.


Nobody is. That's why I said....


			
				stringmusic said:
			
		

> I think the main difference is one framework has inherent reason to denounce immoral acts and one doesn't.





> But what about the age of consent, is it 12, 14, 16, 21?  What is the divine, unchanging guidance on that?


I'm not arguing that everything is absolute.

The age of consent for a believer would be based on guidence from the Holy Spirit.



> ETA:  You got me to wondering though, does moral judgment incorporate the same level of intent that laws do?  If someone doesn't understand the social conventions or lacks the mental capacity to understand their own actions, are those actions still "immoral" when they violate the societal rule or are they just wrongful?



I think if someone is incapable of understanding right and wrong(I would argue the amount of people that fall in this catagory is very small) then it would be considered wrongful.


----------



## stringmusic

TheBishop said:


> Were is not molesting a child outlined in the bible?



Mathew 7:12

Are you conceding that your argument is illogical?


----------



## stringmusic

JFS said:


> And the existence of common morality doesn't prove it's objective either.



Apart from God, you're correct.


----------



## TheBishop

stringmusic said:


> Mathew 7:12
> 
> Are you conceding that your argument is illogical?



My arguement is sound, Factual, backed by history, and reality, to lend it validity.  Yours not so much.  

M 7:12 does not say anything about molesting children.  Were in the bible does it specifically mention that it is immoral to molest children?  If it doesn't say anything about MOLESTING children, and you find it to be immoral, it can only be, that you, like I, deduced it to be immoral based on our life experience, culture and other mitigating factors.  Hence reinforcing the idea that morals are relative, subject to ones place and time.


----------



## stringmusic

TheBishop said:


> My arguement is sound, Factual, backed by history, and reality, to lend it validity.  Yours not so much.


I've shown you where your logic fails, do you care to address what I posted?  



> M 7:12 does not say anything about molesting children.  Were in the bible does it specifically mention that it is immoral to molest children?  If it doesn't say anything about MOLESTING children, and you find it to be immoral, it can only be, that you, like I, deduced it to be immoral based on our life experience, culture and other mitigating factors.  Hence reinforcing the idea that morals are relative, subject to ones place and time.



The bible doesn't need to state that molesting a 6 month old child is immoral, I know it is immoral because I wouldn't have wanted that to happen to by son when he was 6 months old. A priori knowledge.

By your logic, if a person who's life experience and culture has shown that raping a child is moraly valid, then that would make it moral for that person to do so. The law of non condradiction proves your assertion false. Raping a child cannot be moral for one person, while on the other hand immoral for another.


----------



## JB0704

Four said:


> A christian that is a subjective moralist... niiiffttyyy!



Well, my source is objective (on an individual level, I know everybody has their own "take" on things), but, I cannot hold you to my standards.

The only common ground you and I would have would be the law we live under.....not my faith, or your non-faith.  That leaves morality as a personal choice, and the law as a method to level the playing field between those of opposing beliefs (which is why I am also a 95% libertarian, because I don't want individual belief systems forced through law).



Four said:


> It does solve the problem of what happens to all the "good" non-believers, or people who existed prior to the bibles creation.



That is a discussion best left alone.  The answer is....everybody has an opinion, but none of us are really sure.


----------



## TheBishop

stringmusic said:


> I've shown you where your logic fails, do you care to address what I posted?
> 
> 
> 
> The bible doesn't need to state that molesting a 6 month old child is immoral, I know it is immoral because I wouldn't have wanted that to happen to by son when he was 6 months old. A priori knowledge.
> 
> By your logic, if a person who's life experience and culture has shown that raping a child is moraly valid, then that would make it moral for that person to do so. The law of non condradiction proves your assertion false. Raping a child cannot be moral for one person, while on the other hand immoral for another.



Again, you and I can reason all we like that raping a child, is immoral.  We both find it revolting, and neither of us need any book to tell us that. Our instincts tell us its wrong. which come from our culture and upringing.  Some cultures are different and do quite different things. Their morality is different. Cannibalism, as well sex with minors of all ages, for instance, still occurs in some cultures. 

Now based on reasoning, and observations, I can make fairly logical rationalizion why I think molesting a child or cannibalism for that matter, is detrimental for society. But there is nothing definitive to point to, to qualify it as immoral. It would be nothing more than my own individual interpretations, my subjective view, and in whole just another opinion. The same with you. Your own moral guidbook, neither quantifies an age of consent, nor makes a clear and concise, stand on your own choice of absolute morality.


----------



## stringmusic

TheBishop said:


> Again, you and I can reason all we like that raping a child, is immoral.  We both find it revolting, and neither of us need any book to tell us that. Our instincts tell us its wrong. which come from our culture and upringing.  Some cultures are different and do quite different things. Their morality is different. Cannibalism, as well sex with minors of all ages, for instance, still occurs in some cultures.
> 
> Now based on reasoning, and observations, I can make fairly logical rationalizion why I think molesting a child or cannibalism for that matter, is detrimental for society. But there is nothing definitive to point to, to qualify it as immoral. It would be nothing more than my own individual interpretations, my subjective view, and in whole just another opinion. The same with you. Your own moral guidbook, neither quantifies an age of consent, nor makes a clear and concise, stand on your own choice of absolute morality.



And the title of this thread rings true......


----------



## Four

stringmusic said:


> And the title of this thread rings true......



It should really say "Are Moral nihilists morally bankrupt"


----------



## stringmusic

TheBishop said:


> Their morality is different. Cannibalism, as well sex with minors of all ages, for instance, still occurs in some cultures.



Bishop, you're a intelligent fella, I can't for the life of me understand how you don't see that the above statement in no way indicates that morals are relative, it only indicates humanities inabillity to adhere to them.

Let's try an example.

A teacher makes a rule in a classroom that nobody is allowed to pee in the floor.

Little Johny is use to using a toilet and has no problem following the rule.

Little Timmy was raised in the country and pees wherever he see's fit at the time.

When little Timmy stands up and pees in the floor, does that somehow make the rule invalid? It is, of course, how he was raised. Is it now ok to pee in the floor of the classroom?

The fact that people do no adhere to rules in no way negates that rule.


----------



## stringmusic

Four said:


> It should really say "Are Moral nihilists morally bankrupt"



Although a moral nihilist and an atheist are not the same, the answer to both the question in the OP and your question are the same.


----------



## JB0704

stringmusic said:


> Bishop, you're a intelligent fella, I can't for the life of me understand how you don't see that the above statement in no way indicates that morals are relative, it only indicates humanities inabillity to adhere to them.



String, are we using the term "morals" interchangeably with rules?

Reason I ask is that I see no moral dilemma with Timmy peeing on the classroom floor, but I do see a sanitary reason to forbid such an act.

In that sense, rules are objective.  For us believers, they are objectively stated.  I just think maybe i am confusing morals with rules in this conversation.


----------



## bullethead

Why would a God give us morals and not base his decision to let someone in Heaven or send them to h3ll based off those morals?
This God requires a belief in him so then Why condemn someone to h3ll because the same God provides such a lack of evidence for it's existence?


----------



## TTom

String your example is lacking in that the teacher making the rule does not make the rule a shared moral between her and Timmy.

Unless and until Timmy adopts and adapts to the Teacher's rule and begins to share the belief that the rule is correct it is not a moral for Timmy, it is just another rule.

One might in fact say that the Teacher forcing the rule on someone else is the one being immoral.


----------



## Artfuldodger

If God is no respecter of men and living a wholesome life of good morals doesn't get one into Heaven, I don't see the point of the argument even if all morals do come from God. 
There are plenty of Christians who were living a life of no morals before conversion. There were also plenty of Christians living a very moral life before conversion. I would say most southern women living on the farm had high morals when converting to Christianity. Lot's of young men living in the sin of the city were living a life of low morals when converting to Christianity.
My point is what are we trying to prove by deciding if Atheist have no basis to have morals or the question of morals coming from God.


----------



## ted_BSR

bullethead said:


> Why would a God give us morals and not base his decision to let someone in Heaven or send them to h3ll based off those morals?
> This God requires a belief in him so then Why condemn someone to h3ll because the same God provides such a lack of evidence for it's existence?



I don't think God's admittance to heaven or the other place is based on morals. Morals are a man made set of rules based on culture and ideas. It is based on Grace. Yes, you must believe in His existence, and in His death and resurrection. His perceived lack of evidence of His existence is a prerequisite that is a construct of humans. God didn't say that he would provide irrefutable proof of these ideas. That would make it all a matter of science and logic, and not a matter of faith. i.e. He did not want robots with no choice but to believe.

This is from my opinion, don't expect any links to scientific articles, or you tube videos to substantiate my beliefs.


----------



## ted_BSR

Artfuldodger said:


> If God is no respecter of men and living a wholesome life of good morals doesn't get one into Heaven, I don't see the point of the argument even if all morals do come from God.
> There are plenty of Christians who were living a life of no morals before conversion. There were also plenty of Christians living a very moral life before conversion. I would say most southern women living on the farm had high morals when converting to Christianity. Lot's of young men living in the sin of the city were living a life of low morals when converting to Christianity.
> My point is what are we trying to prove by deciding if Atheist have no basis to have morals or the question of morals coming from God.



In red above is a huge assumption. I can tell you that your statement is not true, based on some sorted family history. It IS what you believe, but those southern farm girls may shock you.


----------



## ted_BSR

TTom said:


> String your example is lacking in that the teacher making the rule does not make the rule a shared moral between her and Timmy.
> 
> Unless and until Timmy adopts and adapts to the Teacher's rule and begins to share the belief that the rule is correct it is not a moral for Timmy, it is just another rule.
> 
> One might in fact say that the Teacher forcing the rule on someone else is the one being immoral.



I agree. Morals are finicky, and not what most people believe they are.


----------



## bullethead

ted_BSR said:


> I don't think God's admittance to heaven or the other place is based on morals. Morals are a man made set of rules based on culture and ideas. It is based on Grace. Yes, you must believe in His existence, and in His death and resurrection. His perceived lack of evidence of His existence is a prerequisite that is a construct of humans. God didn't say that he would provide irrefutable proof of these ideas. That would make it all a matter of science and logic, and not a matter of faith. i.e. He did not want robots with no choice but to believe.
> 
> This is from my opinion, don't expect any links to scientific articles, or you tube videos to substantiate my beliefs.



Doesn't God want people to know about him? Is it written somewhere that his believers are to spread the word?
If God wants everyone to know about him is it then a test to see who is loyal? If God wants people to know about him could he possibly do less to make that happen? Doubtful.

I agree morals are not from a God and especially not from any specific religion. There are those on here saying otherwise and I ask them that if our morals come from God why doesn't he consider those morals when you get your ticket for the UP or DOWN escalator?


----------



## TTom

Webster doesn't seem to have an issue with the source of the determination of right vs wrong behavior. The definition stands without being confined to one specific code of right vs wrong.

When it comes to English word definitions Webster rarely fails to provide the most correct definitions. Non of the definitions provided specify any source from which morals must come. Only that they are a code of right/ correct behavior. A code any code whereby the values of a person or group is used to form a basis for right vs wrong therefore qualifies by strict definition as a code of morals.

Would this mean that all atheists are have moral codes that I would agree with. Nope not at all. Would this mean that all Christians have moral codes that I would agree with. Nope not at all. There are though parts of my moral framework that come from both sources, because my values come from a mixture of spiritual and secular sources. Most of them in my case started as those taught to me in my youth, later as I matured I stopped just accepting what I was told was right and wrong and started to evaluate for myself. I challenged the morals of my youth and those that met the challenge remain those that failed were scrapped.


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> Doesn't God want people to know about him?



Yes.  And, I do believe nature is the testimony where other evidence fails you.



bullethead said:


> Is it written somewhere that his believers are to spread the word?



Yes, but there is no mandate on me to convert you.  That's on you.



bullethead said:


> If God wants everyone to know about him is it then a test to see who is loyal? If God wants people to know about him could he possibly do less to make that happen? Doubtful.



That statement is subjective, another perspective could say "could he possibly do more?"




bullethead said:


> I agree morals are not from a God and especially not from any specific religion. There are those on here saying otherwise and I ask them that if our morals come from God why doesn't he consider those morals when you get your ticket for the UP or DOWN escalator?



You are making a moral judgement with that statement.

I think String's point is, and has been, that there are "rules of the universe" dictated by the creator of the universe, and we operate within that framework.  I still would say that framework is subjective on an individual level because "moral" has changed so much within the church, let alone society as a whole.  

There was a time when wearing shorts to church was akin to cohorting with the debil....now, preachers wear shorts   Was it wrong then and not now?  Or, was it never wrong to begin with, but religion created a false standard....I dunno, it's subjective.

I do think that underneath it all there is an absolute truth (you kind-of have to to be a believer).  However, according to 1 Corinthians 5, it is none of my business whether or not you choose to find it, my life is my responsibility, and yours is yours. And, 1 Corinthians 5 indicates that what those outside the church do is not my concern....which is why I can't appraise your behavior according to my code.  All we got to co-exist in a common society is law.


----------



## JB0704

ted_BSR said:


> Morals are a man made set of rules based on culture and ideas.



Yep, and.....



			
				ted_BSR said:
			
		

> It IS what you believe, but those southern farm girls may shock you.



....yep.


----------



## Four

stringmusic said:


> Although a moral nihilist and an atheist are not the same, the answer to both the question in the OP and your question are the same.



Of course it is. Its a difference in terms. See post 254.

I'm sure there are many people that could make the stance that Christianity is morally bankrupt.


----------



## TripleXBullies

ted_BSR said:


> I don't think God's admittance to heaven or the other place is based on morals. Morals are a man made set of rules based on culture and ideas.



We agree.


----------



## jmharris23

TheBishop said:


> Were is not molesting a child outlined in the bible?



In your mind, would these verses cover molesting a child?

1 Corinthians 6:18 - Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body.

1 Thessalonians 4:3-7 - For this is the will of God, iyour sanctification that you abstain from sexual immorality; that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor, not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God; that no one transgress and wrong his brother in this matter, because the Lord is an avenger in all these things, as we told you beforehand and solemnly warned you. For God has not called us for impurity, but in holiness.

Ephesians 5:3 -3 But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints.


----------



## jmharris23

bullethead said:


> Doesn't God want people to know about him? Is it written somewhere that his believers are to spread the word?
> If God wants everyone to know about him is it then a test to see who is loyal? If God wants people to know about him could he possibly do less to make that happen? Doubtful.
> 
> I agree morals are not from a God and especially not from any specific religion. There are those on here saying otherwise and I ask them that if our morals come from God why doesn't he consider those morals when you get your ticket for the UP or DOWN escalator?




The morals that are pulled from scripture beginning with the 10 Commandments, Levitical law, and on into the NT where Jesus and the Apostles discuss morality were given not as a list of things that man must do in order to gain entrance into heaven, but as a list of characteristics that should be evident in the life of someone who claims to be a "child of God." 

The reason believers are required to submit their lives to this list and grow in this morality was so that they(believers) might be a people "set apart" from the world so that the world would, through the lifestyle of God's people, be pointed to God Himself.


----------



## JB0704

jmharris23 said:


> The morals that are pulled from scripture beginning with the 10 Commandments.....



Are those more "law" than morals?  That's where I see a disconect.  See my shorts in church example....wearing your "Sunday best" might be one man's moral, and another man of the same system might see such practice as unnecessary.


----------



## jmharris23

JB0704 said:


> Are those more "law" than morals?  That's where I see a disconect.  See my shorts in church example....wearing your "Sunday best" might be one man's moral, and another man of the same system might see such practice as unnecessary.



No   At least not to me. I do not consider choice of attire as a moral issue, but a preferential one?


----------



## JB0704

jmharris23 said:


> No   At least not to me. I do not consider choice of attire as a moral issue, but a preferential one?



Ok, I think I am getting confused on this subject between "rules" (which as a believer I will assume are God-created, or created by law) and morals.....which you are referring to as preference.


For instance, there was a debate in the political forum a little while back over the morality of prejudiced (started by discussion over segregated proms).  One man concluded that it is no more or less moral than any other action.  My conclusion is that prejudice based on genetics is judging God's work (nature for the skeptics), and therefore immoral.....neither position can be clearly defended....so it is a personal choice as to which morality one adheres to, and neither position should be defended through law (forced morality in this case).

I think that's the difference I am seeing between rules and morality????


----------



## jmharris23

JB0704 said:


> Ok, I think I am getting confused on this subject between "rules" (which as a believer I will assume are God-created, or created by law) and morals.....which you are referring to as preference.
> 
> 
> For instance, there was a debate in the political forum a little while back over the morality of prejudiced (started by discussion over segregated proms).  One man concluded that it is no more or less moral than any other action.  My conclusion is that prejudice based on genetics is judging God's work (nature for the skeptics), and therefore immoral.....neither position can be clearly defended....so it is a personal choice as to which morality one adheres to, and neither position should be defended through law (forced morality in this case).
> 
> I think that's the difference I am seeing between rules and morality????



I believe morals are "rules. For example, thou shalt not kill is a rule, but also a basic premise of morality. 

Or "avoid sexual immorality" - rule....also a moral issue


In the OT the law was separated into 3 parts: moral, ceremonial, and civil. 

Morality is a rule....... what you decide to wear is not a moral issue, but simply a preference. 


Whether you make a decision to kill, molest, rape, or commit adultery is a moral issue.


----------



## JB0704

jmharris23 said:


> I believe morals are "rules. For example, thou shalt not kill is a rule, but also a basic premise of morality.
> 
> Or "avoid sexual immorality" - rule....also a moral issue
> 
> 
> In the OT the law was separated into 3 parts: moral, ceremonial, and civil.
> 
> Morality is a rule....... what you decide to wear is not a moral issue, but simply a preference.
> 
> 
> Whether you make a decision to kill, molest, rape, or commit adultery is a moral issue.



In some examples, there is a victim created, and I guess creating a victim could be a question of morality, but I tend to see that more as a rule to keep society functioning. Avoiding sexual immorality is also a good way to keep disease and unwanted pregnancy at a minimum, so that one makes sense.....but if there is no victim, I see it as a moral issue.

I do believe I have confused myself here, and probably need to think my position through a bit more thoroughly......I think I will revert to my previous position to typically avoid morality threads.


----------



## ted_BSR

bullethead said:


> Doesn't God want people to know about him? Is it written somewhere that his believers are to spread the word?
> If God wants everyone to know about him is it then a test to see who is loyal? If God wants people to know about him could he possibly do less to make that happen? Doubtful.
> 
> I agree morals are not from a God and especially not from any specific religion. There are those on here saying otherwise and I ask them that if our morals come from God why doesn't he consider those morals when you get your ticket for the UP or DOWN escalator?



There is only one way to get the UP ticket!


----------



## Artfuldodger

jmharris23 said:


> The reason believers are required to submit their lives to this list and grow in this morality was so that they(believers) might be a people "set apart" from the world so that the world would, through the lifestyle of God's people, be pointed to God Himself.




While I do think the way Christians live should set them apart, it would be hard to tell Christians apart from other  people who also live by good morals such as Gandhi as an example.
But then again living a good life doesn't get one into Heaven. I believe the secret to living a Christian life is more of a Spiritual thing that manifest itself in physical things like helping others more than living by a moral code.
Morals, law, rules,  it's starting to all mix me up too. I'm going to return to grace.


----------



## JFS

JB0704 said:


> In some examples, there is a victim created, and I guess creating a victim could be a question of morality, but I tend to see that more as a rule to keep society functioning. Avoiding sexual immorality is also a good way to keep disease and unwanted pregnancy at a minimum, so that one makes sense.....but if there is no victim, I see it as a moral issue.



This goes back to what I said before, it's not hard to understand "morals" in the context of empathy, social order, and reproduction.  Different groups have developed different flavors, but they often converge on common points because they have some common goals.   But the commonality is a result of the shared objectives, not a supernatural fiat.


----------



## ted_BSR

Artfuldodger said:


> While I do think the way Christians live should set them apart, it would be hard to tell Christians apart from other  people who also live by good morals such as Gandhi as an example.
> But then again living a good life doesn't get one into Heaven. I believe the secret to living a Christian life is more of a Spiritual thing that manifest itself in physical things like helping others more than living by a moral code.
> Morals, law, rules,  it's starting to all mix me up too. I'm going to return to grace.



Be careful of using Gandhi as an example. While both he and Christians ultimately believe in the right to bear arms, most Indians are very very very angry with Gandhi for selling them out to the British. I have heard the most vile descriptions of Gandhi coming out of the mouths of fellow Hindu's. He only recognized the need for an armed population after it was too late.


----------



## bullethead

ted_BSR said:


> There is only one way to get the UP ticket!



Hard to Fathom that God would abandon his "Chosen" people because they are not on board with the "Kid"........


----------



## jmharris23

bullethead said:


> Hard to Fathom that God would abandon his "Chosen" people because they are not on board with the "Kid"........



That's actually one of the easier things to fathom about the Judeo-Christian God


----------



## bullethead

jmharris23 said:


> That's actually one of the easier things to fathom about the Judeo-Christian God



Now C'mon.


----------



## jmharris23

bullethead said:


> Now C'mon.



What?


----------



## bullethead

OT, one set of rules for the chosen to follow or burn. NT, new set of rules for the chosen to follow or burn.
Most of the chosen, despite "living among the NT stories", still don't follow it and yet are just as convinced they are going to heaven.


----------



## jmharris23

bullethead said:


> OT, one set of rules for the chosen to follow or burn. NT, new set of rules for the chosen to follow or burn.
> Most of the chosen, despite "living among the NT stories", still don't follow it and yet are just as convinced they are going to heaven.



For starters, this isn't the correct picture. I know you don't believe the bible anyway, so I don't really know why I am engaging you in this conversation? I also believe that you already know everything I am about to type, but here goes anyway. 

The OT Laws were given to God's chosen people really for two purposes. 

They were given as a group of moral, ceremonial, and civil laws to specifically set them apart from the rest of the ancient world as a group who believed in Yaweh God and who lived a lifestyle much different than the tribes of people around them. 

The 2nd purpose of the OT was always to point the chosen, and ultimately the rest of the world to their Messiah / Savior. 

There are not two sets of rules. The rules or the law remain the same. They've always been the same. Even Jesus said they were the same. 


Burning, as you put it, is the result of one thing and one thing only. 

Not believing that Jesus Christ is the Son of Yaweh God, who came to this Earth,died on a cross as an atonement for the sins of the world, and after dying on that cross, was buried and raised from the dead. 

This is what (according to biblical Christianity) determines the eternity of both God's chosen people (Jews) as well as those grafted into the family (everyone else). 

It has nothing to do with an adherence to a certain set of rules or laws, and never has.


----------



## ddd-shooter

Science cannot and will not define anything in this world as good or bad. The world simply is as it is. Why do so many try to say what is good or bad? Why haven't we dropped these notions from our debate? There is no basis from which anyone can say ANYTHING is good or bad. Not God, not a lack of God, not Gods people, not the tornado in OK, not the Boston bomber. 
Discussion over.


----------



## JB0704

ddd-shooter said:


> There is no basis from which anyone can say ANYTHING is good or bad.



Let's say I accidentally drop something on my toe, maybe a 10 # weight....

....Do I now yell "That's Indifferent!!!"


----------



## jmharris23

ddd-shooter said:


> Science cannot and will not define anything in this world as good or bad. The world simply is as it is. Why do so many try to say what is good or bad? Why haven't we dropped these notions from our debate? There is no basis from which anyone can say ANYTHING is good or bad. Not God, not a lack of God, not Gods people, not the tornado in OK, not the Boston bomber.
> Discussion over.



What if someone kidnaps, rapes, kills, or molests one of your children? Or they die in some horrific accident? 

 Are you telling me you would just walk away from that and say, "Well the world simply is as it is, it's too bad this had to happen to me."


----------



## bullethead

jmharris23 said:


> What if someone kidnaps, rapes, kills, or molests one of your children? Or they die in some horrific accident?
> 
> Are you telling me you would just walk away from that and say, "Well the world simply is as it is, it's too bad this had to happen to me."



Would anyone say " Well at least Jesus died to save the soul of the rapist,murderer,molester or kidnaper and as long as they believe we can talk it over in heaven at a later date"?


----------



## jmharris23

bullethead said:


> Would anyone say " Well at least Jesus died to save the soul of the rapist,murderer,molester or kidnaper and as long as they believe we can talk it over in heaven at a later date"?



I believe that the grace of God is big enough for these types of people, although if they are hard hearted enough to do these types of sick acts, the chances are they aren't going to respond to the Spirit. 

But that's not my place to make that determination. 

As far as what I would do or say..... I have a 6 yr old daughter that I love more than life. If someone hurts her I pray that God's grace falls on me first.


----------



## atlashunter

jmharris23 said:


> What if someone kidnaps, rapes, kills, or molests one of your children? Or they die in some horrific accident?
> 
> Are you telling me you would just walk away from that and say, "Well the world simply is as it is, it's too bad this had to happen to me."



Some years ago I had a cousin who was killed in a car wreck along with one of her 7 year old identical twin daughters, the other survived, and the mother of an infant. She was only 23 years old. That was tragic and hit my family hard. I didn't cry out and ask why god allowed it to happen or what his higher purpose was. Nor did I shake my fist in the air and curse the devil for cutting their lives short. I simply shrugged and accepted that this is what should be expected in a world without any gods.

If something terrible happened to one of your children would you just walk away and say "the lord works in mysterious ways"?


----------



## JB0704

atlashunter said:


> If something terrible happened to one of your children would you just walk away and say "the lord works in mysterious ways"?



Are you saying you find your lack of faith comforting during tragedy?

I was at a funeral for an infant last month.  Very close friends of mine had to find peace in a sensless situation.  They found it through their faith, and a trust that a purpose had been served during that child's short life.  Who knows what it is, but it helped them cope with a devestating situation.


----------



## bullethead

jmharris23 said:


> I believe that the grace of God is big enough for these types of people, although if they are hard hearted enough to do these types of sick acts, the chances are they aren't going to respond to the Spirit.
> 
> But that's not my place to make that determination.
> 
> As far as what I would do or say..... I have a 6 yr old daughter that I love more than life. If someone hurts her I pray that God's grace falls on me first.



Sounds like some Old Testament "Eye for an Eye" justice there.


----------



## atlashunter

JB0704 said:


> Are you saying you find your lack of faith comforting during tragedy?
> 
> I was at a funeral for an infant last month.  Very close friends of mine had to find peace in a sensless situation.  They found it through their faith, and a trust that a purpose had been served during that child's short life.  Who knows what it is, but it helped them cope with a devestating situation.



Understandable that people in such anguish will place a higher value on the comfort a belief delivers than on whether the belief is actually true. I guess I'm just not cut out that way. Given the choice between being stroked by a preacher to help me cope or facing and accepting the world as it is however painful that may be I'll choose the latter every time. I'd rather endure the discomfort of accepting reality as it is than be comforted with delusion. I have no use for wishful thinking.


----------



## jmharris23

bullethead said:


> Sounds like some Old Testament "Eye for an Eye" justice there.



It sounds like to me that you are twisting my words. 

What I said was that if someone hurt my daughter I would want to rip them apart. I pray that the grace of God would fall on me in such a way that I would not try this route but trust my God who says, " Vengeance is mine." 

But until it happens I cannot honestly say what I would do. Only what is right and what is wrong according to my faith.


----------



## jmharris23

atlashunter said:


> Some years ago I had a cousin who was killed in a car wreck along with one of her 7 year old identical twin daughters, the other survived, and the mother of an infant. She was only 23 years old. That was tragic and hit my family hard. I didn't cry out and ask why god allowed it to happen or what his higher purpose was. Nor did I shake my fist in the air and curse the devil for cutting their lives short. I simply shrugged and accepted that this is what should be expected in a world without any gods.
> 
> If something terrible happened to one of your children would you just walk away and say "the lord works in mysterious ways"?



No. I would cry and grieve and mourn. I would be broken for a while and hope that I was strong enough to move on. I would face the horrors of facing life without my child or facing life with a child scarred by some terrible situation. My life would never be the same. That's what I would do if something terrible happened to one of my children. 

That and pray that the God I believe to be real would heal my pain.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Four said:


> How on earth did something that is basically a semantics difference turn into this long of a thread?
> 
> A theist defines morality by gods will, if someone doesn't believe in that (or any) deity, than by definition that person is immoral / has no morals...
> 
> An atheist defines morality differently, and exactly how depends on what secular ethical framework they subscribe to.




Sorry Four, but as to your first point, that was not what was implied or suggested in the OP.  I simply stated, "It seems when you cut yourself loose from all the moorings of a moral law you can't justify anything as wrong."  Those prominent Athiest quoted are 'Pure' Atheist, if you will,  in that they have not adopted a moral framework from an outside source; which Atheism certainly doesn't require one to do.  That is my point.  The very fact that Atheism is amoral leaves the 'Pure' Athiest with no standard with which to justify anything as moral or immoral.  Athiest other than the 'Pure' are certainly free to follow any moral framework they wish, but they can't ascribe it to Atheism.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

TheBishop said:


> Our morality is our individual interpretation of life experience to determine what is good and bad.



If this is true and our morals are simply "our individual interpretation of life experiences" then there is no "good and bad", because anything that can be imagined is permissible under the guise of ' I was acting in accordance to MY " interpretation of life experience". 
  Therefore by denying an external source of reference(God) to avoid judgement of your actions, you have lost your ability to judge others for theirs.  But it gets worse my friend.  Not only can you not judge others, you must accept there is no right and wrong/good and bad.  They don't exist without an external standard to compare them to.


----------



## Four

SemperFiDawg said:


> If this is true and our morals are simply "our individual interpretation of life experiences" then there is no "good and bad", because anything that can be imagined is permissible under the guise of ' I was acting in accordance to MY " interpretation of life experience".



So, because not everyone experiences vision the same, does that mean there is no such thing as red, blue, etc?

Sure, some people are color blind, but we as a species see somewhat the same colors, enough to were if you point to green grass and call it blue i'll say you're wrong.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

jmharris23 said:


> For starters, this isn't the correct picture. I know you don't believe the bible anyway, so I don't really know why I am engaging you in this conversation? I also believe that you already know everything I am about to type, but here goes anyway.
> 
> The OT Laws were given to God's chosen people really for two purposes.
> 
> They were given as a group of moral, ceremonial, and civil laws to specifically set them apart from the rest of the ancient world as a group who believed in Yaweh God and who lived a lifestyle much different than the tribes of people around them.
> 
> The 2nd purpose of the OT was always to point the chosen, and ultimately the rest of the world to their Messiah / Savior.
> 
> There are not two sets of rules. The rules or the law remain the same. They've always been the same. Even Jesus said they were the same.
> 
> 
> Burning, as you put it, is the result of one thing and one thing only.
> 
> Not believing that Jesus Christ is the Son of Yaweh God, who came to this Earth,died on a cross as an atonement for the sins of the world, and after dying on that cross, was buried and raised from the dead.
> 
> This is what (according to biblical Christianity) determines the eternity of both God's chosen people (Jews) as well as those grafted into the family (everyone else).
> 
> It has nothing to do with an adherence to a certain set of rules or laws, and never has.



Well Said.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Four said:


> So, because not everyone experiences vision the same, does that mean there is no such thing as red, blue, etc?
> 
> Sure, some people are color blind, but we as a species see somewhat the same colors, enough to were if you point to green grass and call it blue i'll say you're wrong.



I'm not sure whether you're arguing for or against the relativity of morals with those points.  You confrusin me.
To use Bishops argument substituting colors instead of morals.  His argument would be: There is no external framework for colors.  Colors are "individually interpreted based on ones experience.  While red may be red to you, someone else may call it green and another person call it blue and all are true because the individual determines what's true(red).  My point is once you deny an external standard for color, morals, truth, length,etc. and claim that as a right of individuals,  you lose your ability to not only hold others to your standard (of red), you cant even posit a question regarding the standard, because in fact it is not a standard anymore.  

This is why I deny deep morality is relative.  I contend it's not logically tenable and honestly I don't think think the evidence supports it.


----------



## Four

SemperFiDawg said:


> I'm not sure whether you're arguing for or against the relativity of morals with those points.  You confrusin me.
> To use Bishops argument substituting colors instead of morals.  His argument would be: There is no external framework for colors.  Colors are "individually interpreted based on their experience.  While red may be red to you, someone else may call it green and another person call it blue and all are true because the individual determines what's true(red).  My point is once you deny an external standard for color, morals, truth, length,etc. and claim that as a right of individuals,  you lose your ability to not only hold others to your standard (of red), you cant even posit a question regarding the standard, because in fact it is not a standard anymore.
> 
> This is why I deny deep morality is relative.  I contend it's not logically tenable and honestly I don't think think the evidence supports it.



I'm not a moral nihilist, but I am atheist. The point was more just pointing out that just because we don't have an absolute objective example of something, doesn't mean we can't talk about it in a meaningful way.

Another example would be temperature. I might say under 60* F is cold, and above 80* is hot, and in between is comfortable.

You might disagree, you might think anything under 72* is cold..   However, we would both agree that 120* is HOT, and 10* is COLD

This doesn't invalidate the meaning of cold and hot.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Four said:


> I'm not a moral nihilist, but I am atheist. The point was more just pointing out that just because we don't have an absolute objective example of something, doesn't mean we can't talk about it in a meaningful way.
> 
> Another example would be temperature. I might say under 60* F is cold, and above 80* is hot, and in between is comfortable.
> 
> You might disagree, you might think anything under 72* is cold..   However, we would both agree that 120* is HOT, and 10* is COLD
> 
> This doesn't invalidate the meaning of cold and hot.



I understand your point, but the point I think you are making is the same as mine.  See if you agree with this.   There are superficial morals (your comfortable temperature range) that I fully agree are relative in that they vary from person to person, culture to culture, generation to generation, etc.  They are not universally agreed upon and often even contradict each other.  However there are deep morals (your 120= hot and 10=cold) that are universal and do not change from person to person, culture to culture, generation to generation, etc. such as respect for your parents, the sanctity of life, high regard for truth and integrity, etc.  It's these laws that Paul is referring to as being written on the hearts of "all men" by God and its these that I was speaking of when replying to Bishop.


----------



## TheBishop

SemperFiDawg said:


> If this is true and our morals are simply "our individual interpretation of life experiences" then there is no "good and bad", because anything that can be imagined is permissible under the guise of ' I was acting in accordance to MY " interpretation of life experience".



Mostly true, extremely simplified for your convience but true.  



> Therefore by denying an external source of reference(God) to avoid judgement of your actions, you have lost your ability to judge others for theirs.


I have something better, something I can test, something I can observe and something not polluted by man to make judgement. Nature.



> But it gets worse my friend.  Not only can you not judge others, you must accept there is no right and wrong/good and bad.  They don't exist without an external standard to compare them to.



You evangelical types crack me up.  Only you could claim such authority to be able to judge people, have exclusivity to both, truth and morality, becuase your the god is what? Somehow more believable than the thousands others before it?


----------



## SemperFiDawg

TheBishop said:


> Mostly true, extremely simplified for your convience but true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheBishop said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have something better, something I can test, something I can observe and something not polluted by man to make judgement. Nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same nature that "is red in tooth and claw". By the way, where do you get that notion that man is polluted.  It's an interesting concept.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheBishop said:
> 
> 
> 
> You evangelical types crack me up.  Only you could claim such authority to be able to judge people, have exclusivity to both, truth and morality, becuase your the god is what? Somehow more believable than the thousands others before it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Care to offer a well thought out counter argument or are you ok with just heckling?  I fine either way.
Click to expand...


----------



## ddd-shooter

bullethead said:


> Would anyone say " Well at least Jesus died to save the soul of the rapist,murderer,molester or kidnaper and as long as they believe we can talk it over in heaven at a later date"?



I would. I would go further and say that I am worse than all of these people without Christ in my life...


----------



## ted_BSR

bullethead said:


> Hard to Fathom that God would abandon his "Chosen" people because they are not on board with the "Kid"........



Yes, His grace is Amazing!
His eyes see the truth. Fakers don't make it!


----------



## bullethead

I've got a story for all of you guys.
Here in this part of Pennsylvania we have a thunderstorm moving through. I am talking this entire story took place about 30 minutes before I started to write this. Despite the storm my Son said "Hey Dad, lets take a ride to Turkey Hill(a convenience store) I want to get a slush". I said " ahhh I don't know it's raining pretty hard" and he replied "get your hat on I'll pick you up."
We drove downtown to the store and we passed someone that just looked out of place to be out in this weather. I said to my Son that the man looked like someone that was a customer in my Barber shop, but I have not seen him in over a year and this guy looked much heavier. I know though that the man I was thinking of has dementia and that is why he has been basically home bound. Anyway, It didn't sit well with me so we went to see if this gentleman was doing alright. It WAS the man that I thought it was. Dressed in bedroom slippers, sweat pants, and a local high school football team hoodie and carrying a box of nfl trading cards!!!  He was soaked to the skin and standing in a puddle. I said" Lou, what are doing out in this weather?" He replied, " I don't know" I said, will you let us take you home?" he replied " No I have to go to my sister's and drop off these football cards for my kids"  His "kids" are all in their 50's and do not live in the state. I knew where his sister lived so we drove him there(at 10pm mind you, and it was a solid mile away) all the way asking him if he would rather go home but he Insisted he had to go to his sisters. I thought well, let's take him there and if she is awake she will know what to do and if she did not answer I would take him home. Either way I wanted to appease him so he would not get upset, but also make sure he got somewhere safe. The whole way he was offering the cards to my Son and I. We just said, " No Mr. K, you wanted to get them to your sisters house so we will make sure you get them there." When we got to the street she lived on her porch light was on, although I was unsure if that was her home or not. He said that was the house and sure as sugar it was.  I helped him out of the car and knocked on the door, she answered immediately as she thought it was her Son who had gone out to look for Lou, because Lou's wife called in a panic saying that she left the room for a minute and he was gone. Being that she did not drive she was calling the relation to help look for him. 
I explained to his sister who I was and how I knew him and asked her if she wanted him to stay there or if I should drive him home. She wanted him to stay there and called his wife to let her know he was alright. They thanked us and we came home. When we got home I called Lou's wife just to make sure she knew who took him to his sisters and how he got there so she would not have to worry if he was somehow mistreated and that she knew where and when we found him. She could not thank us enough and I told her that is not why I called that we just wanted her to be at ease that he got to where he wanted to go and he was safe. I offered to give her a ride if she wanted to go but she said her nephew was on his way out to pick her up.
I was upset to see him out in that condition and in the weather. I was shaken but glad that we happened to notice him and were able to help. I can't help but think that tonight may have been his last had he continued to where he thought he wanted to go in his condition. Either the rain, traffic, his health, a stranger with bad intentions or possibly a combination of any or all of those may have ultimately led to something awful happening to him.

I wanted to share it with all of you that participated in this thread because think that it is a fitting story for this thread.


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> I've got a story for all of you guys.
> Here in this part of Pennsylvania we have a thunderstorm moving through. I am talking this entire story took place about 30 minutes before I started to write this. Despite the storm my Son said "Hey Dad, lets take a ride to Turkey Hill(a convenience store) I want to get a slush". I said " ahhh I don't know it's raining pretty hard" and he replied "get your hat on I'll pick you up."
> We drove downtown to the store and we passed someone that just looked out of place to be out in this weather. I said to my Son that the man looked like someone that was a customer in my Barber shop, but I have not seen him in over a year and this guy looked much heavier. I know though that the man I was thinking of has dementia and that is why he has been basically home bound. Anyway, It didn't sit well with me so we went to see if this gentleman was doing alright. It WAS the man that I thought it was. Dressed in bedroom slippers, sweat pants, and a local high school football team hoodie and carrying a box of nfl trading cards!!!  He was soaked to the skin and standing in a puddle. I said" Lou, what are doing out in this weather?" He replied, " I don't know" I said, will you let us take you home?" he replied " No I have to go to my sister's and drop off these football cards for my kids"  His "kids" are all in their 50's and do not live in the state. I knew where his sister lived so we drove him there(at 10pm mind you, and it was a solid mile away) all the way asking him if he would rather go home but he Insisted he had to go to his sisters. I thought well, let's take him there and if she is awake she will know what to do and if she did not answer I would take him home. Either way I wanted to appease him so he would not get upset, but also make sure he got somewhere safe. The whole way he was offering the cards to my Son and I. We just said, " No Mr. K, you wanted to get them to your sisters house so we will make sure you get them there." When we got to the street she lived on her porch light was on, although I was unsure if that was her home or not. He said that was the house and sure as sugar it was.  I helped him out of the car and knocked on the door, she answered immediately as she thought it was her Son who had gone out to look for Lou, because Lou's wife called in a panic saying that she left the room for a minute and he was gone. Being that she did not drive she was calling the relation to help look for him.
> I explained to his sister who I was and how I knew him and asked her if she wanted him to stay there or if I should drive him home. She wanted him to stay there and called his wife to let her know he was alright. They thanked us and we came home. When we got home I called Lou's wife just to make sure she knew who took him to his sisters and how he got there so she would not have to worry if he was somehow mistreated and that she knew where and when we found him. She could not thank us enough and I told her that is not why I called that we just wanted her to be at ease that he got to where he wanted to go and he was safe. I offered to give her a ride if she wanted to go but she said her nephew was on his way out to pick her up.
> I was upset to see him out in that condition and in the weather. I was shaken but glad that we happened to notice him and were able to help. I can't help but think that tonight may have been his last had he continued to where he thought he wanted to go in his condition. Either the rain, traffic, his health, a stranger with bad intentions or possibly a combination of any or all of those may have ultimately led to something awful happening to him.
> 
> I wanted to share it with all of you that participated in this thread because think that it is a fitting story for this thread.



Only difference between a Christian and you in that story is the Christian would wonder what made the son want to get a slushy in the rain. 

I enjoyed the story, though.  I know a few atheists and agnostics personally and they are just as decent, and in many cases more decent, than many Christians I have known.


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> Only difference between a Christian and you in that story is the Christian would wonder what made the son want to get a slushy in the rain.
> 
> I enjoyed the story, though.  I know a few atheists and agnostics personally and they are just as decent, and in many cases more decent, than many Christians I have known.



Was it divine intervention or that he had just finished playing a pick up game of basketball at 930pm, showered up and was craving a slushy?


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> Was it divine intervention or that he had just finished playing a pick up game of basketball at 930pm, showered up and was craving a slushy?



I'll take divine intervention, and you take the post-game thirst.....reason is the "I'll pick you up" line ( that's how a Christian would look at the situation, for all I know it could be a "trap" sentence for this response.....you don't usually do that stuff though, so I believe the story).

Why did he want his Dad to go to turkey hill with him?  He wouldn't have recognized Lou.



Oh....I've been to a Turkey Hill, we had one just down the road from us where I used to live up there.  That story brought back some memories for me


----------



## SemperFiDawg

bullethead said:


> I've got a story for all of you guys.
> Here in this part of Pennsylvania we have a thunderstorm moving through. I am talking this entire story took place about 30 minutes before I started to write this. Despite the storm my Son said "Hey Dad, lets take a ride to Turkey Hill(a convenience store) I want to get a slush". I said " ahhh I don't know it's raining pretty hard" and he replied "get your hat on I'll pick you up."
> We drove downtown to the store and we passed someone that just looked out of place to be out in this weather. I said to my Son that the man looked like someone that was a customer in my Barber shop, but I have not seen him in over a year and this guy looked much heavier. I know though that the man I was thinking of has dementia and that is why he has been basically home bound. Anyway, It didn't sit well with me so we went to see if this gentleman was doing alright. It WAS the man that I thought it was. Dressed in bedroom slippers, sweat pants, and a local high school football team hoodie and carrying a box of nfl trading cards!!!  He was soaked to the skin and standing in a puddle. I said" Lou, what are doing out in this weather?" He replied, " I don't know" I said, will you let us take you home?" he replied " No I have to go to my sister's and drop off these football cards for my kids"  His "kids" are all in their 50's and do not live in the state. I knew where his sister lived so we drove him there(at 10pm mind you, and it was a solid mile away) all the way asking him if he would rather go home but he Insisted he had to go to his sisters. I thought well, let's take him there and if she is awake she will know what to do and if she did not answer I would take him home. Either way I wanted to appease him so he would not get upset, but also make sure he got somewhere safe. The whole way he was offering the cards to my Son and I. We just said, " No Mr. K, you wanted to get them to your sisters house so we will make sure you get them there." When we got to the street she lived on her porch light was on, although I was unsure if that was her home or not. He said that was the house and sure as sugar it was.  I helped him out of the car and knocked on the door, she answered immediately as she thought it was her Son who had gone out to look for Lou, because Lou's wife called in a panic saying that she left the room for a minute and he was gone. Being that she did not drive she was calling the relation to help look for him.
> I explained to his sister who I was and how I knew him and asked her if she wanted him to stay there or if I should drive him home. She wanted him to stay there and called his wife to let her know he was alright. They thanked us and we came home. When we got home I called Lou's wife just to make sure she knew who took him to his sisters and how he got there so she would not have to worry if he was somehow mistreated and that she knew where and when we found him. She could not thank us enough and I told her that is not why I called that we just wanted her to be at ease that he got to where he wanted to go and he was safe. I offered to give her a ride if she wanted to go but she said her nephew was on his way out to pick her up.
> I was upset to see him out in that condition and in the weather. I was shaken but glad that we happened to notice him and were able to help. I can't help but think that tonight may have been his last had he continued to where he thought he wanted to go in his condition. Either the rain, traffic, his health, a stranger with bad intentions or possibly a combination of any or all of those may have ultimately led to something awful happening to him.
> 
> I wanted to share it with all of you that participated in this thread because think that it is a fitting story for this thread.




Bullet I see this as proof that God has written his laws on your soul, and whether you agree with me or not, I applaud you for following them.


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> I'll take divine intervention, and you take the post-game thirst.....reason is the "I'll pick you up" line ( that's how a Christian would look at the situation, for all I know it could be a "trap" sentence for this response.....you don't usually do that stuff though, so I believe the story).
> 
> Why did he want his Dad to go to turkey hill with him?  He wouldn't have recognized Lou.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh....I've been to a Turkey Hill, we had one just down the road from us where I used to live up there.  That story brought back some memories for me




All good points JB.
I do know that the Turkey Hill is about 2 blocks from our house and that he and I regularly walk there. We drove last night due to the rain. The "trip" is not all that uncommon.
There is a very good chance my Son would have noticed Lou but not known him. Agreed. The hoodie Lou was wearing was the same High school that my Son had graduated from 5 years ago. My Son was the first to say to me, although we noticed Lou at the same time.." Dad look at this...he doesn't look right". So either way with me being there or not I am sure my Son would have either approached the man and asked him if he needed help or called the local police which are literally 50yds from the Turkey Hill. ...so yes I can see how "divine intervention" could be thrown into the mix, although that brings up a whole set of free will/predestination/divine plan comes into play.

All I know is that I could not sleep all night thinking about Lou and I am glad that the feeling in my heart and mind is one of relief rather than sadness.


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> All I know is that I could not sleep all night thinking about Lou and I am glad that the feeling in my heart and mind is one of relief rather than sadness.





Also, I want to add, that I think it's awesome that your son who graduated from high school 5 years ago enjoys hanging out with you.  I hope to have that kind-of relationship with my boy when he is grown also, he turns 13 in a month, and that happened way too fast.


----------



## bullethead

SemperFiDawg said:


> Bullet I see this as proof that God has written his laws on your soul, and whether you agree with me or not, I applaud you for following them.



Proof that I have decent morals, I can agree with. No real proof of where they came from though.


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> Alos, I want to add, that I think it's awesome that your son who graduated from high school 5 years ago enjoys hanging out with you.  I hope to have that kind-of relationship with my boy when he is grown also, he turns 13 in a month, and that happened way too fast.



If ya want to hear the real kick in the pants as to why we still hang out.....
He still lives at home because he TEACHES 8th grade at a Catholic school! Can't afford to be out on his own with that salary, lol.

But if you think the gang at GON has some good conversations.........then you can imagine the conversations in this home!!!!

It is nice that after being his father all those years that does not ever change, but now at 23 I have him as not only a Son but as a true best friend.


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> If ya want to hear the real kick in the pants as to why we still hang out.....
> He still lives at home because he TEACHES 8th grade at a Catholic school! Can't afford to be out on his own with that salary, lol.
> 
> But if you think the gang at GON has some good conversations.........then you can imagine the conversations in this home!!!!



I can imagine!!  So.....is he a believer?  Just curious.

Either way, it sounds like you did some good work.  I have more friends who are teachers than any other profession, and they don't do it for the money, that's for sure.  Particularly the ones who teach in private schools.


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> It is nice that after being his father all those years that that does not ever change, but now at 23 I have him as not only a Son but as a true best friend.



I admire that and I  hope to say the same about my boy day.


----------



## TripleXBullies

JB0704 said:


> Also, I want to add, that I think it's awesome that your son who graduated from high school 5 years ago enjoys hanging out with you.  I hope to have that kind-of relationship with my boy when he is grown also, he turns 13 in a month, and that happened way too fast.



Amen


----------



## bullethead

Again......the coincidences are uncanny. The timing of the need for a slushy. Lou wearing the "hoodie" that is  blue and gold and stands out to us , especially because the High school in town and the one that my Son attended out of town are bitter rivals, so we notice anyone wearing the clothing/window stickers etc......and it is worth mentioning that Lou, is more of a fan of the in town team than he is of the teams hoodie he was wearing. So he had a lot going in his favor last night as far as us really noticing him.


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> I can imagine!!  So.....is he a believer?  Just curious.
> 
> Either way, it sounds like you did some good work.  I have more friends who are teachers than any other profession, and they don't do it for the money, that's for sure.  Particularly the ones who teach in private schools.



It would be great conversation in a PM sometime.
Lets just say for it being the tail end of his first full year teaching, he has gotten rave reviews from his peers, students and parents. He does not interject personal opinions on religion or politics into his studies and teachings and when asked by students he gives them the best answer he can pertaining to the religious side of the school. He is a believer, but again, it would be a topic for a great PM-versation.


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> It would be great conversation in a PM sometime.
> Lets just say for it being the tail end of his first full year teaching, he has gotten rave reviews from his peers, students and parents. He does not interject personal opinions on religion or politics into his studies and teachings and when asked by students he gives them the best answer he can pertaining to the religious side of the school. He is a believer, but again, it would be a topic for a great PM-versation.



Cool, I understand.  Good that he gets great reviews also.  I'll stop asking about it out here now.

Here you were trying to let us know that you are a good guy, and I turn it into a "you were used by God"-thing 

Thanks again for sharing the story.


----------



## stringmusic

Great and interesting story Bullet!


----------



## SemperFiDawg

bullethead said:


> Hard to Fathom that God would abandon his "Chosen" people because they are not on board with the "Kid"........



I think the evidence is pretty clear that he hasn't.


----------



## bullethead

SemperFiDawg said:


> I think the evidence is pretty clear that he hasn't.



Such as?


----------



## SemperFiDawg

bullethead said:


> Such as?



Do you know any other group of people that were scattered into the wind and saw their country re- emerge roughly 2000 years later?  God is good on his promises.  Us, not so much.


----------



## bullethead

SemperFiDawg said:


> Do you know any other group of people that were scattered into the wind and saw their country re- emerge roughly 2000 years later?  God is good on his promises.  Us, not so much.



I never heard of any group of people that were scattered into the wind. Sorry.

But again I'll ask you, Are the Jews Heaven bound even though they do not believe in Jesus as being the Son of God and do not accept him?


----------



## jmharris23

bullethead said:


> .But again I'll ask you, Are the Jews Heaven bound even though they do not believe in Jesus as being the Son of God and do not accept him?



You didn't ask me, but the answer is no...absolutely not. 

Not that it really matters to you since there is no God to choose the Jews and send them to Heaven or H e l l


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Never heard of the Jewish diaspora?

No, not as a entire people.  Salvation happens on an individual level.  God never promised them wholesale salvation.


----------



## bullethead

jmharris23 said:


> You didn't ask me, but the answer is no...absolutely not.
> 
> Not that it really matters to you since there is no God to choose the Jews and send them to Heaven or H e l l



What matters to me is how every single religion thinks THEY have the God market cornered.
It is interesting.


----------



## bullethead

SemperFiDawg said:


> Never heard of the Jewish diaspora?



I in fact did hear about that. I just did not hear about the part where they were scattered into the wind. God or no God involved.



SemperFiDawg said:


> No, not as a entire people.  Salvation happens on an individual level.  God never promised them wholesale salvation.



What did God tell them that keeps them so intrigued by the Torah/Old Testament and yet have nothing to do with the New Testament that is supposedly also God's word?


----------



## SemperFiDawg

bullethead said:


> I in fact did hear about that. I just did not hear about the part where they were scattered into the wind. God or no God involved.



Figure of speech, but accurate.



bullethead said:


> What did God tell them that keeps them so intrigued by the Torah/Old Testament and yet have nothing to do with the New Testament that is supposedly also God's word?



Guess you would have to ask one.


----------



## bullethead

SemperFiDawg said:


> Figure of speech, but accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> Guess you would have to ask one.



I have asked more than one and oddly enough they are JUST as sure they will be in Heaven as you are.


----------



## ddd-shooter

bullethead said:


> What matters to me is how every single religion thinks THEY have the God market cornered.
> It is interesting.



Substitute the word "God" for "Truth" and I'm sure most atheists will wear that label as well. I should hope one who makes truth claims would have exclusivity.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

bullethead said:


> I have asked more than one and oddly enough they are JUST as sure they will be in Heaven as you are.



They may be.  It's not my decision.  I just know "I'm all in baby."


----------



## SemperFiDawg

ddd-shooter said:


> Substitute the word "God" for "Truth" and I'm sure most atheists will wear that label as well. I should hope one who makes truth claims would have exclusivity.



Well said Brother.  Well said.


----------



## bullethead

ddd-shooter said:


> Substitute the word "God" for "Truth" and I'm sure most atheists will wear that label as well. I should hope one who makes truth claims would have exclusivity.



If I wanted any words substituted I would have used them in the first place.

I am not sure of much but I tend to go with the things that are more probable or more likely than not.
I think atheists are able to look at the "god" claims and go through the available evidence without a bias. They do not let faith or indoctrination get in their way of making a sound judgement. They don't feel ashamed when they question the existence of a God because they have been "taught" that doing such things are wrong.
Atheists look at all the available evidence from many sides and tend to make an informed judgement based off of those findings.
Now, religion and the religious do not do that. I have no exact numbers but I would guess that there are very few people that have actually looked into ALL of the worlds religions, studied them to find out exactly what each one claims and offers and then has made a decision on which one to follow. I would tend to think that the majority of devout believers in any one religion believe because that is how they were brought up and/or made to believe. At some point in life quite a few believers possibly want to question those beliefs but they are too ashamed or fearful of consequences that the thought of such heresy has crossed their mind. It is like running to the woodshed to say a bad word so Santa (who is always watching) won't hear you curse.
It comes down to GOD(S), not truth, because truth can be determined.


----------



## ddd-shooter

bullethead said:


> If I wanted any words substituted I would have used them in the first place.
> 
> I am not sure of much but I tend to go with the things that are more probable or more likely than not.
> I think atheists are able to look at the "god" claims and go through the available evidence without a bias. They do not let faith or indoctrination get in their way of making a sound judgement. They don't feel ashamed when they question the existence of a God because they have been "taught" that doing such things are wrong.
> Atheists look at all the available evidence from many sides and tend to make an informed judgement based off of those findings.
> Now, religion and the religious do not do that. I have no exact numbers but I would guess that there are very few people that have actually looked into ALL of the worlds religions, studied them to find out exactly what each one claims and offers and then has made a decision on which one to follow. I would tend to think that the majority of devout believers in any one religion believe because that is how they were brought up and/or made to believe. At some point in life quite a few believers possibly want to question those beliefs but they are too ashamed or fearful of consequences that the thought of such heresy has crossed their mind. It is like running to the woodshed to say a bad word so Santa (who is always watching) won't hear you curse.
> It comes down to GOD(S), not truth, because truth can be determined.



No offense intended... I am not scared to ask questions. I am not scared to hear them asked by anyone either. 
The fact remains, atheists are just as exclusive as any other world view. They exclude the notion of God. Or, as you put it "look at the evidence without bias."


----------



## bullethead

ddd-shooter said:


> No offense intended... I am not scared to ask questions. I am not scared to hear them asked by anyone either.
> The fact remains, atheists are just as exclusive as any other world view. They exclude the notion of God. Or, as you put it "look at the evidence without bias."



I think the notion of God is excluded after the search for a God is exhausted. They do not have faith a God does not exist.


----------



## jmharris23

bullethead said:


> I think the notion of God is excluded after the search for a God is exhausted. They do not have faith a God does not exist.



So you would say that you KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt that NO god exists?


----------



## bullethead

jmharris23 said:


> So you would say that you KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt that NO god exists?



I would say that so far I have found no evidence that a God exists.


----------



## jmharris23

bullethead said:


> I would say that so far I have found no evidence that a God exists.



Do you then have faith that no god exists, or do you KNOW that no god exists?


----------



## ambush80

jmharris23 said:


> Do you then have faith that no god exists, or do you KNOW that no god exists?



I'm as certain that when I drop a rock, it will fall to the ground that god does not exist.


----------



## jmharris23

ambush80 said:


> I'm as certain that when I drop a rock, it will fall to the ground that god does not exist.



Well I can appreciate certainty!


----------



## SemperFiDawg

bullethead said:


> Atheists look at all the available evidence from many sides and tend to make an informed judgement based off of those findings.
> Now, religion and the religious do not do that.



I think it's borderline hilarious that you make such outlandish, egotistical, and obviously false, blanket statements such as these, then sum up this screed with this little personal epiphany.


bullethead said:


> It comes down to GOD(S), not truth, because truth can be determined.



Do say?


----------



## SemperFiDawg

ambush80 said:


> I'm as certain that when I drop a rock, it will fall to the ground that god does not exist.



Dont worry brother, when you get dropped to the ground,  he won't exist for you then either.  Your wish will be fulfilled.


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> I think atheists are able to look at the "god" claims and go through the available evidence without a bias.



Now you've confused me Bullet. What evidence are you weighing? I didn't think you believed there was any evidence for God, so what exactly are you "going through"?


----------



## bullethead

jmharris23 said:


> Do you then have faith that no god exists, or do you KNOW that no god exists?




faith
[feyth] Show IPA
noun
1.
confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2.
belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.
belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.
belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5.
a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith. 

I do not and cannot have "faith" that a God does not exist as I use proof and evidence. Without either I have come to the conclusion that it is way more likely than not that a God, any god or all Gods do not exist.


----------



## bullethead

SemperFiDawg said:


> I think it's borderline hilarious that you make such outlandish, egotistical, and obviously false, blanket statements such as these, then sum up this screed with this little personal epiphany.
> 
> 
> Do say?



Truth hurts sometimes


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> Now you've confused me Bullet. What evidence are you weighing? I didn't think you believed there was any evidence for God, so what exactly are you "going through"?



Precisely String, as much as I search there just is not any evidence.
You guys have me wrong. I am not set out to disprove a God, I have been trying to prove there is one...I just flat out can't based off of clear concise evidence that holds up in a court of law. I try to go beyond the "proof" that is used for all other myths, legends, and folklore and want to find something substantial. I have not been able to find it yet.


----------



## ambush80

SemperFiDawg said:


> Dont worry brother, when you get dropped to the ground,  he won't exist for you then either.  Your wish will be fulfilled.



This always amuses me.  It's as if believers almost want a non believer to suffer some kind of malady that will bring them to their knees in repentance.  It's never "I hope that your life will be filled with so much blessing and goodness and absence of strife that you will feel god's undeniable love for you."


Odd, that....


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> Precisely String, as much as I search there just is not any evidence.


So what did you mean when you said.....


bullethead said:


> I think atheists are able to look at the "god" claims and _go through the available evidence _without a bias.


There is either available evidence, that atheists weigh and still deny God, or there is zero evidence and atheists don't evaluate it because there is nothing to evaluate.


----------



## JB0704

A. Is existence evidence of a cause?

yes - evidence for an original cause (God included)
no - evidence answer to "B" is yes
Neither - God can't be ruled out  

B. Is existence evidence of infinite existence?

yes - evidence there is no OC, a is "no," and evidence there is no God
no - Evidence that the answer to a is "yes," which is evidence of an OC (God included)
Neither - God can't be ruled out.

Can anybody show me the other variable from which they are deriving the certainty that God does not exist?  Existence is either finite or infinite.  In either scenario, God still can't be ruled out unless existence is infinite....in which case the infinite nature of existence limits the necessity of a god, but does not rule out a god's existence.  Unless you can answer either A or B with certainty, you cannot answer the follow ups with certainty.

And yes, I get that you can plug any "god" into this scenario, I am only pointing out the fallacy of being certain there is no God.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

ambush80 said:


> This always amuses me.  It's as if believers almost want a non believer to suffer some kind of malady that will bring them to their knees in repentance.  It's never "I hope that your life will be filled with so much blessing and goodness and absence of strife that you will feel god's undeniable love for you."
> 
> 
> Odd, that....



No not at all.  Just the fact of the matter.  C.S. Lewis said there are two types of people in the world; those that say to God "Thy will be done." and those to whom God says in the end, " Thy will be done."  I wish nothing more than those who refuse to accept Christ, in fact, change their hearts, and wind up in Heaven instead of - I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -.  As far as people finding God through being blessed, I think history would suggest most people only begin to look for God when they have given up in their own ability to make themselves happy.  The verse regarding getting the rich into Heaven being akin to trying to get a camel through the eye of a needle comes to mind.


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> So what did you mean when you said.....
> 
> There is either available evidence, that atheists weigh and still deny God, or there is zero evidence and atheists don't evaluate it because there is nothing to evaluate.



String you always try to find the most intricate complicated ways to muddle up a simple statement.

I am and have been looking for evidence. I have not been able to find any.

So far I have lumped the God claims in with the claims of Bigfoot, Leprechauns, Unicorns and the Jersey Devil. There is always someone willing to provide evidence of their existence but none of it ever turns out to be solid evidence of anything. Till then I'll keep looking at it hoping to see some Real evidence at some point.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

bullethead said:


> String you always try to find the most intricate complicated ways to muddle up a simple statement.
> 
> I am and have been looking for evidence. I have not been able to find any.
> 
> So far I have lumped the God claims in with the claims of Bigfoot, Leprechauns, Unicorns and the Jersey Devil. There is always someone willing to provide evidence of their existence but none of it ever turns out to be solid evidence of anything. Till then I'll keep looking at it hoping to see some Real evidence at some point.



Just curious, but have you ever said "God if you exist, show me." and really meant it?


----------



## The Original Rooster

ambush80 said:


> This always amuses me.  It's as if believers almost want a non believer to suffer some kind of malady that will bring them to their knees in repentance.  It's never "I hope that your life will be filled with so much blessing and goodness and absence of strife that you will feel god's undeniable love for you."
> 
> 
> Odd, that....



Hey ambush,
I hope that your life will be filled with so much goodness and blessings and absence of strife that you will feel God's undeniable love for you.
And when you do, you won't mind me saying that I told you so.


----------



## bullethead

SemperFiDawg said:


> Just curious, but have you ever said "God if you exist, show me." and really meant it?



More times than you can imagine. In fact I really, Really, REALLY meant it.

Now either I didn't mean it enough according to the Devout believers crowd or there really is no God.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Or maybe, just maybe you still have an answer coming.


----------



## bullethead

SemperFiDawg said:


> Or maybe, just maybe you still have an answer coming.



That's adorable.

I did not see that coming.

Very original.

Almost as good as "God answers all prayers, but sometimes the answer is No." (But we all know that is NOT what Jesus told us)


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Listen brother.  I have a very good friend and neighbor whose little girl put a gun to her head and pulled the trigger a week before school got out, because she was being bullied at school.  This happened a few years ago.  He's aged 30 years since then, wrestles with depression and suicide every since.   Everyday he goes down in the woods with a gun to pray and contemplate suicide.  This went on for several years?  He said one day while down there God literally spoke to him.   He said he was crying and saying"Why God, Why did you have to take her.  I loved her so much".  He said God spoke to him as clear as day and said." _________ I love her too."  That's it.  That's all he got.  Was it enough?  I don't know?  This I do know.  He's as sane as any man I know, even more than most.  He's not a religious zealot.  If he tells me God spoke to him, then I believe him 100%.  I don't know what you are or were asking God for, and I wasn't trying to be smug or coy when I answered you earlier regarding why you have not got an answer yet.  My point is, if this is all he got in response to his dead child maybe you could show a little more patience with an answer.  Not being judgmental, just making a suggestion.


----------



## drippin' rock

SemperFiDawg said:


> Listen brother.  I have a very good friend and neighbor whose little girl put a gun to her head and pulled the trigger a week before school got out, because she was being bullied at school.  This happened a few years ago.  He's aged 30 years since then, wrestles with depression and suicide every since.   Everyday he goes down in the woods with a gun to pray and contemplate suicide.  This went on for several years?  He said one day while down there God literally spoke to him.   He said he was crying and saying"Why God, Why did you have to take her.  I loved her so much".  He said God spoke to him as clear as day and said." _________ I love her too."  That's it.  That's all he got.  Was it enough?  I don't know?  This I do know.  He's as sane as any man I know, even more than most.  He's not a religious zealot.  If he tells me God spoke to him, then I believe him 100%.  I don't know what you are or were asking God for, and I wasn't trying to be smug or coy when I answered you earlier regarding why you have not got an answer yet.  My point is, if this is all he got in response to his dead child maybe you could show a little more patience with an answer.  Not being judgmental, just making a suggestion.



So God took his little girl, put him on the brink of anguishing depression and suicide, day after day after day......... then finally says I love her too, as a reason for his action?  That is how he shows himself?  That's pretty selfish for an all knowing, all powerful creator of the universe.  

I know sometimes people need to believe in something beyond themselves to make it through this existence, as an answer to "why are we here?"  But no God in which I will ever believe would do this to his creation.


----------



## JB0704

drippin' rock said:


> So God took his little girl,



According to the story, the little girl took the little girl.



drippin' rock said:


> ......... then finally says I love her too, as a reason for his action?







drippin' rock said:


> But no God in which I will ever believe would do this to his creation.



God's nature has very little (nothing) to do with whether or not you choose to believe inim.


----------



## drippin' rock

I was responding to the context of the story. The father asked God why he had to take his little girl.


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> String you always try to find the most intricate complicated ways to muddle up a simple statement.
> 
> I am and have been looking for evidence. I have not been able to find any.
> 
> So far I have lumped the God claims in with the claims of Bigfoot, Leprechauns, Unicorns and the Jersey Devil. There is always someone willing to provide evidence of their existence but none of it ever turns out to be solid evidence of anything.



I'm not trying to "muddy up a simple statement". I'm simply pointing out an incoherent argument. You cannot on one hand say they you have weighed the evidence for God, and on the other hand say there is no evidence because that invalidates your first assertion.



> Till then I'll keep looking at it hoping to see some Real evidence at some point.


What would you consider real evidence?


----------



## JB0704

drippin' rock said:


> The father asked God why he had to take his little girl.



Yes.  I tend to think that it is easier for an individual to ask God why he did something than it is to blame a deceased individual.  I was talking in context of where we are as readers, understanding that a suicide had taken place.  It seems you should be questioning the man, and not God.  The man was in an inconceivable state of mind.  I have friends who have lost kids.....it's the worst thing imaginable.

The above does nto apply to other situations like cancer.  Those things confuse me too.


----------



## bullethead

SemperFiDawg said:


> Listen brother.  I have a very good friend and neighbor whose little girl put a gun to her head and pulled the trigger a week before school got out, because she was being bullied at school.  This happened a few years ago.  He's aged 30 years since then, wrestles with depression and suicide every since.   Everyday he goes down in the woods with a gun to pray and contemplate suicide.  This went on for several years?  He said one day while down there God literally spoke to him.   He said he was crying and saying"Why God, Why did you have to take her.  I loved her so much".  He said God spoke to him as clear as day and said." _________ I love her too."  That's it.  That's all he got.  Was it enough?  I don't know?  This I do know.  He's as sane as any man I know, even more than most.  He's not a religious zealot.  If he tells me God spoke to him, then I believe him 100%.  I don't know what you are or were asking God for, and I wasn't trying to be smug or coy when I answered you earlier regarding why you have not got an answer yet.  My point is, if this is all he got in response to his dead child maybe you could show a little more patience with an answer.  Not being judgmental, just making a suggestion.



My heart goes out to him for the loss of that little girl. As a Father I can't imagine going through that.
You wouldn't like my comments for the rest of the story.


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> I'm not trying to "muddy up a simple statement". I'm simply pointing out an incoherent argument. You cannot on one hand say they you have weighed the evidence for God, and on the other hand say there is no evidence because that invalidates your first assertion.


POINT BEING, NO EVIDENCE!
You want to break it down into a battle of trivial nonsense because there is nothing else to argue about.






stringmusic said:


> What would you consider real evidence?


Clearly it is nothing you can provide


----------



## SemperFiDawg

drippin' rock said:


> So God took his little girl, put him on the brink of anguishing depression and suicide, day after day after day......... then finally says I love her too, as a reason for his action?



No. I'm sorry I didn't make this more clear.  Gods response to my friend wasn't understood by him as a reason, as much as it was as a confirmation she was in good hands.  At least thats how i understood it as he relayed the episode to me.  It was a comfort.


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> POINT BEING, NO EVIDENCE!


THEN STOP SAYING YOU WEIGHED THE EVIDENCE.


> You want to break it down into a battle of trivial nonsense because there is nothing else to argue about.


You want to make it a trivial matter because your argument is incoherent.




> Clearly it is nothing you can provide


I've now asked you this question in two different threads, and you haven't given an answer yet. Why do you not want to answer it? What's the big deal about telling us what you would consider evidence?


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> THEN STOP SAYING YOU WEIGHED THE EVIDENCE.
> 
> You want to make it a trivial matter because your argument is incoherent.
> 
> 
> 
> I've now asked you this question in two different threads, and you haven't given an answer yet. Why do you not want to answer it? What's the big deal about telling us what you would consider evidence?




I have answered that question in two different threads and probably ten other threads also. I would like evidence that would stand up in a court of law. I want a god to visit me.

I have read the Bible. In my early years I studied the Bible. The Bible IS the reason why I am where I am at with religion and a God right now. The Bible just is not evidence of a God. Looking out the window and seeing a blue bird fly over a tree that sits on a mountain is not evidence of a God. If there is a God and he would like to get my attention HE/IT/SHE will know exactly what it takes in order to get the message across to me.

And, there is evidence, just not evidence in favor of your God. So when I look at what is against and compare it to the lame Bible "evidence" then yes there is something to compare.


----------



## Four

bullethead said:


> If there is a God and he would like to get my attention HE/IT/SHE will know exactly what it takes in order to get the message across to me.



This is a pretty important, but basic point. If my neighbor was bothering me by playing loud music, i would just walk over and tell him... If there is a diety, this should be pretty easy, I would think anyhow.


----------



## TheBishop

JB0704 said:


> Yes.  I tend to think that it is easier for an individual to ask God why he did something than it is to blame a deceased individual.  I was talking in context of where we are as readers, understanding that a suicide had taken place.  It seems you should be questioning the man, and not God.  The man was in an inconceivable state of mind.  I have friends who have lost kids.....it's the worst thing imaginable.
> 
> The above does nto apply to other situations like cancer.  Those things confuse me too.



Wouldn't it have been much easier in the first place, for an all powerful god, all loving god, to talk to the daughter so she wouldn't commit suicide and cause all that  suffering?  He suffered for 30 years? I know that not a long time for an eternal being but for most mortals thas about half a life, could he at least brought peace sooner.


----------



## TheBishop

SemperFiDawg said:


> No. I'm sorry I didn't make this more clear.  Gods response to my friend wasn't understood by him as a reason, as much as it was as a confirmation she was in good hands.  At least thats how i understood it as he relayed the episode to me.  It was a comfort.



I thought suicide was a big no, no?


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> I have answered that question in two different threads and probably ten other threads also. I would like evidence that would stand up in a court of law. I want a god to visit me.
> 
> I have read the Bible. In my early years I studied the Bible. The Bible IS the reason why I am where I am at with religion and a God right now. The Bible just is not evidence of a God. Looking out the window and seeing a blue bird fly over a tree that sits on a mountain is not evidence of a God. If there is a God and he would like to get my attention HE/IT/SHE will know exactly what it takes in order to get the message across to me.
> 
> And, there is evidence, just not evidence in favor of your God. So when I look at what is against and compare it to the lame Bible "evidence" then yes there is something to compare.



So the only evidence for you is to see God? How do you feel about Atoms?


----------



## stringmusic

TheBishop said:


> I thought suicide was a big no, no?



If you're insinuating "no,no" to mean that suicide sends people to h e l l, then you would be incorrect.


----------



## TripleXBullies

Suicide being a no no wasn't brought on for a few hundred years after Jesus..


----------



## TheBishop

stringmusic said:


> If you're insinuating "no,no" to mean that suicide sends people to h e l l, then you would be incorrect.



According to catholicism it is, and is a one way ticket. Why the difference from your belief?


----------



## JB0704

TheBishop said:


> Why the difference from your belief?



There is zero scriptural reference for such a position.  From what I understand, Catholicism places the words of the Pope on the same level as scripture (not 100% on that), if so, that would explain the variance.


----------



## stringmusic

TheBishop said:


> According to catholicism it is, and is a one way ticket. Why the difference from your belief?





JB0704 said:


> There is zero scriptural reference for such a position.



Yep.

The only thing that sends people to h e l l is dying without a relationship with Jesus Christ.


----------



## JB0704

TheBishop said:


> Wouldn't it have been much easier in the first place, for an all powerful god, all loving god, to talk to the daughter so she wouldn't commit suicide and cause all that  suffering?



From my and your perspective, yes.



TheBishop said:


> He suffered for 30 years? I know that not a long time for an eternal being but for most mortals thas about half a life, could he at least brought peace sooner.



I never claimed to understand the girl's suffering, or God's motivation.  I wish he would have.  I really feel for folks who are at such a place where life has lost it's appeal.  Must be awful.


----------



## TheBishop

JB0704 said:


> From my and your perspective, yes.
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed to understand the girl's suffering, or God's motivation.  I wish he would have.  I really feel for folks who are at such a place where life has lost it's appeal.  Must be awful.




Isn't the taking of human life a sin? Or is ok if its your own?


----------



## TheBishop

stringmusic said:


> Yep.
> 
> The only thing that sends people to h e l l is dying without a relationship with Jesus Christ.



Why would someone who has this relationship kill themselves?  From the description some have given of this relationship, it would seem those who have this relationship would not find justification for suicide.


----------



## stringmusic

TheBishop said:


> Why would someone who has this relationship kill themselves?


I don't know, I'm sure there are myriad of reasons.



> From the description some have given of this relationship, it would seem those who have this relationship would not find justification for suicide.



The relationship doesn't make one a perfect person, that's the reason for the relationship.


----------



## JB0704

TheBishop said:


> Isn't the taking of human life a sin? Or is ok if its your own?



I don't think one's final act is the determining factor according to most belief systems.


----------



## TheBishop

JB0704 said:


> I don't think one's final act is the determining factor according to most belief systems.



So killing yourself, and/or others, as long as you have a relationship with christ, and have some other stuff on your resume to counter it, and you can still get into heaven. Got it, makes perfect sense.


----------



## TheBishop

stringmusic said:


> I don't know, I'm sure there are myriad of reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> The relationship doesn't make one a perfect person, that's the reason for the relationship.



As described by those who have graced us with this description, being blessed with such a relationship, it would seem, would be diametrically opposed to the taking of their own life. As described, it would seem, that one with said relations, should be filled with joy, grace, and be at such peace that it would be impossilbe to even think of taking ones life. It just seems kinda of odd that it would be possible to have the magical relation with the all powerful, and still be depressed enough to commit suicide.


----------



## stringmusic

TheBishop said:


> So killing yourself, and/or others, as long as you have a relationship with christ, and have some other stuff on your resume to counter it, and you can still get into heaven. Got it, makes perfect sense.



What are you talking about "other stuff on your resume"?

If you remove that part of your statement, then yes, a murderer/suicide victim can still get into heaven. God forgives all sins through Christ. That doesn't, however, give one the right to murder people.


BTW, Christ is a pronoun and should be capitalized, in all your hatred towards everything Christian, you could at least be respectful enough to use elementary grammer.


----------



## stringmusic

TheBishop said:


> As described by those who have graced us with this description, being blessed with such a relationship, it would seem, would be diametrically opposed to the taking of their own life. As described, it would seem, that one with said relations, should be filled with joy, grace, and be at such peace that it would be impossilbe to even think of taking ones life. It just seems kinda of odd that it would be possible to have the magical relation with the all powerful, and still be depressed enough to commit suicide.


...


stringmusic said:


> The relationship doesn't make one a perfect person, that's the reason for the relationship.


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> So the only evidence for you is to see God? How do you feel about Atoms?



Are you feeling alright?
Unless atoms claim to be the source of creating creation, unless atoms claimed to have talked to Moses, Noah, Abraham, Joshua and every other main character in every story in the Bible, if atoms died for our sins, was resurrected and ascended into the Deluxe Apartment In The Sky and unless atoms have done all the things YOU claim your God has done then I am fine with science finding them and telling me all about them.
Now on the other hand, if your good buddy can talk to all those others, poof up into a talking burning bush, talk to me through a donkey or just wants to go to the range and burn a couple of boxes of .45acp off while he straightens me out on how things REALLY are, then I am all for it.

In fact, between my last post and now, I was just out to a local stripping pit to fire some ammo off that I reloaded yesterday. It was just me, Mr. Colt and Mr. Glock. It might have been the perfect time for someone to contact me. I shot right handed and left handed. No one told me to close my eyes and use the Force and no one used a thunderous voice to set me straight on who runs the joint. Heck, I could not even get  an elderly stranger to appear out of nowhere, talk to me and vanish.... like it happens on Little House on the Prairie.
I did hear a couple of soft giggles until I settled down and shot some decent groups, but I think it might have been those zany atoms hiding behind a large chunk of coal. THATS how I know they are real.


----------



## TheBishop

stringmusic said:


> BTW, Christ is a pronoun and should be capitalized, in all your hatred towards everything Christian, you could at least be respectful enough to use elementary grammer.



Respect is earned not given, and there is nothing that either the words, christ or god, has done to earn my respect. As a matter of fact, the followers who place such emphasis on such mundane details, garner the intentional grammatical gaffe.


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> Are you feeling alright?
> Unless atoms claim to be the source of creating creation, unless atoms claimed to have talked to Moses, Noah, Abraham, Joshua and every other main character in every story in the Bible, if atoms died for our sins, was resurrected and ascended into the Deluxe Apartment In The Sky and unless atoms have done all the things YOU claim your God has done then I am fine with science finding them and telling me all about them.
> Now on the other hand, if your good buddy can talk to all those others, poof up into a talking burning bush, talk to me through a donkey or just wants to go to the range and burn a couple of boxes of .45acp off while he straightens me out on how things REALLY are, then I am all for it.
> 
> In fact, between my last post and now, I was just out to a local stripping pit to fire some ammo off that I reloaded yesterday. It was just me, Mr. Colt and Mr. Glock. It might have been the perfect time for someone to contact me. I shot right handed and left handed. No one told me to close my eyes and use the Force and no one used a thunderous voice to set me straight on who runs the joint. Heck, I could not even get  an elderly stranger to appear out of nowhere, talk to me and vanish.... like it happens on Little House on the Prairie.
> I did hear a couple of soft giggles until I settled down and shot some decent groups, but I think it might have been those zany atoms hiding behind a large chunk of coal. THATS how I know they are real.





			
				stringmusic said:
			
		

> So the only evidence for you is to see God?


Is that a "yes"?


BTW, didn't you answer "no" to the original question in the scientism thread? All your assertion about God seem to center around science not being able to tell you He exists.


----------



## TheBishop

stringmusic said:


> If you remove that part of your statement, then yes, a murderer/suicide victim can still get into heaven. God forgives all sins through Christ. That doesn't, however, give one the right to murder people.



So you can be a good non-murdering atheist and still burn, but be a suicidal murdering christian with a relationship and your set for eternity. Got it.


----------



## stringmusic

TheBishop said:


> Respect is earned not given, and there is nothing that either the words, christ or god, has done to earn my respect.


You don't have to respect God to use grammer that was taught to you in kindergarten.



> As a matter of fact, the followers who place such emphasis on such mundane details, garner the intentional grammatical gaffe.


 Your agruments come of as insincere when you can't show respect for simple things like the capitalization of pronouns.

I'm not asking you to spell everything correctly or always use perfect grammer, but you're not capitalizing obvious things that should be capitalized that is completely disrespectful. And who wants to have a conversation with someone without general respect for one another?


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> Is that a "yes"?
> 
> 
> BTW, didn't you answer "no" to the original question in the scientism thread? All your assertion about God seem to center around science not being able to tell you He exists.



My answer is: If there is a God it will know how to contact me, what to do or say and when to do it. IF there is a God it knows about the open invitation.


----------



## stringmusic

TheBishop said:


> So you can be a good non-murdering atheist and still burn, but be a suicidal murdering christian with a relationship and your set for eternity. Got it.


Remember, I've already stated that the relationship does not give a person the ok to murder other people.

In both instances, both parties get what they asked for.


----------



## drippin' rock

I thought pronouns were he, she, it, we, they, ussuns, etc.  Isn't Christ a proper noun?


----------



## TheBishop

stringmusic said:


> You don't have to respect God to use grammer that was taught to you in kindergarten.
> 
> 
> Your agruments come of as insincere when you can't show respect for simple things like the capitalization of pronouns.
> 
> I'm not asking you to spell everything correctly or always use perfect grammer, but you're not capitalizing obvious things that should be capitalized that is completely disrespectful. And who wants to have a conversation with someone without general respect for one another?



Maybe I feel the respect given to them is unwarranted, and unjust, therefore, my grammatical gaffe is my way of giving them, their just deserved disrespect. I am not a big fan of christianity, jewdaism, islam, hinduism or any other belief that claims truth, and exclusivity, without anything to substantiate those claims. I feel they are inherently poisonous to society, and therefore, earn every bit of disrespect that can be given.  I'm sorry if you disagree, and I respect your opinion, but I will not kowtow becuase you find the gaffe offensive.


----------



## bullethead

drippin' rock said:


> I thought pronouns were he, she, it, we, they, ussuns, etc.  Isn't Christ a proper noun?



Ahhhhh, who thought someone would catch that?? Sometimes if you make it seem like you know what your talking about no one will call you on it. It all goes well until someone does.  

Luuuuucy(string), yu haf sum splainin to dooooo!!!

String, are you ready for the quiz??
http://www.grammarbook.com/grammar/pronoun.asp


----------



## drippin' rock

Seems to me suicide is covered with "Thou Shall not kill."  If you have to repent your sins to be forgiven, there wouldn't be much repenting going on once you've kilt yourself.


----------



## ted_BSR

drippin' rock said:


> Seems to me suicide is covered with "Thou Shall not kill."  If you have to repent your sins to be forgiven, there wouldn't be much repenting going on once you've kilt yourself.



I agree, You will know a tree by the fruit that it bears.

As for who is capitalizing what, I don't think that matters much in the great scheme thing of things, but I do think it could be considered fruit, or non-fruit.


----------



## ted_BSR

bullethead said:


> Ahhhhh, who thought someone would catch that?? Sometimes if you make it seem like you know what your talking about no one will call you on it. It all goes well until someone does.
> 
> Luuuuucy(string), yu haf sum splainin to dooooo!!!
> 
> String, are you ready for the quiz??
> http://www.grammarbook.com/grammar/pronoun.asp



Correct, but irrelevant to the discussion.


----------



## bullethead

ted_BSR said:


> Correct, but irrelevant to the discussion.



I thought since string brought up proper grammar and is such a stickler for it that he mentioned it in a few posts that it could very well be relevant.


----------



## JB0704

TheBishop said:


> Got it, makes perfect sense.



So, you are making a moral judgement on an opposing belief system?


----------



## stringmusic

drippin' rock said:


> I thought pronouns were he, she, it, we, they, ussuns, etc.  Isn't Christ a proper noun?






You're absolutley right. The point still stands that Christ, because it is someone's name, should be capitalized.


----------



## stringmusic

drippin' rock said:


> Seems to me suicide is covered with "Thou Shall not kill."  If you have to repent your sins to be forgiven, there wouldn't be much repenting going on once you've kilt yourself.



Your sins are forgiven the second you accept Christ and His payment for your sins. There is no need to repent of every sin you've commited.


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> I thought since string brought up proper grammar and is such a stickler for it that he mentioned it in a few posts that it could very well be relevant.



My point was, that in general conversation, especially intellectual discussion, there should be a general respect for the people involved.


----------



## ddd-shooter

TheBishop said:


> Maybe I feel the respect given to them is unwarranted, and unjust, therefore, my grammatical gaffe is my way of giving them, their just deserved disrespect. I am not a big fan of christianity, jewdaism, islam, hinduism or any other belief that claims truth, and exclusivity, without anything to substantiate those claims. I feel they are inherently poisonous to society, and therefore, earn every bit of disrespect that can be given.  I'm sorry if you disagree, and I respect your opinion, but I will not kowtow becuase you find the gaffe offensive.


Here you set forth an argument that is exclusive and yet unsubstantiated. Does that mean you yourself should give yourself all the disrespect you can?


----------



## stringmusic

TheBishop said:


> Maybe I feel the respect given to them is unwarranted, and unjust, therefore, my grammatical gaffe is my way of giving them, their just deserved disrespect. I am not a big fan of christianity, jewdaism, islam, hinduism or any other belief that claims truth, and exclusivity, without anything to substantiate those claims. I feel they are inherently poisonous to society, and therefore, earn every bit of disrespect that can be given.  I'm sorry if you disagree, and I respect your opinion, but I will not kowtow becuase you find the gaffe offensive.


Basing your disrespect for God, Christianity, or anything else, on your feelings, is probably not the best way to distinguish who or what gets that disrespect.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

TheBishop said:


> Maybe I feel the respect given to them is unwarranted, and unjust, therefore, my grammatical gaffe is my way of giving them, their just deserved disrespect.



The vile bitterness of this screed exemplifies better any post in this thread what happens when morals become relative to the individual.  



TheBishop said:


> I am not a big fan of christianity, jewdaism, islam, hinduism or any other belief that claims truth, and exclusivity, without anything to substantiate those claims.



and the hypocrisy of those who disparage others, when they themselves can't substantiate their belief any more than those they are denigrating for the same reason



TheBishop said:


> I feel they are inherently poisonous to society, and therefore, earn every bit of disrespect that can be given.



Again, an example of the logical product of an amoral religion.



TheBishop said:


> I'm sorry if you disagree, and I respect your opinion, but I will not kowtow becuase you find the gaffe offensive.



Indeed.  Given the fact that actions are the result of values, which are inherently based on ones beliefs,  we should expect exactly what you have exhibited.  All that may be stated is you well represent your beliefs.


----------



## TripleXBullies

stringmusic said:


> BTW, Christ is a pronoun and should be capitalized, in all your hatred towards everything Christian, you could at least be respectful enough to use elementary grammer.



Maybe you meant proper noun? But you all seem to forget that pronouns are NOT proper nouns and capitalize your Hes and Hims as well.


----------



## TheBishop

JB0704 said:


> So, you are making a moral judgement on an opposing belief system?



Not a moral judgement, just a judgement of reason.


----------



## TheBishop

ddd-shooter said:


> Here you set forth an argument that is exclusive and yet unsubstantiated. Does that mean you yourself should give yourself all the disrespect you can?



Its not an arguement, nor did I claim it was truth, or factual, key word "feel", denotes it is my opinion. Reading comp 101


----------



## TheBishop

stringmusic said:


> Basing your disrespect for God, Christianity, or anything else, on your feelings, is probably not the best way to distinguish who or what gets that disrespect.



My feelings stem from experience, and observation.  How should respect be distinguished then? Popularity?  In that case I should respect the liar and theives we have running our country into the ground.  No thanks. I base my opinions on the facts I have on hand.


----------



## stringmusic

TheBishop said:


> My feelings stem from experience, and observation.  How should respect be distinguished then? Popularity?  In that case I should respect the liar and theives we have running our country into the ground.  No thanks. I base my opinions on the facts I have on hand.



Well, in terms of whether respect is given or not, it seems like you base them on your feelings. Feelings can be very deceiving.

I think respect should be distinguished by logic and rationality. What has God,Jesus, or Christianity done to you personally that that much disrespect is warrented?


----------



## stringmusic

TheBishop said:


> Its not an arguement, nor did I claim it was truth, or factual, key word "feel", denotes it is my opinion. Reading comp 101



Do you believe that your opinions are true?


----------



## TheBishop

SemperFiDawg said:


> The vile bitterness of this screed exemplifies better any post in this thread what happens when morals become relative to the individual.



Yet morals are 100% without a shadow of a doubt relative to all individuals, which makes this statement, pointless.




> and the hypocrisy of those who disparage others, when they themselves can't substantiate their belief any more than those they are denigrating for the same reason



When have you heard me claim to have truth and the exclusivity of? Were have I  been hypocritical? (Ted I already know what you want to say, and I'll proove you wrong too.) If I assert a cliam of such standing you can rest assure I have something to validate my claim. 



> Again, an example of the logical product of an amoral religion.



Don't use the word logical. It something you continuously fail at. Hence the claim that atheism is a religion.  



> Indeed.  Given the fact that actions are the result of values, which are inherently based on ones beliefs,  we should expect exactly what you have exhibited.  All that may be stated is you well represent your beliefs.



All an erroneous assumption. You have no clue of my beliefs. If your actions and views represent the values of christianity then my stance is righteous, and yours a true blemish on mankind.  You represent the repulsiveness of your beliefs well. May time, and reasoning, perish views, and beliefs, like yours, from humanity, so that our species may prosper.


----------



## TheBishop

stringmusic said:


> Well, in terms of whether respect is given or not, it seems like you base them on your feelings. Feelings can be very deceiving.
> 
> I think respect should be distinguished by logic and rationality. What has God,Jesus, or Christianity done to you personally that that much disrespect is warrented?



Nothing, to me they are someones fantasy. But those that feverently claim that we must honor them becuase someone else might get offended is to politically correct.  I hate political correctness.   And really string, its not that disrespectful.  I haven't burned any bibles lately.


----------



## TheBishop

stringmusic said:


> Do you believe that your opinions are true?



An opinion can be factual, but if it was universally true it wouldn't be an opinion would it?


----------



## stringmusic

TheBishop said:


> Yet morals are 100% without a shadow of a doubt relative to all individuals, which makes this statement, pointless.



Let me ask you a question. If a young child is brought up in a neighborhood that teaches that stealing is ok, and the yound child grows up to be a thief, should we then put the entire neighborhood in jail and not the child? The neighbors, after all, are at fault for the childs theivery.


----------



## stringmusic

TheBishop said:


> Nothing



Well then, God and Jesus do not deserve your disrespect after all then.  Both are just everyday proper nouns that have done nothing to you and should be capitalized.


----------



## stringmusic

TheBishop said:


> An opinion can be factual, but if it was universally true it wouldn't be an opinion would it?



I understand, but do you believe your opinions to be true?


----------



## JB0704

stringmusic said:


> I understand, but do you believe your opinions to be true?



Mine are.

It's always a good debate with folks who insist an opinion can't be wrong.


----------



## stringmusic

JB0704 said:


> Mine are.


Mine too. 



> It's always a good debate with folks who insist an opinion can't be wrong.



Yep, while we all have them, they ain't all correct.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

TheBishop said:


> When have you heard me claim to have truth and the exclusivity of? Were have I  been hypocritical? (Ted I already know what you want to say, and I'll proove you wrong too.) If I assert a cliam of such standing you can rest assure I have something to validate my claim.



Oh, so you do have something to substantiate your beliefs: It just not true or exclusive.  Well if that's the case I stand corrected on labeling you hypocritical.





TheBishop said:


> Don't use the word logical. It something you continuously fail at. Hence the claim that atheism is a religion.



Atheism is a truth claim there is no God, hence as a broadly held belief it's perfectly accurate to label it a religion in that sense.  In fact the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that Atheism warrants the same protection as all other religions, and has spoken of “religions based on a belief in the existence of God [and] religions founded on different beliefs."


----------



## TheBishop

stringmusic said:


> Let me ask you a question. If a young child is brought up in a neighborhood that teaches that stealing is ok, and the yound child grows up to be a thief, should we then put the entire neighborhood in jail and not the child? The neighbors, after all, are at fault for the childs theivery.



Anyone that teaches the violation of someone else's rights is exceptable, is an enemy to humanity. I don't blame the suicide bombers, I blame the society that enables them.


----------



## JB0704

TheBishop said:


> I don't blame the suicide bombers, I blame the society that enables them.



I blame both.


----------



## stringmusic

TheBishop said:


> Anyone that teaches the violation of someone else's rights is exceptable, is an enemy to humanity.


You've just postured a moral absolute here. If morals are relative, isn't there a time and place that it is moral to violate some else's rights?



> I don't blame the suicide bombers, I blame the society that enables them.



Ok, but that doesn't answer the question.


----------



## dawg2

TheBishop said:


> Anyone that teaches the violation of someone else's rights is exceptable, is an enemy to humanity....


So anyone in favor of abortion is an enemy to humanity.  I agree.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

TheBishop said:


> Anyone that teaches the violation of someone else's rights is exceptable, is an enemy to humanity.



Just curious about these "rights" you speak of.  What are they, and what is their origin?



TheBishop said:


> I don't blame the suicide bombers, I blame the society that enables them.



Well if that is the case do you blame secularism for all the problems we face today such as crime, drugs, the loss of the sanctity of life as a whole, the rise of the welfare state to support more and more children born out of wedlock and into poverty,  etc?


----------



## SemperFiDawg

dawg2 said:


> So anyone in favor of abortion is an enemy to humanity.  I agree.



Me too


----------



## TheBishop

SemperFiDawg said:


> Oh, so you do have something to substantiate your beliefs: It just not true or exclusive.  Well if that's the case I stand corrected on labeling you hypocritical.



I have plenty to substanstiate my opinions but I label them so. I do not claim truth or exclusivity where none can be shown. That is a folly I leave to you.




> Atheism is a truth claim there is no God, hence as a broadly held belief it's perfectly accurate to label it a religion in that sense.  In fact the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that Atheism warrants the same protection as all other religions, and has spoken of “religions based on a belief in the existence of God [and] religions founded on different beliefs."



Wrong.  Atheism is not a truth, a claim, nor a broadly held belief. I do not know how many times we have to go over this, but you lack even a fundamental understanding of atheism.  The only commonality between atheist is the lack of belief. What the supreme court ruled was that lack of belief is afforded the same protection under the law as belief.  Essentially rulling them on equal standing in the eyes of law and government.


----------



## TheBishop

stringmusic said:


> I understand, but do you believe your opinions to be true?



They would not be my opinions, if I didn't believe they were factual.


----------



## TheBishop

stringmusic said:


> You've just postured a moral absolute here. If morals are relative, isn't there a time and place that it is moral to violate some else's rights?



I'm sorry. I should have stated it as my opinion.  I strongly believe, based on the lessons of history, that it is dangerous precedent to allow for the violations of rights in a society. 




> Ok, but that doesn't answer the question.


 
Here is were the violation of rights can only hope to be just. When those that discount rights, and initiate force or agression against others, can we rightly violate rights. We use government and law.  That is why they must be thightly defined and constrained.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

TheBishop said:


> I have plenty to substanstiate my opinions but I label them so. I do not claim truth or exclusivity where none can be shown. That is a folly I leave to you.



Do you make a habit of forming opinions that are not substantiated by truth?  I would suggest that is by definition, blind faith.






TheBishop said:


> Wrong.  Atheism is not a truth,.



I agree, 



TheBishop said:


> a claim,



Then what are you claiming?



TheBishop said:


> nor a broadly held belief. .



Then what are you asserting a believe in?

In essence you are asserting you believe in something that is not a belief, nor a claim nor is true.




TheBishop said:


> I do not know how many times we have to go over this, but you lack even a fundamental understanding of atheism.  The only commonality between atheist is the lack of belief. .



Do you believe in this lack of belief?


----------



## TheBishop

dawg2 said:


> So anyone in favor of abortion is an enemy to humanity.  I agree.



I agree, to some extent, I have trouble with victims of rape.


----------



## TheBishop

SemperFiDawg said:


> Just curious about these "rights" you speak of.  What are they, and what is their origin?



Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The origin of rights is life, and the fact that it is our one and only known life. 



> Well if that is the case do you blame secularism for all the problems we face today such as crime, drugs, the loss of the sanctity of life as a whole, the rise of the welfare state to support more and more children born out of wedlock and into poverty,  etc?



No, I blame government for:
1. teaching you those are the problems we face today. 
2. Propagating most of our real problems.


----------



## TheBishop

SemperFiDawg said:


> Do you make a habit of forming opinions that are not substantiated by truth?  I would suggest that is by definition, blind faith.



Never once have I suggested such.  What I said is I have plenty to substantiate my opinions, but I will never state my opinion, or belief, and claim it as fact or truth.




> Then what are you claiming?



I'm not claiming anything other that I do not believe in your god, which is not a claim. 



> Then what are you asserting a believe in?
> In essence you are asserting you believe in something that is not a belief, nor a claim nor is true.



You do not believe in atheism, you just do believe in god, which makes you an atheist. 



> Do you believe in this lack of belief?


----------



## stringmusic

TheBishop said:


> Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The origin of rights is life, and the fact that it is our one and only known life.



How does life "give" rights? If live does "give" rights, is it limited to just humans, or are animals and trees afforded these same rights?


----------



## stringmusic

TheBishop said:


> Never once have I suggested such.  What I said is I have plenty to substantiate my opinions, but I will never state my opinion, or belief, and claim it as fact or truth.


So you'll never claim it as a fact, but you do indeed believe it to be a fact? I ask this because earlier you said...


TheBishop said:


> They would not be my opinions, if I didn't believe they were factual.


----------



## TheBishop

stringmusic said:


> How does life "give" rights? If live does "give" rights, is it limited to just humans, or are animals and trees afforded these same rights?



Good question. Again these are educated guesses, most stemming from philosophers of human rights and liberty. 

Being social creatures with varying degrees of beliefs and ideas, there must be something intrinsic to point to, and draw commonality amoung those variances, to be able to make an equal, and fair, starting point.  (That's what bothers me about abortion, it makes life arbitrary).  We cannot agree what god, wether there is a god, or what to attribute our rights to, but we must seek to make it unambiguous as possible.  It is essential to to define origin of rights in terms capable of exceeding the bounds place on it by religion. It allows us, in a nation were liberty and freedom be it highest attributes,  to beging to negotiate the rules in which society is to be governed by.


----------



## TheBishop

stringmusic said:


> So you'll never claim it as a fact, but you do indeed believe it to be a fact? I ask this because earlier you said...



I will never impose it factuality on others, is that better? I tend to hold my opinions as correct, until proven otherwise. I will state my opinion, and even give support my arguement. I will never claim it as absolute truth.


----------



## stringmusic

TheBishop said:


> Good question. Again these are educated guesses, most stemming from philosophers of human rights and liberty.
> 
> Being social creatures with varying degrees of beliefs and ideas, there must be something intrinsic to point to, and draw commonality amoung those variances, to be able to make an equal, and fair, starting point.  (That's what bothers me about abortion, it makes life arbitrary).  We cannot agree what god, wether there is a god, or what to attribute our rights to, but we must seek to make it unambiguous as possible.


How do we go about doing this? Who gets to choose the beliefs and ideas which get to be used to draw the commonality? Do we include nihilistic beliefs and ideas in this commonality?




> It is essential to to define origin of rights in terms capable of exceeding the bounds place on it by religion. It allows us, in a nation were liberty and freedom be it highest attributes,  to beging to negotiate the rules in which society is to be governed by.



What bounds does God place on rights?

To me, it is logically impossible to come to a conclusion that any person has any right without an outside agent to provide those rights. Unless, of coure, these rights are completely arbitrary and therefor really have no inherency and could be violated at any time without the need for justification.


----------



## stringmusic

TheBishop said:


> I will never impose it factuality on others, is that better? I tend to hold my opinions as correct, until proven otherwise. I will state my opinion, and even give support my arguement. I will never claim it as absolute truth.



So how do you then tell SFD that he was wrong in his assesment of atheism? In doing so, you are in fact imposing that your belief is absolutely correct and that his belief is absolutely wrong.

How can you believe, or better yet, not believe in anything if you don't think anything you believe is absolutely true?


----------



## StriperAddict

drippin' rock said:


> Seems to me suicide is covered with "Thou Shall not kill." If you have to repent your sins to be forgiven, there wouldn't be much repenting going on once you've kilt yourself.


 
Our repentance was a gift of God, and the cross was the sin solution where all our _future_ sins were covered.


----------



## ddd-shooter

TheBishop said:


> Good question. Again these are educated guesses, most stemming from philosophers of human rights and liberty.
> 
> Being social creatures with varying degrees of beliefs and ideas, there must be something intrinsic to point to, and draw commonality amoung those variances, to be able to make an equal, and fair, starting point.  (That's what bothers me about abortion, it makes life arbitrary).  We cannot agree what god, wether there is a god, or what to attribute our rights to, but we must seek to make it unambiguous as possible.  It is essential to to define origin of rights in terms capable of exceeding the bounds place on it by religion. It allows us, in a nation were liberty and freedom be it highest attributes,  to beging to negotiate the rules in which society is to be governed by.


A nation where liberty and freedom are its highest attributes? Where did we derive these rights? 
Its awfully convenient we live in such a society rather than a communist one, where the state is much more important than an individual. Or a monarchy where all things within the realm belong to the king. 


I would add that if you feel a certain way about someone or their religion and you base YOUR response to that person based upon those feelings, you believe those feelings to be true. Either that or you have serious mental health issues.


----------



## TheBishop

stringmusic said:


> How do we go about doing this? Who gets to choose the beliefs and ideas which get to be used to draw the commonality? Do we include nihilistic beliefs and ideas in this commonality?



I just told you. We are alive, and we are different, but both alive, we have different interests, but both alive.  Once we are in agreement we have a right to our life, becuase it is our only known commonality, we can go from there.



> What bounds does God place on rights?



There is no god so, none, but religion, is a whole different matter.



> To me, it is logically impossible to come to a conclusion that any person has any right without an outside agent to provide those rights. Unless, of coure, these rights are completely arbitrary and therefor really have no inherency and could be violated at any time without the need for justification.



I understand the difficulty you have string. The problem with you, is you do not realize the difficulties you create when you take the position you have. You have to define the agent, then a whole number of problem arise.  When you say everyone has a right to life by the fact that they are alive you need not go any further.


----------



## TheBishop

stringmusic said:


> So how do you then tell SFD that he was wrong in his assesment of atheism?


Easy becuase he is and is not my opinion or belief. I didn't make up what atheism is, I just know by common definition that it isn't what he makes it out to be. 



> In doing so, you are in fact imposing that your belief is absolutely correct and that his belief is absolutely wrong.



No, I'm telling him common definition and understanding is different then what he is trying to make it out to be.  He saying a circle has four sides, and I'm pointing out that that the rest of the world sees it differently. 



> How can you believe, or better yet, not believe in anything if you don't think anything you believe is absolutely true?



I didn't say anything of the sort. I believe many things to be absolutely true. I just don't push things as truth that I cannot validate. How is that so hard to understand?


----------



## TheBishop

ddd-shooter said:


> A nation where liberty and freedom are its highest attributes? Where did we derive these rights?
> Its awfully convenient we live in such a society rather than a communist one, where the state is much more important than an individual. Or a monarchy where all things within the realm belong to the king.
> 
> 
> I would add that if you feel a certain way about someone or their religion and you base YOUR response to that person based upon those feelings, you believe those feelings to be true. Either that or you have serious mental health issues.




I might believe them to be true, but I still would not impose them on somebody as fact or truth.


----------



## ddd-shooter

TheBishop said:


> I just told you. We are alive, and we are different, but both alive, we have different interests, but both alive.  Once we are in agreement we have a right to our life, becuase it is our only known commonality, we can go from there.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no god so, none, but religion, is a whole different matter.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand the difficulty you have string. The problem with you, is you do not realize the difficulties you create when you take the position you have. You have to define the agent, then a whole number of problem arise.  When you say everyone has a right to life by the fact that they are alive you need not go any further.



The fact that you both are alive does nothing to a ruler who sees the interests of the state as superior to any rights you may imagine you have. Even in science, we see only the strong have survive. There are no rights to anything that cannot achieve it themselves.


----------



## stringmusic

TheBishop said:


> I just told you. We are alive, and we are different, but both alive, we have different interests, but both alive.  Once we are in agreement we have a right to our life, becuase it is our only known commonality, we can go from there.


Again, being alive doesn't give anyone a right to anything. If life could give rights, then everything that is alive has the same rights, including animals, trees, insects, etc.





> I understand the difficulty you have string. The problem with you, is you do not realize the difficulties you create when you take the position you have. You have to define the agent, then a whole number of problem arise.  When you say everyone has a right to life by the fact that they are alive you need not go any further.



Asserting that people have rights because they are alive is arbitrary. What else could I make up that people have inherently because they are alive? Money? Property?

 I agree with you that invoking an outside agent for inherent rights comes with it a need for an explanation of that agent, but that's the road that needs to be traveled if human beings are to have inherent rights.


----------



## stringmusic

TheBishop said:


> Easy becuase he is and is not my opinion or belief. I didn't make up what atheism is, I just know by common definition that it isn't what he makes it out to be.


But you can't make that claim, because you're unwilling to admit that your assertion is a truth claim. So he cannot be wrong, because by your own words, you do not assert absolute truth to other people.





> No, I'm telling him common definition and understanding is different then what he is trying to make it out to be.  He saying a circle has four sides, and I'm pointing out that that the rest of the world sees it differently.


Does a circle have four sides? If your answer is no, are you asserting that as an absolute truth, or is it only your opinion?


----------



## bullethead

A circle does have four sides.
Inside
Outside
Topside
Bottomside


----------



## TheBishop

stringmusic said:


> Again, being alive doesn't give anyone a right to anything. If life could give rights, then everything that is alive has the same rights, including animals, trees, insects, etc.



Your right this does pose a problem for me, and I have thought it about it many times. We could launch a whole different discussion on animals and rights, (think more in terms of property rights).  For now lets just talk about a basic outline for humans.



> Asserting that people have rights because they are alive is arbitrary. What else could I make up that people have inherently because they are alive? Money? Property?



We have to start somewhere, were do suggest? Do we have to go through your god or can we pick any? It is the least arbitrary thing.  



> I agree with you that invoking an outside agent for inherent rights comes with it a need for an explanation of that agent, but that's the road that needs to be traveled if human beings are to have inherent rights.



Why? So we can argue around in circles for thousands of more years? So we keep playing why this god is better?


----------



## TheBishop

stringmusic said:


> But you can't make that claim, because you're unwilling to admit that your assertion is a truth claim. So he cannot be wrong, because by your own words, you do not assert absolute truth to other people.


I will not assert MY OPINION as TRUTH. I will HIGHLIGHT THE TRUTH WHEN IT CAN BE VALIDATED. 




> Does a circle have four sides? If your answer is no, are you asserting that as an absolute truth, or is it only your opinion?



I guess I should have said corners.  Agian, I can say he is wrong about atheism, not becuase it is my opinion, but becuase it goes against the terms, as defined in common useage. I can also say a circle does not have four corners. It is the truth, I will assert it, and I also can prove it.


----------



## stringmusic

I'm heading out for the weekend. I appreciate the discussion today Bishop!  

Have a good weekend and I'll try to reply on Monday.


----------



## TheBishop

stringmusic said:


> I'm heading out for the weekend. I appreciate the discussion today Bishop!
> 
> Have a good weekend and I'll try to reply on Monday.



Tight lines...


----------



## drippin' rock

stringmusic said:


> Your sins are forgiven the second you accept Christ and His payment for your sins. There is no need to repent of every sin you've commited.





StriperAddict said:


> Our repentance was a gift of God, and the cross was the sin solution where all our _future_ sins were covered.



So if I accept Christ as my personal Lord and Savior, then off myself, I'm good?  Cause I can drum up alotta other Christian folk that will differ in opinion.  It took me about three seconds of Googling to find that.  

Are you saying that if we have a personal relationship with Christ we wouldn't want to off ourselves?  That's great, but we are dealing with a story where the person did commit that ultimate act.  

So really we are back to personal belief and translation.  


Round and round we go.....


----------



## ted_BSR

drippin' rock said:


> So if I accept Christ as my personal Lord and Savior, then off myself, I'm good?  Cause I can drum up alotta other Christian folk that will differ in opinion.  It took me about three seconds of Googling to find that.
> 
> Are you saying that if we have a personal relationship with Christ we wouldn't want to off ourselves?  That's great, but we are dealing with a story where the person did commit that ultimate act.
> 
> So really we are back to personal belief and translation.
> 
> 
> Round and round we go.....



I think only God can answer these questions. Either way, we are all bound to find out.


----------



## stringmusic

TheBishop said:


> Your right this does pose a problem for me, and I have thought it about it many times. We could launch a whole different discussion on animals and rights, (think more in terms of property rights).  For now lets just talk about a basic outline for humans.


Even if we are talking about humans, being alive doesn't give us rights. If we are not created by God, then for all practical purposes being alive doesn't mean or give anything, other than the completely meaningless and arbitrary defintion that we assign it.




> We have to start somewhere, were do suggest? Do we have to go through your god or can we pick any? It is the least arbitrary thing.


Even if saying "being alive" is the least arbitrary thing, that still leaves you with the problem of your premise for rights being arbitrary. If rights are arbitrary, then they are able to be violated without the need for explanation.

 We have to start outside of ourselves, that is, if rights are inherent.  





> Why?


Because if you're arguing that humans have inherent rights, then you're going to have to find out where those rights come from.



> So we can argue around in circles for thousands of more years? So we keep playing why this god is better?



Truth exists, individualy, we have to try to find it.


----------



## stringmusic

drippin' rock said:


> So if I accept Christ as my personal Lord and Savior, then off myself, I'm good?  Cause I can drum up alotta other Christian folk that will differ in opinion.  It took me about three seconds of Googling to find that.


I would ask them to point out scripture that shows that killing yourself means seperation from God, because the bible I read indicates to me that God forgives all sins of believers.  



> Are you saying that if we have a personal relationship with Christ we wouldn't want to off ourselves?  That's great, but we are dealing with a story where the person did commit that ultimate act.


No, that's not what I'm saying, I don't believe suicide is exclusive to unbelievers.  



> So really we are back to personal belief and translation.



It really has nothing to do with personal belief or translation.

John 3:16 doesn't have a suicide clause.


----------



## TheBishop

stringmusic said:


> Even if we are talking about humans, being alive doesn't give us rights. If we are not created by God, then for all practical purposes being alive doesn't mean or give anything, other than the completely meaningless and arbitrary defintion that we assign it.
> 
> 
> Even if saying "being alive" is the least arbitrary thing, that still leaves you with the problem of your premise for rights being arbitrary. If rights are arbitrary, then they are able to be violated without the need for explanation.
> 
> We have to start outside of ourselves, that is, if rights are inherent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because if you're arguing that humans have inherent rights, then you're going to have to find out where those rights come from.
> 
> 
> 
> Truth exists, individualy, we have to try to find it.



Ok String, for what you want to happen, god would have to come down here and declare himself to all.  That is the only way to remove the ambiguity.  He would have give everyone knowledge of him, and remove faith. 

Until then we have but one solution.  If we are to set our species up for the most efficient, and effect way to continue we have to declare rules.  They are always going to be arbitrary, they have been since we gathered in groups in caves.  We all believe differently, but we must have rules that allow that, and still allow us to progress. 

I am alive, it is my life (not according to us.gov), I assert my right to it, becuase I am alive and it is the only known life I will have. I can only assert that claim if I obliged the right to others. By failing in that, I then acknowledge that right is arbitrary, and others have a right to lay claim on my life. 

It is my life, I am at liberty to execute it as I see fit (again not according yourbehindbelongstome.gov). As long as it does not infringe on the life, and liberty of others.  Agian doing so acknowledges the right for others to do the same. 

It is not universally accepted, if it was the world would be at peace. It is a contract that I agree to to live in a free society.


----------



## stringmusic

TheBishop said:


> Ok String, for what you want to happen, god would have to come down here and declare himself to all.  That is the only way to remove the ambiguity.  He would have give everyone knowledge of him, and remove faith.


God doesn't have to let you see Him with your eyes in order for humans to have inherent rights. We both agree that we have rights, your system of thought leaves us, even only with the slightest bit of ambiguity, with a set of rights that have no instrinsic value.



> Until then we have but one solution.  If we are to set our species up for the most efficient, and effect way to continue we have to declare rules.  They are always going to be arbitrary, they have been since we gathered in groups in caves.  We all believe differently, but we must have rules that allow that, and still allow us to progress.
> 
> I am alive, it is my life (not according to us.gov), I assert my right to it, becuase I am alive and it is the only known life I will have. I can only assert that claim if I obliged the right to others. By failing in that, I then acknowledge that right is arbitrary, and others have a right to lay claim on my life.
> 
> It is my life, I am at liberty to execute it as I see fit (again not according yourbehindbelongstome.gov). As long as it does not infringe on the life, and liberty of others.  Agian doing so acknowledges the right for others to do the same.
> 
> It is not universally accepted, if it was the world would be at peace. It is a contract that I agree to to live in a free society.



We probably don't differ a whole lot on what these rights are and how to go about sustaining them in our lives and the lives of humanity. I'm simply taking your premise for rights and assigning them to God because it takes that one extra step to establish an absolute set of inherent rights.

We can pretty much agree to disagree from this point if you want. I would just caution that when you're arguing in the political forum in the future, you must remember that with arbitrary rights, everyone has the oppurtunity to assign the rights they see fit, no matter how basic. This puts the two parties in disagreement in the same position as neither person can assign their arbitrary rights as above the other persons equal arbitrary rights.

This also goes for the argument of who and when certian rights can be infringed upon.


----------



## ambush80

stringmusic said:


> God doesn't have to let you see Him with your eyes in order for humans to have inherent rights. We both agree that we have rights, your system of thought leaves us, even only with the slightest bit of ambiguity, with a set of rights that have no instrinsic value.
> 
> 
> 
> We probably don't differ a whole lot on what these rights are and how to go about sustaining them in our lives and the lives of humanity. I'm simply taking your premise for rights and assigning them to God because it takes that one extra step to establish an absolute set of inherent rights.
> 
> We can pretty much agree to disagree from this point if you want. I would just caution that when you're arguing in the political forum in the future, you must remember that with arbitrary rights, everyone has the oppurtunity to assign the rights they see fit, no matter how basic. This puts the two parties in disagreement in the same position as neither person can assign their arbitrary rights as above the other persons equal arbitrary rights.
> 
> This also goes for the argument of who and when certian rights can be infringed upon.




I'll take that over people who argue over which god is the appointer of rights and which rights "he" says what those are.


----------



## stringmusic

ambush80 said:


> I'll take that over people who argue over which god is the appointer of rights and which rights "he" says what those are.



So instead of searching for where our rights come from, you're satisfied with accepting our rights as arbitrary?

I'd bet from a practicality standpoint, you don't accept your rights as arbitrary.


----------



## TheBishop

stringmusic said:


> God doesn't have to let you see Him with your eyes in order for humans to have inherent rights. We both agree that we have rights, your system of thought leaves us, even only with the slightest bit of ambiguity, with a set of rights that have no instrinsic value.
> 
> 
> 
> We probably don't differ a whole lot on what these rights are and how to go about sustaining them in our lives and the lives of humanity. I'm simply taking your premise for rights and assigning them to God because it takes that one extra step to establish an absolute set of inherent rights.
> 
> We can pretty much agree to disagree from this point if you want. I would just caution that when you're arguing in the political forum in the future, you must remember that with arbitrary rights, everyone has the oppurtunity to assign the rights they see fit, no matter how basic. This puts the two parties in disagreement in the same position as neither person can assign their arbitrary rights as above the other persons equal arbitrary rights.
> 
> This also goes for the argument of who and when certian rights can be infringed upon.



String I understand the difficulties, but you are making them more complicated, instead of simplifying them.   You keep saying god as if we have defined whos/or what god.  We haven't and absolutely can't. So how does it add intrinsic value by assigning rights gifted by the term god, which without it/him/her/them/whatever/not even there coming down and declaring himself absolutely real?  Are we suppose to choose your god? How in the heck does that make it less arbitrary? By just saying theres a god? I don't think so. 

The part you are missing in my principal is "FREE SOCIETY".  A society that operates in congruence with multiple beliefs and disbeliefs.   A society that operates without the need to assign a greater value to human life, than human life. By placing life at the highest value in that society, and anchoring it with self ownership, and liberty, you will create an atmosphere for prosperity.


----------



## TheBishop

stringmusic said:


> So instead of searching for where our rights come from, you're satisfied with accepting our rights as arbitrary?
> 
> I'd bet from a practicality standpoint, you don't accept your rights as arbitrary.



Rights are always going to be somewhat arbitrary.  I don't think there is a way around that. If your rights are violated, you expect, in the name of justice for retribution.  Justice cannot take place unless you violate either the life or liberty of the offender.  IN MY OPINION, If you initiate force against another and violate their rights, your accept your own rights can be arbitrated by society, a jury of your peers.


----------



## stringmusic

TheBishop said:


> String I understand the difficulties, but you are making them more complicated, instead of simplifying them.   You keep saying god as if we have defined whos/or what god.  We haven't and absolutely can't. So how does it add intrinsic value by assigning rights gifted by the term god, which without it/him/her/them/whatever/not even there coming down and declaring himself absolutely real?  Are we suppose to choose your god? How in the heck does that make it less arbitrary? By just saying theres a god? I don't think so.


Assigning rights to God doesn't necessarily lead you to the God of the bible. I simply see inherent rights in conjunction with everything else I believe about God. 



> The part you are missing in my principal is "FREE SOCIETY".  A society that operates in congruence with multiple beliefs and disbeliefs.   A society that operates without the need to assign a greater value to human life, than human life.


I understand you're talking about a free society. You're still left with the same problem I've listed above.



> By placing life at the highest value in that society, and anchoring it with self ownership, and liberty, you will create an atmosphere for prosperity.



No doubt. But how do you condem the person that murders another because his arbitrary rights are different than your arbitrary rights?


----------



## ambush80

stringmusic said:


> So instead of searching for where our rights come from, you're satisfied with accepting our rights as arbitrary?
> 
> I'd bet from a practicality standpoint, you don't accept your rights as arbitrary.



Anthropologists can trace back how humankind's values/morals/notions of gods have developed.   They've changed and are changing today.


----------



## stringmusic

TheBishop said:


> Rights are always going to be somewhat arbitrary.  I don't think there is a way around that.


Yes there is. I don't think certian basic rights are arbitrary.




> If your rights are violated, you expect, in the name of justice for retribution.  Justice cannot take place unless you violate either the life or liberty of the offender.  IN MY OPINION, If you initiate force against another and violate their rights, your accept your own rights can be arbitrated by society, a jury of your peers.



I agree.


----------



## stringmusic

ambush80 said:


> Anthropologists can trace back how humankind's values/morals/notions of gods have developed.   They've changed and are changing today.



My point stands.


----------



## ambush80

stringmusic said:


> Assigning rights to God doesn't necessarily lead you to the God of the bible. I simply see inherent rights in conjunction with everything else I believe about God.
> 
> 
> I understand you're talking about a free society. You're still left with the same problem I've listed above.
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt. But how do you condem the person that murders another because his arbitrary rights are different than your arbitrary rights?



The same way that you condemn someone because they murder in the name of a god: you tell them they were being un-cool.


----------



## TheBishop

stringmusic said:


> Assigning rights to God doesn't necessarily lead you to the God of the bible. I simply see inherent rights in conjunction with everything else I believe about God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which god then string? What if it's the almighty allah? What if its the one that says cannibalism is ok? By assigning such an ambiguous source you make rights MORE arbitrary. They become secondary to belief, and then are at the whims of whos belief is more dominant. How is that less arbitrary then saying "You are alive, you have right to that life, by the fact you are alive." Your defined and least arbitrary source.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand you're talking about a free society. You're still left with the same problem I've listed above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are flaws in everything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt. But how do you condem the person that murders another because his arbitrary rights are different than your arbitrary rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They broke the Free society Contract.
Click to expand...


----------



## stringmusic

TheBishop said:


> Which god then string? What if it's the almighty allah? What if its the one that says cannibalism is ok?


Like I said before, assigning rights from God are in conjunction with everything else I believe to be true about Him.

I have believed in the God of the bible from a very young age. Growing older, like most, I wanted to make sure what I believed to be the truth, was in fact, the truth. I compared my God to other theology and philosophical thoughts from many other religions, and still do this today. The end/continuing result is that the God of the bible is real and is the truth. When it came time in my life assign intrisic rights to humans, I assigned them to the God of the bible.



> By assigning such an ambiguous source you make rights MORE arbitrary. They become secondary to belief, and then are at the whims of whos belief is more dominant. How is that less arbitrary then saying "You are alive, you have right to that life, by the fact you are alive." Your defined and least arbitrary source.


 
 It's not assigning an ambiguous source, it'a assigning and ultimate source, because rights are inherent and should not be infringed upon.  



> There are flaws in everything.


I disagree



> They broke the Free society Contract.


The free society contract is arbitrary and has no intrinsic meaning.


----------



## ddd-shooter

What's so great about a free society?


----------



## TheBishop

stringmusic said:


> Like I said before, assigning rights from God are in conjunction with everything else I believe to be true about Him.
> 
> I have believed in the God of the bible from a very young age. Growing older, like most, I wanted to make sure what I believed to be the truth, was in fact, the truth. I compared my God to other theology and philosophical thoughts from many other religions, and still do this today. The end/continuing result is that the God of the bible is real and is the truth. When it came time in my life assign intrisic rights to humans, I assigned them to the God of the bible.
> 
> It's not assigning an ambiguous source, it'a assigning and ultimate source, because rights are inherent and should not be infringed upon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So "we" don't need an ultimate source, you do, which makes it individualistic and arbitrary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You could and be wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The free society contract is arbitrary and has no intrinsic meaning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is what it is, becuase of human imperfection.  Its meaning is to continue, and ensure the prosperity of our species, what more do you need?
Click to expand...


----------



## TheBishop

ddd-shooter said:


> What's so great about a free society?



The greatest amount of prosperity for the greatest amount of the populace, maybe.


----------



## TheBishop

stringmusic said:


> Yes there is. I don't think certian basic rights are arbitrary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.



How can you agree if you think there are certain rights that are not arbitrary? What rights are absolute? Life? Is there never any justification to take life? If you answer yes to that question they are in fact arbitrary! 

War, Capital punishment, Self defense.


----------



## ddd-shooter

TheBishop said:


> The greatest amount of prosperity for the greatest amount of the populace, maybe.



Ever read Plato? Philosopher king?


----------



## TheBishop

ddd-shooter said:


> Ever read Plato? Philosopher king?



No, But I have read works from Thomas Paine, Milton Friedman, David Freidman, Thomas Jeffersom, James Madison, Ayn Rand, and many, many, more on the principals of freedom, liberty and government. They would agree with 99.9% of what I'm saying becuase it is all directly derived from their philosophies.


----------



## ambush80

stringmusic said:


> Like I said before, assigning rights from God are in conjunction with everything else I believe to be true about Him.
> 
> I have believed in the God of the bible from a very young age. Growing older, like most, I wanted to make sure what I believed to be the truth, was in fact, the truth. I compared my God to other theology and philosophical thoughts from many other religions, and still do this today. The end/continuing result is that the God of the bible is real and is the truth. When it came time in my life assign intrisic rights to humans, I assigned them to the God of the bible.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not assigning an ambiguous source, it'a assigning and ultimate source, because rights are inherent and should not be infringed upon.
> 
> 
> I disagree
> 
> 
> The free society contract is arbitrary and has no intrinsic meaning.



Did you give Buddhism a try?  I mean a REAL try, where you believed it with all your heart?


----------



## ddd-shooter

TheBishop said:


> No, But I have read works from Thomas Paine, Milton Friedman, David Freidman, Thomas Jeffersom, James Madison, Ayn Rand, and many, many, more on the principals of freedom, liberty and government. They would agree with 99.9% of what I'm saying becuase it is all directly derived from their philosophies.



He actually argued democracy was the worst form of government. The philosopher king was better  because he knew what was best for the people.


----------



## TheBishop

ddd-shooter said:


> He actually argued democracy was the worst form of government. The philosopher king was better  because he knew what was best for the people.



Democracy is terrible, that's why we were designed to be a Representitive Republic.


----------



## ddd-shooter

TheBishop said:


> Democracy is terrible, that's why we were designed to be a Representitive Republic.



Exactly. More like an oligarchy than a democracy. 
But with freedom so central to all these discussions, I have to ask why? Only recently has freedom been such a great thing.


----------



## ted_BSR

TheBishop said:


> The greatest amount of prosperity for the greatest amount of the populace, maybe.



That resembles socialism.

The majority of FREE people to ever walk the face of the earth live in America right now.

Won't be that way for long though. The guberment will make slaves of us all.


----------



## JB0704

ted_BSR said:


> The majority of FREE people to ever walk the face of the earth live in America right now.



Not anymore.  We are not free.  We have limited rights, and a maze of regulations beyond those things specifically carved out as "off-limits."

Minimum wage is a primary example.  An employer is not "free" to pay market rates for labor.  He is not "free" to hire and fire whomever he chooses.  And on and on.....


----------



## TheBishop

ted_BSR said:


> That resembles socialism.



Only to someone that doesn't know anything about socialism . Now if you replaced security, or equality, with prosperity, then that would be close to socialism. 



> The majority of FREE people to ever walk the face of the earth live in America right now.



Define free? Is our time, our time? Are we free to dispose of it as we see fit? Is our property free for our use without constraints?   Can you aquire wealth without paying pennance to our government?  

There are plenty of people, in history, and present day, that are more free than most americans.  The Americams that are the most free, are those willing to break the law, and that is not most americans.



> Won't be that way for long though. The guberment will make slaves of us all.



Its already happened.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters. ” (Benjamin Franklin) ...


----------



## ted_BSR

TheBishop said:


> Only to someone that doesn't know anything about socialism . Now if you replaced security, or equality, with prosperity, then that would be close to socialism.
> 
> 
> 
> Define free? Is our time, our time? Are we free to dispose of it as we see fit? Is our property free for our use without constraints?   Can you aquire wealth without paying pennance to our government?
> 
> There are plenty of people, in history, and present day, that are more free than most americans.  The Americams that are the most free, are those willing to break the law, and that is not most americans.
> 
> 
> 
> Its already happened.



Let me recommend this book for you Bishop.

http://www.amazon.com/Miracle-Freedom-Seven-Tipping-Points/dp/160641951X


----------



## TheBishop

ted_BSR said:


> Let me recommend this book for you Bishop.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Miracle-Freedom-Seven-Tipping-Points/dp/160641951X




I'll put it on my list? Care to give a synopsis?

Here I bet this one is better though.

http://www.amazon.com/Free-Choose-A-Personal-Statement/dp/0156334607


----------



## ambush80

SemperFiDawg said:


> “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters. ” (Benjamin Franklin) ...



Masters like Yahweh?


----------



## SemperFiDawg

ambush80 said:


> Masters like Yahweh?



Hah.  No really.  Hah.


----------



## ambush80

SemperFiDawg said:


> Hah.  No really.  Hah.



No.  I agree with B.F.  I can see a day that my little girl gets out of control and I might have to play the "Boogie Man " card.  It's worked since the beginning of time.  It worked on me for a while.


----------



## dawg2

TheBishop said:


> I agree, to some extent, I have trouble with victims of rape.



"kill the kid to reconcile the crime."  Hmm....doesn't make sense.  Sounds kind of "Old Testament" to me.


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> I can see a day that my little girl gets out of control and I might have to play the "Boogie Man " card.



Faith isn't supposed to be a crime and punishment thing.  There are plenty of life consequences to use in order to give a reason "why" things 'ought be one way or the other.

I have never told my kids "You are dissapointing God," but, I have told my son that bad grades lead to limited choices in the future.


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> Faith isn't supposed to be a crime and punishment thing.  There are plenty of life consequences to use in order to give a reason "why" things 'ought be one way or the other.
> 
> I have never told my kids "You are dissapointing God," but, I have told my son that bad grades lead to limited choices in the future.



Did you tell them they will go to He11 if they don't surrender their lives to Jesus?


----------



## SemperFiDawg

JB0704 said:


> Faith isn't supposed to be a crime and punishment thing.  There are plenty of life consequences to use in order to give a reason "why" things 'ought be one way or the other.
> 
> I have never told my kids "You are dissapointing God," but, I have told my son that bad grades lead to limited choices in the future.



I agree to an extent.  I tell my kids you reap what you sow and  that's true whether one is a Christian or not.  The difference is that if you lead a God centered life, there is a much better chance what you reap will be the good things in life.


----------



## ted_BSR

TheBishop said:


> I'll put it on my list? Care to give a synopsis?
> 
> Here I bet this one is better though.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Free-Choose-A-Personal-Statement/dp/0156334607



I guess that is just how it is with you Bishop. You either have to make fun of someone (to make yourself feel better I suppose), or one up them.

My book is better than yours!

You don't have any idea about socialism!

Your are dumb because you believe in God!

You're a scientist?

Relax man. It is not a war. Or maybe it is......


----------



## ambush80

SemperFiDawg said:


> I agree to an extent.  I tell my kids you reap what you sow and  that's true whether one is a Christian or not.  The difference is that if you lead a God centered life, there is a much better chance what you reap will be the good things in life.



Do they agree that eternal suffering is an appropriate penalty for disbelief regardless of how you lived?


----------



## TheBishop

ted_BSR said:


> I guess that is just how it is with you Bishop. You either have to make fun of someone (to make yourself feel better I suppose), or one up them.
> 
> My book is better than yours!
> 
> You don't have any idea about socialism!
> 
> Your are dumb because you believe in God!
> 
> You're a scientist?
> 
> Relax man. It is not a war. Or maybe it is......



O.k. taken completely out of context, but hey.  Ted I said you have no idea about socialism becuase of the statement you made about my comment that was in no way like socialism. The book you recomended has heavy religious influence so it is going to be bias tward the importance of belief. 

The book I recomended is by a internationaly renowned economic professor, advisor to Ronald Reagan, and probably the greatest philosopher on economic, and personal liberty (he believes the are one in the same) ever to grace the planet.   His teaching should be pounded into the heads of not only american citizens, but everyone.  I highly recomend his videos on youtube.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

ambush80 said:


> Do they agree that eternal suffering is an appropriate penalty for disbelief regardless of how you lived?



Yes.  They also realize it is a self-imposed penalty.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

TheBishop said:


> The book I recomended is by a internationaly renowned economic professor, advisor to Ronald Reagan, and probably the greatest philosopher on economic, and personal liberty (he believes the are one in the same) ever to grace the planet.   He teaching should be pounded into the heads of not only american citizens, but everyone.  I highly recomend his videos on youtube.



I would have to cast my vote for Sowell.


----------



## TheBishop

SemperFiDawg said:


> I would have to cast my vote for Sowell.



And a good vote that would be.


----------



## ddd-shooter

TheBishop said:


> His teaching should be pounded into the heads of not only american citizens, but everyone.  I highly recomend his videos on youtube.



I thought if you found something you thought to be true you would not try to push it on anyone else as truth?


----------



## ted_BSR

TheBishop said:


> O.k. taken completely out of context, but hey.  Ted I said you have no idea about socialism becuase of the statement you made about my comment that was in no way like socialism. The book you recomended has heavy religious influence so it is going to be bias tward the importance of belief.
> 
> The book I recomended is by a internationaly renowned economic professor, advisor to Ronald Reagan, and probably the greatest philosopher on economic, and personal liberty (he believes the are one in the same) ever to grace the planet.   His teaching should be pounded into the heads of not only american citizens, but everyone.  I highly recomend his videos on youtube.



So, your book recommendation is better than mine? In fact, it should be pounded into my head, and everyone else’s?????

And you say I know nothing about socialism? You are gonna have to look in the mirror at some point Bishop. I wish you luck.


----------



## TheBishop

ted_BSR said:


> So, your book recommendation is better than mine? In fact, it should be pounded into my head, and everyone else’s?????
> 
> And you say I know nothing about socialism? You are gonna have to look in the mirror at some point Bishop. I wish you luck.



I'm sorry ted. It is my ignorance to think someone who claims to be as anti-socialist, and freedom loving as you, would know who Milton Friedman is, and how his teachings, focus on maximizing prosperity by maximizing personal freedom. 

I have a degree in science, too, ted (2 actually). One that specifically studies socialism, law, and government.


----------

