If you believe those are amoral, or moral, then your opinion on what is or is not immoral is irrelevant.
I was actually thinking more along the lines of Christians, such as the poster to whom I was responding. But atheists fall into that category as well.
It's unlikely you would have replied if you didn’t.Silent Hunter said:
The “murder” of the medical “team” (they claimed to NOT be missionaries) is an example of the religious extremism to which my comment is aimed and all that need be done is replace a few words. For example:
Is it immoral to tell a lie? You do indeed do so when you tell your children there is an invisible sky spirit who will punish them if they aren’t “good.” It, in fact, borders on child abuse.
Cite the “new atheist” who advocates death for such beliefs as opposed to Christians (Muslims) who do.
The worst atheist is far better than the best Christian imo.
What he said.
You're building a straw man. Perhaps you should research the history of Christianities abuses (and continued abuses) instead of ignoring them.
It would seem so, LOL. Love ya b.
This, of course is what you believe. But this is irrelevant to your central point. Believing that fornication, homosexuality and abortion are amoral has nothing to do with whether or not you hold true to the claim that all things are permissable (as you originally stated).
No one said you were "ignorant" of history in general. You do seem to be "ignorant" of Christian history which you either conveniently ignore or for which you make excuses.
. . . see what I mean?
This would be building a straw man because you're exaggerating.
I didn’t avoid anything. If that had been my purpose my post would have been limited to, “You're building a straw man;” instead I added a short declaration of explanation.
In your case this may be true. However, have you ever wondered why when things go right you “praise” the invisible sky spirit for allowing it to happen but when things go wrong it’s your fault or someone other than the invisible sky spirit is to blame?
Aren’t we lucky we don’t live in a Christian theocracy?
You can believe any fool thing you want to believe. It’s your time you are wasting not mine.
Why is everything a "debate" to you people? Can't we have a discussion?
For my age . . . absolutely.
Don't spoil my fun.
Who is "you people"? And this is the second time you've read way too much into my use of the word "debate".
Wonder Boy.
I saw that coming. See here, LOL.
The word "debate" has a much more limited meaning than "discussion."
See also "Wiz Kid" and "Prodigy."
Thank you for caring and sharing.
Makes so much sense now.
lain: I never said I used the word properly.
I would see them if I didn't like my "Wonder Boy" better.
Anytime. :up:
Well . . . you asked for it.
Then don't complain when I "read way too much into" your misuse of a word.
Whatever churns your butter.
:up:
"We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true." - Robert Wilensky
And there are examples of murder and deprivation done in the name of a secular state and often with the intent to rid that state of its religious element (see: China and/or the former Soviet Union under Stalin). Like I said to the late Dodo, the problem isn't religion or communism, whatever you may think of the ideas, but men who use them as a means to power. It's historically true on either side of that great division.
Wouldn't the better parallel be the zealous convert who wants atheism stamped out and every man brought into an understanding with God? It appears you've chosen a comparison that serves your purpose without being entirely fair in the selection.
I'm with Patton. Let the other fellow die for his cause. Live for yours.
What they thought they were doing is far less important to me than what they accomplished, which was the intentional killing of defenseless men and women who were not attempting to physically harm them. That's murder no matter who does it or why.
Not if your premise is correct. And who gives a fig for morality absent an absolute standard and a means of correction? If there is no God and no moral absolute that relates to Him leave things to civil and criminal violation and penalty. Absent God morality is nothing more or less than peer pressure aimed at a social conformity to support this or that power structure.
First things first. Using that sort of descriptive only convinces people who aren't inclined to cheer you on that you lack maturity, so if your point is to move the margins or give anyone else pause it's a poor approach and runs contrary to your aim. And I don't know any Christian parents who approach the religious instruction of their children in that fashion, though I know a number of atheists who routinely run to the illustration.
lain: Lastly, a belief isn't a lie. It may or may not be true (though in this case you can't establish that either) but that's another matter. So you may declare and believe yourself a thing without being that thing in the least. It doesn't follow that you've lied.See, when you suggest a standard by which Stalin can be considered a better man than, say, C.S. Lewis, you only end up looking like the sort of unreasoned fanatic you appear to be arguing against a bit too broadly. That, in turn, calls into question your judgments, process and conclusions. I think you'll grow out of it, but at present it's having an impact on how people see you and how seriously they take you...and before you declare your indifference (should your age move you to that) let me add that will only secure the impression and that it's a bit at odds with the point of posting on an internet forum.
I assume you caught it but just in case....I was being sarcastic. I still have no idea what you meant.
Except we've had this debate before so you should just let it slide.