Evil Christians kill animals while enlightened Atheist kills babies

[Sava]

God is the Christians' reason for morals.

Atheists don't need God to have morals.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
It's called a counter-troll, Guy.

Bah, I barely have time to read the board anymore. Counter-troll or not, statements like that need to be called out on the carpet and excoriated.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Guynemer
Counter-troll or not, statements like that need to be called out on the carpet and excoriated.

It's no worse than this, "Of course if God existed, it would have been a mere formality to change a mid air disaster into a near miss - after all, what did those 52 Children do against him?," in terms of poor reasoning.

[Guynemer]

You certainly won't get a debate from me. I don't particularly see the need to troll all atheists in retaliation, when he could simply (and rightly) upbraid the offending jackass and kindly leave the rest of us bloody well out of it.

[Sava]

"Where was God when I needed a friend?
Where was God when I came to an end?
Where was God when I lost my mind?
Where was God when I can't find?
[...]
Where was love when I felt like hate?
Where was hate when I felt like love?
Where were you when you said you'd be there?
Where was the faith, when I said I was scared?
[...]
Tell me what you believe, I'll tell you what you should see;
I don't know who to trust,
my heart is filled with disgust;
[...]
Ladies and gentleman! May I have your attention?
Are you ready for the joke?
Are you ready for the great deception?
GOD!!
Tell me what you believe...
GOD!!
Tell me what you believe...
GOD!!
[...]"

--Drowning Pool "Sermon"

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
It's no worse than this, "Of course if God existed, it would have been a mere formality to change a mid air disaster into a near miss - after all, what did those 52 Children do against him?," in terms of poor reasoning.

Of course it is. Lincoln's pathetic attempt is infinitely worse than Mobius's, since God is infinitely more powerful than humans. Besides, He is perfect.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
It's no worse than this, "Of course if God existed, it would have been a mere formality to change a mid air disaster into a near miss - after all, what did those 52 Children do against him?," in terms of poor reasoning.

However, the Problem of Evil / Problem of Suffering is still a good argument against the existence of a God who is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent. Christian theologians have been wrestling with it for 2000 years.

Whereas "I know an atheist who's a nutcase" is not a good argument against atheism. I don't think any atheistic philosophers will be losing sleep over it.

[Sixchan]

I know very few people I wouldn't classify as nutcases. The ironic thing is that they are atheists who sing catholic and protestant sectarian songs. Which personally I find both hilarious and disgusting at the same time. Not of course to say that the theists who sing these songs are any better.

[Lincoln]

Re: Re: Evil Christians kill animals while enlightened Atheist kills babies

Originally posted by Guynemer


Oh, kiss my pale, overworked ass. Lincoln, what you don't know about atheism could fill the Great Pyramid.

I am so ****ing sick of being accused of having no morals because I'm an atheist. That's complete horse****, and you know it.

I did not accuse atheists of not having morals. I said that the standard of atheism is survival of the fittest. People can believe whatever they want, and do good or evil for whatever reason that they choose. But in trying to form a standard of morality that can logically endure throughout generations the Christian bases his morality on the words of Jesus, i.e., "Love your neighbor as yourself."

On the other hand, one who believes that humans are simply animals with no higher purpose has only one foundation for his morality. That foundation is called survival of the fittest. He can squirm all he wants and he may very well be a nice person but his moral position cannot be sustained. It is built upon the shifting sand of the struggle for survival. And each succeeding generation can determine what exactly it does take to survive. In other words you all may as well get on the band wagon behind Singer or admit that your morality is based upon the justification that exists only in your mind -- or the mind of whomever you choose to follow.

[moomin]

Originally posted by Dalgetti
troll , or no troll , this singer guy is an ******* of the first degree , and given the chance , I would definetly kick his ass , in the most outrageous, sadistic, and immoral way I could. I'd force him to eat a baby lamb alive in one piece , and then I'll sexually abuse him with a dried up genitalia of an elephant. I'd make him eat the **** of thousands of baboons, and then , to contrast it , make him choke on some industrial waste. I'll force him to tie his balls to a prehistoric giant bird, and then shoot a pistol up in the air , so he would fly up , tied by his nuts.

I'd poke his eye off, and then pull it out , dragging the optical nerve as I go. then, I'd melt a plastic phone calling card , and place the melted plastic all over his optical nerve, while simultaneously orally raping him with a hot poker , that would come right out of his *******.

Heck, Dal, it's bad for your health to quench your frustrations like this. Don't hold back! Tell us how you really feel!

[KrazyHorse]

the standard of atheism is survival of the fittest. People can believe whatever they want, and do good or evil for whatever reason that they choose. But in trying to form a standard of morality that can logically endure throughout generations the Christian bases his morality on the words of Jesus, i.e., "Love your neighbor as yourself"

I'm an atheist, but I base my morality on those words as well (or equally fittingly, the Golden Rule).

Think of it as philosophy meets game theory...

[Lincoln]

You can't really argue with someone who bases his life on the Golden Rule.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Atheism is the belief that there are no gods. It doesn't have a moral standard, just as the belief that there are no leprechauns doesn't have a moral standard!

Most individual atheists (in the Western nations, at least) use Metaphysical Naturalism as a worldview and Secular Humanism as a moral code.

I don't see how "do no harm, except to prevent a greater harm" is inherently evil, or can reasonably be twisted into "survival of the fittest". You appear to be confusing the stance of atheism, the worldview of metaphysical naturalism, the moral code of secular humanism, and the brute fact of evolution. It's rather like labelling round-Earthism (also believed to be a brute fact by atheists) as good or evil.

[Lincoln]

You are basing you morals on opinions that exist in the fickle minds of men. What is unchanging is the fact that all of nature struggles to survive even if that survival requires the killing of the weak.

[Jack the Bodiless]

You are basing you morals on opinions that exist in the fickle minds of men. What is unchanging is the fact that all of nature struggles to survive even if that survival requires the killing of the weak.

I am recognizing that morals ARE opinions that exist in the fickle minds of men.

If atheism truly required a belief that the struggle for survival is "morally good", then you might have had a point. But it doesn't.

This struggle is what has driven evolution, an impersonal fact of life that doesn't care about our labels, it simply IS. But, as social animals, we derive an increased chance of survival from altruistic impulses also.

Morality, however, is a social convention: a set of norms and rules governing interaction between humans. It is partly genetic, partly social conditioning, partly "enlightened self-interest". The principle is that everyone agrees to grant certain universal rights to others, and will receive similar treatment in return. "Bad treatment" of others is reserved for use as punishment, to encourage adherence to the agreed rules.