Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off-topic Discussion' started by Waldo101, Jun 15, 2017.
Usually this is why I don't bother to argue about religion, it's a waste of time.
"Committed by an atheist" is not synonymous with "committed in the name of atheism." Atheism does not encourage violence (in fact, it doesn't encourage anything, since it isn't even an ideology).
I will probably dispute that, but first, for the sake of clarity, let me ask you: what is your definition of 'good', and what is your definition of 'bad'?
You are confusing fanaticism with religion.
The fanatic is an individual who thinks they have a direct line to God/ Reality.
Religion is the direct opposite of this; the religious person is [or should be] part of a greater community. truth is not individuated, but interpreted within a larger context [religio... to bind]. Of course, in a rationalist individualist culture, everyone is a potential fanatic... hence the need for social media, entertainment, and mindless drivel to turn our minds to mush and complete apathy.
God is the best and life is better with God.
Believe what you want though; this is just my opinion.
I encourage you to watch debates between Christians and Atheists. You'd be surprised on how often circular arguments take place when they can't refute an argument.
I know not every Christian feels this way, some don't even believe everything in the bible is true, but for those who do it be impossible to have a rational argument if in the end they are always right because "The bible said so"
Its not for everyone, I always say if it makes you happy then good for you.
Religious morality is all there is. There's no such thing as non-religious morality. Any sense of morality that isn't anchored by an absolute standard (like God) is instead controlled by a shifting standard, like "society" or personal opinion. Without God, ideas about "good and evil" are no different than ideas about "pretty and ugly." They become opinions and nothing more.
I'm glad you asked. "Good" is that which conforms to the teachings of Christ. "Bad" is that which opposes those teachings. Christ is the standard of perfect goodness. I can refer to behaviors as "good" or "bad" because I have a standard to compare them to.
Atheists have no such standard. Atheists will go on about 'society', and 'not hurting others', but how do they define 'hurt?' Any definition they come up with is loaded with subjective terms, and thus their 'morality' will always be relativistic. And as long as it's relativistic, people like me can say, "to hell with your idea of morality," and atheists will have no logical standing to tell us we're wrong for saying that.
I love when non-Christians try and use Bible verses to prove me wrong.
Dude, you don't get it. Christ fulfilled the law. That doesn't mean the law disappeared--the law is still here, right now, right this second. But it has been fulfilled through the work of Christ, so believers can receive salvation through grace, and not through works.
It's like if you went to jail, and then you got released because someone paid your bail. Does that mean the law no longer requires you to post bail? No, of course not. The law is still there--it's just been paid for on your behalf, so you go free. That's sort of how Christianity works. You may have heard the term "Jesus paid the price." That's what people are talking about.
It's one of those things where you actually need to read the Bible to understand it, instead of Googling "atheist responses to Christian comments".
Now I'm going to block you because I don't want to waste further time arguing with ignorance. Best of luck on your NoFap journey.
SHE WAS NINE YEARS OLD. Mohammed was in his FIFTIES at that time.
When you find a universe where that's considered acceptable behavior, let me know.
Most of civil rights movements like equal rights to women, equal rights to homosexuals, these things were debated outside of religious belief. The bible condones misogyny and homophobia. If we lived by God's standards we'd have a theocracy, and above I showed news about a woman being stoned in Afghanistan.
I hope you are being deliberately dishonest and not this ignorant...
As if morality didn't exist before Jesus or the bible...geez...please be a troll and not for real, my head hurts.
I think unchangeable ideas are dangerous, and an unchangeable morality is also dangerous. People used to think it was ok to have slaves, that idea was also condoned by the bible. Now a racist comes out and most people hate them because they are an overwhelming minority, when they used to be the majority.
You on the other hand are a rock that won't move no matter how wrong you are.
One fundamentalist reports me from speaking my mind and the other blocks me from speaking my mind. Ahhh the irony. I rest my case
Thats forums for you.
Then your entire 'moral' argument is nothing more than a meaningless tautology. All you're saying is that people who don't believe in Christ don't have a concept for conforming to the teachings of Christ. Big deal.
The definition of EVERY SINGLE WORD in our language (or any language) is subjective, including your proposed definitions of 'good' and 'bad.' Your religion does absolutely nothing to solve that issue.
It would depend on the definition. If we agree on a definition, then we will likely be able to use objective measurements to classify actions as moral or immoral.
Which, again, your religion does nothing to solve, since I could say the exact same thing to you.
Furthermore, you worship a god who explicitly condones or orders slavery, genocide, and arranged marriage between rape victims and their rapists. Are you going to acknowledge that those things are wrong, or is your religion going to force you to defend them (as is the case with most Christians I've talked to)?
If 'good' is merely synonymous with the teachings of your god, why should I even care about being good? How did you even determine that your god has our best interests at heart?
What we've got here is failure to communicate.
These are Atheists according to some Christians here lol
But see, here's the difference--if you said to me, "to hell with your idea of morality," and I said you were wrong to say that, I'd still be intellectually consistent within my own beliefs, because I have an objective standard to compare it to.
So when I say you're wrong, I'm making a truth claim. When you say I'm wrong, you're just sharing an opinion. When your idea of morality is based on the shifting standard of 'society', you have no basis to talk about right and wrong as if they're actually objective things that everyone agrees with you on.
'Society' thought slavery was totally cool in 1800. Nazi 'society' thought genocide was totally cool in the 1940s. Today, many Middle Eastern 'societies' think it's totally cool to treat women like animals. So as soon as you start to invoke 'society' as a moral standard, you're talking about an entity that has massive differences with other societies in the world, and without an objective moral standard, you have no right to call your society's morality any better than another's.
Well, that's patently false, but it's also exactly the kind of thing I'd expect someone like you to say.
If the definition of every single word is actually subjective, then why do we have dictionaries? If the definition of every word is subjective, then why should I believe that anything you say actually means what you claim it means?
Which doesn't do you any good until you can actually demonstrate that this objective standard serves our own best interest.
How did you determine that it's just an opinion? We haven't even discussed the definition of morality that I use.
1) My idea of morality is not based on the "shifting standard of society."
2) My definition of morality involves objective measurements. Whether people agree with these measurements is irrelevant to the question of whether or not they are objective.
And both of those things are objectively wrong under the definition that I subscribe to, so that isn't a problem.
Now, please share with me your biblical basis for being opposed to slavery and misogyny, especially considering that your god explicitly permits men to sell their daughters into slavery, and also encourages Israelites to capture the virgins of conquered village to keep as spoils of war.
Dictionaries describe the definition of a word according to how its usage is SUBJECTIVELY agreed upon by members of a speech community.
You do realize that there's no inherent, objective property of the phonemic structure of the word "apple" that makes it adopt the definition that you see in the dictionary, right? A linguistic form is arbitrary in relation to its referent.
Again, same answer. Our society has collectively assigned meaning to the words we're using in the discussion, which allows us to communicate. You're free to be doubtful about the meanings of every word I'm using, but if that's really the case, then I don't why you're bothering to talk with me.
Fair enough. Please explain how you define morality.
Sure. My Biblical basis for being opposed to slavery and misogyny is that Christ said, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself." He also said that he came to "proclaim freedom for the captives," and to "set free the oppressed." Pretty hard to misinterpret those words.
I know you guys love using Old Testament references to debate Christians, but we don't follow the Old Testament. We follow Jesus.
I've bothered talking to you because I believe words have actual, objective meaning. You're the one saying they don't, and that's why I've had second thoughts about continuing this point/counterpoint game we're playing.
I define morality as the promotion of any one of the universal factors that make up human well-being (life, happiness, safety, health, prosperity, freedom, etc) and immorality as the hinderance of it.
Which is incredibly vague compared to the instructions of God promoting slavery in the OT. A slaveowner could easily plead that their ownership of slaves is consistent with that passage.
And even if you did think Jesus was opposed to slavery (which is highly dubious considering he instructed slaves to obey their masters), does God's previous endorsement of slavery not at least damage his moral credibility in your mind? Or are you of the position that slavery is right in some circumstances?
Yeah, except Jesus didn't say that at all. You're quoting from Luke 4, which in turn is quoting that from Isaiah 61, not Jesus. Isaiah was a prophet from the old testament, where anti-slavery sentiment was limited to opposition against the enslavement of Jews by non-Jews. I don't see why we should see moral virtue in people who advocate against the enslavement of themselves (but not the enslavement of other peoples).
I can't believe that this is even a discussion. If the definition of a word is contingent on the agreement of the people of speech communities in which it is used, then it is BY DEFINITION subjective.
Happiness according to who? Prosperity according to who? Freedom according to who? Atheists talk about how they have these objective standards for morality and then introduce all kinds of subjective words to define it. You say things like "the promotion of any one of the universal factors" as if all of humanity 'universally' agrees on those factors. They don't.
Um, it's Jesus who is speaking in Luke 4, dude. Yeah, he was quoting Isaiah, but Jesus was the one speaking. And if you would actually read the passage in context and not through your own anti-Christian bias, you'd see that he goes onto to say, "today this is fulfilled in your hearing." He was claiming to be the very person Isaiah prophesied about. In fact, it so thoroughly pissed off the audience that they threw him out of town.
I appreciate that you went and Googled those passages so you could refer to them properly, but please spare me your pseudo-intellectual Bible knowledge of implying that Jesus wasn't talking about himself. There's no other reasonable interpretation.
At this point, I feel like you're just trying to score stupid points. Okay, I'll spell it out super-explicitly so there aren't any more stupid technicalities for you to pick apart: in communities of common language, words must have objective meaning for any actual communication to take place. Obviously the word "apple" has no meaning to someone who only speaks Mandarin. But if you and I are having an argument about morality, and you and I are using completely different definitions of morality, then it's a completely pointless conversation. Which is why I'm ending it here and adding you to the ignore list. With only 7 comments under your belt, I get the idea you're just here to be a pain in the ass anyway.