hey athiests! i'm chatting with a person from liberty university on yahoo

[Ben Kenobi]

David:

Missed the post. Sorry. All I can say is well said.

I'll highlight the best point.

If God is moral, then God cannot violate the moral law, due to his nature.

Nice to see such an affirmation.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Strawman. Where did I say that?

*sigh* You said:

So you are willing to be a mindless automaton?

I base my morality on God, but he does not make me conform to his moral code. That is entirely my choice. You, for example do not. So how does that make me an automaton?

You, on the other hand have not been terribly clear on your basis of morality (if you have one), but from your comments seem to base it on evolution, as opposed to Starchild's transcendent universal laws.

Your (or rather Webster's) definition of arbitrary is:

How so? According to this dictionary, arbitrary is:

1 : depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law
2 a : not restrained or limited in the exercise of power : ruling by absolute authority b : marked by or resulting from the unrestrained and often tyrannical exercise of power
3 a : based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something b : existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will

By your own quoted definitions, I am not arbitrary in any of my beliefs. They do not depend on my individual discretion, they are restrained by forces outside my control, and are not based on my individual preference.

Your beliefs on the other hand clearly depend on your discretion (since they depend on what will happen (eg. will this person be useful to my tribe?)), and your morality is most certainly 'existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance '.

I would like to see you to show that my basis of a moral code is as arbitrary as yours, which is based on the whim of an unknowable, individual being.

Done. Incidentaly, my morality is not based on God's whim.

Let see. If you can walk through the Sahara desert without a drop of water, we can declare that your environment has little impact to you. So are you better?

I think you know perfectly well to what I was refering, but prefer to make obtuse comments like this. I am as bound by my physicality as you are (for now ), but I do not make them the basis of my morality, as you apear to do.

Unless you can show that the weak and the disabled could not contribute to the tribe as a whole, killing them would be disavantageous. Besides, in the prehistoric times, they would be weeded out by the environment anyway.

Ah, so you would leave tham out for the wolves? I think we have found the basis of your immorality.

How so? Maybe mine was a statement of values, but not all statements of values are moral statements.

Let's go back a step, to your original statement:

Morally, murder is wrong because nobody has a right over another person's life.

So are you saying, 'nobody has a right over another person's life' is not a moral statement? I contend that it is (look at the history of slavery - was slavery not wrong in your morality?). Therefore you have one moral statement deriving from another. This is fine, but somewhere down the line you have to come to a source.

Most of them were Christians. Hm, this doesn't bode well for you.

No - you are mistaken. None of them were Christians - they were just pretending to be (or were genuinely deluded into thinking they were). On the other hand, I can think of many example of 'true' atheists who have had very dubious moralities (Stalin for example).

That appears to be your theme.

[Zevico]

Rogan, I am willing to bet that those that you stated weren't true Christians thought of themselves as such, as did much of the Christian world at the time, I am willing to bet. Rogan, it is a matter of faith as to what a "true" christian is. I am a true christian jewish hindu sikh, following all of those religions truly and faithfully. Prove that I am not. In the same manner, one cannot say that these people were not following a certain religion to the best of their knowledge. Of course there are obvious cases, such as a few of the Popes, who were more politicians than anything else, but aside from that, it would be pretty difficult to prove or find an admission that XX's cause was not inspired by his devout faith in God.

This may or may not make sense grammar wise, if it doesn't, please excuse me because its late here