toldailytopic: Why do atheists spend so much time on Christian forums such as Theolog

[elohiym]

What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

What do you consider evidence? :idunno:

If tens of thousands of people see the Red Sea part, then walk across the sea bed on dry land, and then they watch the waters come back together and drown an entire Egyptian military unit, would you believe them all if they told you it happened?

People can't make stuff like that up. Think hard about that.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Does your “love” extend to homosexuals? Do they deserve to “burn in hell” for being who they are?

Find me a gay person, here on TOL or anywhere else, who will say that I have been unloving to them.

I’m not accusing you of anything. I asked two questions. Do they deserve to “burn in hell” for being homosexual?

What straw man? Perhaps you will look in your standard book of morals and tell me where “rape” is a “sin.” If you can’t find it you might be deriving this moral standard from somewhere else.

Deutoronomy 22:25-28 says rape is a sin. However, I find it inherently unloving (the opposite of love, really), and therefore condemned under any number of Christs sentiments.

Deuteronomy 22:25-29 contains two cases of “forced” sex. One is punished with death and the other is punished far worse; the man must marry the girl ! LOL.

Deuteronomy 22:25-29 But if a man finds an engaged girl in the field, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man that lay with her shall die. (26) But you shall do nothing to the girl. No sin worthy of death is in the girl; for as when a man rises against his neighbor and slays him, even so is this matter. (27) For he found her in the field, the engaged girl cried out, but there was none to save her. (28) If a man finds a girl, a virgin not engaged, and lays hold on her, and lies with her, and they are found, (29) then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife. Because he has humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.


It’s a little unclear what the “moral standard” should be but it is obviously not “rape” in the common usage today.

So I am NOT wrong as you asserted earlier.

Did I say that new atheists wanted christians dead? Can you show me were I said this? I stated, as far as I can tell, that new atheists attack something in Christians that we value more than our lives.

What an excellent imitation of lighthouse . . . totally first rate (minus the name-calling). You’d be surprised what you will deny (or affirm) for your life in return.

I have not "distanced" myself from this statement at all. With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

But an evil atheist doing evil things still trumps me?

I think so . . . since I have yet to meet a Christian who isn’t hypocritical in SOME way concerning his/her “beliefs.”

Do you claim to have a book with a “superior” set of morals to mine? Do you advocate the execution of homosexuals because your standard book of morals says to? If you don’t then you can tell me why.

You might want to change your religious position to something other than Christian because you directly contradict the orthodoxy.

I can be an unorthodox Christian if I want to, there are no orthodoxy police.

. . . say that a bit more subdued . . . they’re listening . . .

My book, btw, has no morals of its own. I claim that God has a superior set of morals than both of us, and I seek after those.

How can you know them (the moral precepts) if they aren’t recorded somewhere? How can you make a claim of moral superiority without them?

Whatever the reason for the OT rules regarding the death of man lying with mankind, Jesus has set a higher standard for us all. It is a standard of Grace, and I choose to interpret it (as it is written in His Word) with my heart. If that is unorthodox, than so be it. It has served me well.

Excellent! Way to set your own moral standard (see underlined). I commend you.















"The longer I have been an atheist, the more amazed I am that I ever believed Christian notions." - Dan Barker

 

[nicholsmom]

One of the most example is one right under most people's noses. Many theists (both Christian and Muslim) are told that torture, a concept so universally rephrensible on earth is not only acceptable from or by God's hand, but is actually desirable for the unsaved.

Several things come to mind here:
1) are you claiming that theists are automatically "good?" (because the assertion I am refuting is that good people only do wicked things at the compulsion of religion)
2) if torture is universally reprehensible, then why do we see it as common punishment in many nations around the globe, most notably in Muslim nations, but also in India, and many third-world nations? If it's universal, you would think that it is ... well, universal. Or at least close... (because the assertion I am refuting is that good people only do wicked things at the compulsion of religion)
3) I don't have a clue what you mean by God "torturing" people. I'm afraid that you will have to be a bit more specific, and explain how this compels "good people" to do wicked things. (because the assertion I am refuting is that good people only do wicked things at the compulsion of religion)

Similarly, the notion of eternal torture for literally thought-crime is also treated as divine retribution.

Ok, how does that apply to "good people" being compelled to do "wicked things?" Are you saying that God (who is the only one who really is good) is compelled by religion to this thing that you think is wicked?

I can think of nothing less than looking down on the supposed 'lost' to see them burn in eternal agony and shrug your shoulders and merely comment that they should have known better. I can think of no greater enabler to atrocity than the notion that all those not in agreement with God deserve what is coming to them.

Me either. But the fact is everyone of us deserves Hell - every single one of us is that evil. The reason that we can't see it is that we have never seen holiness. It's like those detergent commercials where they show a sock that looks white and clean until they put it next to a sock that really is white and clean. It's like that on steroids.

Do we look at those socks and say, "Well, I don't agree. I think that the first sock is just as white and clean as the second sock." No, we don't. That's because it is obvious to anyone with eyes. Anyone who has eyes to see the ugliness of sin compared to the holiness of God will agree with God in the same way that we agree that the one sock is really white and clean and the other really isn't.

It is of note that most people who perpetuate these ideals as wonderful, and as 'good news' live in free countries where they are free from both torture and from thought-crime and is a very direct example of how religious influence can directly skew the notion of morality to mean obedience to authority.

You lost me with this one. I have no clue what you are talking about.

A belief, or lack of belief cannot in any meaningful way be described as a 'religion'. We do not describe simply irreligious deists or pantheists as religious and similarly, we do not describe atheists as religious. However we might describe some sects of Buddhism that are atheistic as religious.

Whatever. I really don't care what you call yourselves. I just think that it is important to note that belief that there is no god is still just that - belief. It is neither more or less intellectual a position.

 

[Lovejoy]

I’m not accusing you of anything. I asked two questions. Do they deserve to “burn in hell” for being homosexual?

My belief about hell is complex and unorthodox (that word again), but I don't believe that, in the end, we ever go there for things we have done, and that includes having sex. (I actually don't believe that that is a specific there, either.) I believe that we are hell bent by nature (they as much as I), and that Christ is the only remedy for that nature. We are in the same boat.

Deuteronomy 22:25-29 contains two cases of “forced” sex. One is punished with death and the other is punished far worse; the man must marry the girl ! LOL.

Deuteronomy 22:25-29 But if a man finds an engaged girl in the field, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man that lay with her shall die. (26) But you shall do nothing to the girl. No sin worthy of death is in the girl; for as when a man rises against his neighbor and slays him, even so is this matter. (27) For he found her in the field, the engaged girl cried out, but there was none to save her. (28) If a man finds a girl, a virgin not engaged, and lays hold on her, and lies with her, and they are found, (29) then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife. Because he has humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.


It’s a little unclear what the “moral standard” should be but it is obviously not “rape” in the common usage today.

One of the many reasons that Christ had to come. We had to move beyond these legal prescriptions to a more mature love.

What an excellent imitation of lighthouse . . . totally first rate (minus the name-calling). You’d be surprised what you will deny (or affirm) for your life in return.

I doubt it, but I have been wrong before. Considering the number of Christians that do live shortened lives on missionary adventures, though...

However, can I take that as an concession that I did not claim new atheists were out to kill me?

I think so . . . since I have yet to meet a Christian who isn’t hypocritical in SOME way concerning his/her “beliefs.”

I have never met anyone who isn't. Well, at least I know where I stand in your estimation. That simplifies things.

How can you know them (the moral precepts) if they aren’t recorded somewhere? How can you make a claim of moral superiority without them?

It was a joke (well, that is subjective, I suppose). The book has no morality at all, it is a book. The lessons recorded therein are to impart a moral sense to the reader.

Excellent! Way to set your own moral standard (see underlined). I commend you.

Thank you, but all reading requires interpretation to determine authorial intent.















"The longer I have been an atheist, the more amazed I am that I ever believed Christian notions." - Dan Barker[/QUOTE]

 

[Silent Hunter]

A clear and excellent example presented recently in other threads is the way many Christians want to treat homosexuals.

Why not make the argument? Flesh it out a bit. So far it's just an assertion.

I’m not going to re-hash something that has been hashed enough so recently on another thread simply for your convenience.

LOL, never knew that was a word

You have got to be kidding me. Where did you grow up? Is English your first language?

Some words are used regionally, which is similar to pop, coke, and/or soda being used to describe a carbonated soft drink . . . so, no, “likening” isn’t on my list of words when “similar” and “akin” are so much more usual for me.

I think I made this quite clear . . . absent religion no one uses it for their “wicked purpose.”

Tell me, how can anyone use a thing in the absence of that thing?

Don’t ask ridiculous questions.

I have shown that absent religion, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot (to name just three) accomplished a great deal of evil - who are you to say that they were not good men?

Are you saying Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were “good men?” I’m certainly not. Evil people will do evil things. For good people to do evil things requires religion.

Lots of straw here . . . lots. I never said any such thing as you describe.

I'm going to have to start multi-quoting...

You posted: "More evil has been done in the name of religion than without." (emphasis added)

So, I did not misrepresent anything. You made an assertion that I refuted with evidence. I suppose we could run the numbers to find out really which evil has been done in the name of religion and which has not, but I'm pretty sure I made the point that it would be at least a tight race, if not a slam dunk on the part of atheistic evil-doing.

You haven’t “refuted” anything. You are relying on a faulty premise to justify a faulty conclusion given you have no idea of the theological beliefs of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. What if I told you Stalin was a Catholic or that there are more people in US jails who believe in a “supreme being” who have murdered than don't? What about the Taliban, Muslims and the various Catholic genocides? Wouldn’t that substantially skew your “numbers?”

For good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

Again with the unfounded assertion.
I'll help you out here.
Name for me a good person.

David, the King of Israel.

Tell me who decided that this person was good and upon what standard that decision was made.

The invisible sky spirit of the Bible chose him to rule Israel (surely you’re not going to argue with “him”).

Name for me evil things that good person did.

He committed adultery with another man’s wife and had the man murdered.

Tell me who decided that those things are evil and upon what standard that decision was made.

David, the King of Israel upon the laws of Deuteronomy.

Then show me how Christianity, specifically, has caused those people to do that evil - that is, show me how, absent Christianity, those people would not have done that evil.

I never said Christianity specifically; I said religion. I suppose the genocides of the Bible were/are acceptable because “god” ordered it. If so you have an odd standard of what does and does not constitute genocide.

. . . not when the “likening” is an exaggeration of the argument of your “opponent.”

Did you or did you not post that the "new atheist wants to destroy religion?" In what possible way can that be exaggerated?

Sure I did but your “likening” was before this statement not after.

I gave a perfect example concerning the “evil” of Christianity to TH and how these “good Christian people” would (and do) choose to treat homosexuals.

I'll have a look at that conversation - I love to watch TH at work

I like TH and enjoy his insights so you be nice when discussing such a noble fellow around me.

I was just wondering because you said, “I praise God for all things because the He has told me that He is working all things to the good for me.”

Maybe you've never heard of a book called the Bible... best seller, you know. Shall I quote chapter and verse for you?

Ahem, reading a book is not the same as someone “speaking” to you. Do the letters sort of “dance around” as you read them?















"These people's God has shown them by a million acts that he respects none of the Bible's statues. He breaks every one of them himself, adultery and all." - Mark Twain

 

[Memento Mori]

What do you consider evidence? :idunno:

If tens of thousands of people see the Red Sea part, then walk across the sea bed on dry land, and then they watch the waters come back together and drown an entire Egyptian military unit, would you believe them all if they told you it happened?

People can't make stuff like that up. Think hard about that.

Well maybe certain people can't but if you look through the fiction section, I think people's ingenuity is certain not beyond this story.

And do you have any corroborating evidence from those people besides the source of the Bible?

 

[Silent Hunter]

You're right, let's ignore the "sins" of Christianity .

Imagine how amazing that would be if it was actually a counter argument.

. . . and wasn’t meant to be . . . It was a reflection on your “argument.”

Yet the Christian attitude against homosexuals seems to be the majority opinion . . . and is it “moral” to do so?

Attitude? Seriously, is there an actual argument here?

It’s surprising how a man who prides himself on content fails discern it on occasion.

There is no “absolute standard.”

That's one perspective. And that's really all it is...

. . . as if yours IS the ONLY “perspective.”

To prove that such a standard exists involves more and more contradictions as the “proof” evolves.

You can't prove the standard. That's just a placeholder for the actual argument of the seat/authority that establishes the absolute and there's no way to address the question objectively, no criteria that if met would satisfy the challenge. A rather meaningless objection then.

. . . an assertion on your part made without evidence can be dismissed on my part without evidence . . .

As in the example the moral “goodness” or “badness” of a behavior is relative to the observer.

That's one position, again. And that's all it is.

Don’t fault me . . . I’m only working from your “established” standard . . .

I don’t know where you see an insult I simply asked where you derive the moral standard to say rape is immoral.

No, you did more than that in your ongoing address of God. But you aren't unaware of that, given I made the same objection to another point that had only the one thing in common.

How I choose to refer to your chosen deity is not meant as disrespect on my part and shouldn’t be used to negate a reasonable response on your part. That you are offended is your problem since I rarely refer to the Judeao/Christian/Muslim deity in any other way.

If you cannot show where rape is condemned in your handbook of morality then the source of your condemnation of rape is apart from your handbook of morality.

Now the same prohibition against volitional sex outside of marriage should be understood to include involuntary congress...and then there's the command to abstain from sexual immorality found in Acts 15:20, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians. The only sexual relations sanctioned by scripture is between a husband and wife. Hebrews 13:4

I see. So your definition of “sexual immorality” includes “rape.” Thanks for clearing that up.

Didn’t think you could/would. It’s always nice to not be disappointed.

Given the lack of consideration you're presenting in light of the demands your making I'm utterly unsurprised by this. But it isn't an inability to answer you, as I stated at the time. Address the Holy disrespectfully and I'm going to ignore the question on principle. Approach it another way and you'll be answered, as you were above.

Belief in an invisible sky spirit on your part does not demand respect for a non-existent invisible sky spirit on my part (though I am in no way being intentionally “disrespectful”).

You’re wrong . . . football is a man’s sport . . .

No, you're wrong. Squash is a vegetable.

. . . and chess is a sport . . .














"Ask youself whether the dream of heaven and greatness should be waiting for us in our graves - or whether it should be ours here and now and on this earth." - Ayn Rand

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Thank you for demonstrating the bigotry that scriptural adherence can hold.

If you are going to bat the term about, at least make an effort to understand its meaning in the context of this dialog.

You believe that a documentation that you assume is holy in nature is more accurate than what someone might actually say.

Someone has actually said something. I have been quoting that Someone. You just don't like what that Someone has to say. :squint:

I'm lost

So far, so good, no?

...on what point of yours you think my comments demonstrate.

Your own delusions that you are actually thinking rationally in the absence of a Truth-Maker.

AMR

 

[Silent Hunter]

I’m not accusing you of anything. I asked two questions. Do they deserve to “burn in hell” for being homosexual?

My belief about hell is complex and unorthodox (that word again), but I don't believe that, in the end, we ever go there for things we have done, and that includes having sex. (I actually don't believe that that is a specific there, either.) I believe that we are hell bent by nature (they as much as I), and that Christ is the only remedy for that nature. We are in the same boat.

Interesting take . . . and almost atheistic except for the JC mention.

Deuteronomy 22:25-29 contains two cases of “forced” sex. One is punished with death and the other is punished far worse; the man must marry the girl ! LOL.

Deuteronomy 22:25-29 But if a man finds an engaged girl in the field, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man that lay with her shall die. (26) But you shall do nothing to the girl. No sin worthy of death is in the girl; for as when a man rises against his neighbor and slays him, even so is this matter. (27) For he found her in the field, the engaged girl cried out, but there was none to save her. (28) If a man finds a girl, a virgin not engaged, and lays hold on her, and lies with her, and they are found, (29) then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife. Because he has humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

It’s a little unclear what the “moral standard” should be but it is obviously not “rape” in the common usage today.

One of the many reasons that Christ had to come. We had to move beyond these legal prescriptions to a more mature love.

Legal? Christianity is nothing if not about legalities.

What an excellent imitation of lighthouse . . . totally first rate (minus the name-calling). You’d be surprised what you will deny (or affirm) for your life in return.

I doubt it, but I have been wrong before. Considering the number of Christians that do live shortened lives on missionary adventures, though...

It can be argued they “live shortened lives” because of where they are (and the color of their skin) as opposed to what religion they practice.

However, can I take that as an concession that I did not claim new atheists were out to kill me?

LOL, No?

I think so . . . since I have yet to meet a Christian who isn’t hypocritical in SOME way concerning his/her “beliefs.”

I have never met anyone who isn't. Well, at least I know where I stand in your estimation. That simplifies things.

. . . as long as you’re nice to bybee . . .

How can you know them (the moral precepts) if they aren’t recorded somewhere? How can you make a claim of moral superiority without them?

It was a joke (well, that is subjective, I suppose). The book has no morality at all, it is a book. The lessons recorded therein are to impart a moral sense to the reader.

Duh! LOL.

Excellent! Way to set your own moral standard (see underlined). I commend you.

Thank you, but all reading requires interpretation to determine authorial intent.

Exactly! And as such it fails to be an absolute (objective) moral standard as some (Christians) assert.


















"Does it take a blanket presupposition for a historian to discount some miracle stories as legendary? No, because, as even Bultmann recognized, there is no problem accepting reports even of extraordinary things that we can still verify as occurring today, like faith healings and exorcisms. However you may wish to account for them, you can go to certain meetings and see scenes somewhat resembling those in the gospels. So it is by no means a matter of rejecting all miracle stories on principle. Biblical critics are not like the Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal." - Robert M. Price

 

[Town Heretic]

. . . and wasn’t meant to be . . . It was a reflection on your “argument.”

Then you missed it. I wasn't discounting your set out of misdeeds done in the name of God, only expanding an unreasonable focus that led you to an errant position. I broadened the consideration and suggested that the problem is self evidently in man and not in the ideas he uses to justify his excess, will to power, and blood lust.

It’s surprising how a man who prides himself on content fails discern it on occasion.

Rather, I was nudging you to be a little less vague or broad and make a more particular point. You appeared to be condemning the "kill the homosexual/bring back Leviticus/the law" crowd. I made an inquiry based on that and instead of disclosing more fully you offered what appeared to me an even less particular objection with the "attitude" line...and so my comment.

. . . as if yours IS the ONLY “perspective.”

That would be damning had I said or inferred it. I didn't though. Just pointing out your declaration was only that. It isn't an argument or a fact. Having designated your belief system I was left to assume you meant it as one or the other and silence in the face of that would be assent.

. . . an assertion on your part made without evidence can be dismissed on my part without evidence . . .

Which works well for any posit regarding the foundation of reality, though there isn't an absence of evidence for Christendom, only an absence of objective proof, as there is for any posit on the subject.

Don’t fault me . . . I’m only working from your “established” standard . . .

Not faulting--clarifying.

How I choose to refer to your chosen deity is not meant as disrespect on my part and shouldn’t be used to negate a reasonable response on your part.

So if you were black and I began an address with the N-bomb because I liked the sound of it and meant no offense...

That you are offended is your problem since I rarely refer to the Judeao/Christian/Muslim deity in any other way.

Rather, it's yours if you want an answer. But continuing to ask questions in a manner that precludes my participation and then declaring any sort of victory or inability on my part to answer will look like the thing it is and not the thing you declare. Suit yourself on that count.

I see. So your definition of “sexual immorality” includes “rape.” Thanks for clearing that up.

Sex outside of a marriage bed isn't sanctified even when voluntary.

Belief in...

Fortunately I've already told you what the practice accomplishes for you, both with me and along the margin. So I'm left to conclude that as you aren't ignorant of it and aren't lacking in intelligence or vocabulary its a matter that time will likely cure.

. . . and chess is a sport . . .

Or a musical, but only when capitalized...lain:

"Ask youself whether the dream of heaven and greatness should be waiting for us in our graves - or whether it should be ours here and now and on this earth." - Ayn Rand

And in this she misapprehends both the nature of heaven and the measure of joys to be had in this life.

:e4e:

 

[MrRadish]

What do you consider evidence? :idunno:

If tens of thousands of people see the Red Sea part, then walk across the sea bed on dry land, and then they watch the waters come back together and drown an entire Egyptian military unit, would you believe them all if they told you it happened?

People can't make stuff like that up. Think hard about that.

But there aren't tens of thousands of sources. There's only one.

If your reasoning to be accepted there's also masses of evidence that Achilles was (almost) invincible - thousands of Greek and Trojan warriors saw him fighting!

Arguing that a single source constitutes a huge amount of evidence merely because it mentions lots of people being present demonstrates an exceptionally poor understanding of how historical analysis works.

 

[Frank Ernest]

Oh sir, it was not meant as a claim of ignorance - it was meant to point out to your complete incoherency.

:jolly: It wasn't "incoherent" enough for you to take umbrage at it.

Perhaps so. It does not matter. I have never met a single person, nevermind atheist that claims that they can do what they like when they like. You have failed so far to even bother to back up your claims that "the atheist says he can do anything he wants because there are no rules, no God". I don't make such a claim, and I am an atheist.

Prove to me that you represent the seminal thinking of ALL atheists.

Name some. Why would someone pretend to support cultural relativism and then defend it?

Pick anyone who claims cultural relativism and then declares he lives by some moral code which bears no cultural relevance.

It wasn't "all about me", but it included me as you described atheists.

And "all atheists" became YOU because YOU disagreed with what I said.

 

[Frank Ernest]

but doesn't that include tolerating others beliefs?

"Tolerance", nowadays, means to accept and support the beliefs of another, even if those beliefs are antithetical to one's own beliefs. In the olden times, we called that "hypocrisy" or "apostasy."

 

[Frank Ernest]

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.

:e4e:

"You must spread some reputation around before giving it to Town Heretic again."

 

[Skavau]

What do you consider evidence? :idunno:

If tens of thousands of people see the Red Sea part, then walk across the sea bed on dry land, and then they watch the waters come back together and drown an entire Egyptian military unit, would you believe them all if they told you it happened?

People can't make stuff like that up. Think hard about that.

Just as many perhaps allegedly saw Mohammed split the moon.

Think hard about that.

 

[Skavau]

Several things come to mind here:
1) are you claiming that theists are automatically "good?" (because the assertion I am refuting is that good people only do wicked things at the compulsion of religion)

Some people are good, and some people are bad. Religion and religious influence can make people believe that normally socially unacceptable concepts (thought-crime, torture, death for a choice of some description) as righteous.

2) if torture is universally reprehensible, then why do we see it as common punishment in many nations around the globe, most notably in Muslim nations, but also in India, and many third-world nations? If it's universal, you would think that it is ... well, universal. Or at least close... (because the assertion I am refuting is that good people only do wicked things at the compulsion of religion)

Of course people do not only just do wicked things on behalf of religion. I was giving an instance where religious influence can distort morality and present the wicked as righteous.

We see as common punishment in mostly theocratic, despotic and contemptible nations of some standard. Almost all justifications for said torture find themselves rooted in religion or totalitarianism.

But, this doesn't answer any question. I assume you believe another human torturing another human as rephrensible - right (as a general rule of thumb)? Certainly nothing to laud - right?

3) I don't have a clue what you mean by God "torturing" people. I'm afraid that you will have to be a bit more specific, and explain how this compels "good people" to do wicked things. (because the assertion I am refuting is that good people only do wicked things at the compulsion of religion)

It is often a belief held by evangelicals that the fallen will depart to everlasting torture. Whether or not this torture is done by God, satan or inflicted by the fallen themselves (a fool notion) - many Christians of this persuasion have directly cheered what they believe to be the inevitable prospect of the fate of the fallen.

Ok, how does that apply to "good people" being compelled to do "wicked things?" Are you saying that God (who is the only one who really is good) is compelled by religion to this thing that you think is wicked?

Because it projects itself in Islamic (and sometimes from Christian people) nations, where people believe that what God tells them to do is more important than what another individual would like to do. It is a symptom of the greater problem.

Me either. But the fact is everyone of us deserves Hell - every single one of us is that evil. The reason that we can't see it is that we have never seen holiness. It's like those detergent commercials where they show a sock that looks white and clean until they put it next to a sock that really is white and clean. It's like that on steroids.

This is the masochistic belief, certainly, that you have.

Born wretched, born diseased and commanded to be perfect.

Do we look at those socks and say, "Well, I don't agree. I think that the first sock is just as white and clean as the second sock." No, we don't. That's because it is obvious to anyone with eyes. Anyone who has eyes to see the ugliness of sin compared to the holiness of God will agree with God in the same way that we agree that the one sock is really white and clean and the other really isn't

What a silly analogy. Do we torture said socks for eternity? Or do we ask ourselves why the said sock is actually dirty?

You lost me with this one. I have no clue what you are talking about

Simple. You live in a free country which holds torture and thought-crime in contempt and yet you believe in God that holds both of those ideals as wonderful, and inevitable.

 

[Skavau]

If you are going to bat the term about, at least make an effort to understand its meaning in the context of this dialog.

Someone has actually said something. I have been quoting that Someone. You just don't like what that Someone has to say. :squint:

No, you have directly stated that what I say is irrelevant. You will always consider me an inherent liar because you believe the scripture does, and will always accurately describe every atheist that has ever lived and will live. Your attitude will never convert anyone to your cause because you refuse to listen to them.

Your own delusions that you are actually thinking rationally in the absence of a Truth-Maker.

And what part of what I have said precisely confirms that?

 

[Skavau]

:jolly: It wasn't "incoherent" enough for you to take umbrage at it.

It is possible to respond to something that you understand, but believe to incoherent and missing some lines in an argument. Otherwise no-one would ever be able to point out any non-sequiturs.

Prove to me that you represent the seminal thinking of ALL atheists.

I don't. But that was never my point. I said directly, that I have never encoutered an atheist that literally claims to live by no rules, to answer no man or God and to do as they please. The onus is upon you to provide me with an example of some atheists that actually say that.

Pick anyone who claims cultural relativism and then declares he lives by some moral code which bears no cultural relevance.

This.. makes no sense, and has nothing to do with your original point. Living by a moral code with or without cultural relevance is still a moral code.

And "all atheists" became YOU because YOU disagreed with what I said.

Sure.

If I was to say "all christians are X" then why would I not be surprised to have a random christian reply to me stating that I'm wrong?

 

[Silent Hunter]

. . . and wasn’t meant to be . . . It was a reflection on your “argument.”

Then you missed it. I wasn't discounting your set out of misdeeds done in the name of God, only expanding an unreasonable focus that led you to an errant position. I broadened the consideration and suggested that the problem is self evidently in man and not in the ideas he uses to justify his excess, will to power, and blood lust.

Open up the gates of the church and let me out of here!
Too many people have lied in the name of Christ
For anyone to heed the call.
So many people have died in the name of Christ
That I can't believe it all.

...

The air inside just hangs in delusion,
But given time,
I'll be fine.

from "Cathedral"
Crosby, Stills, and Nash (and Young)

It’s surprising how a man who prides himself on content fails discern it on occasion.

Rather, I was nudging you to be a little less vague or broad and make a more particular point. You appeared to be condemning the "kill the homosexual/bring back Leviticus/the law" crowd. I made an inquiry based on that and instead of disclosing more fully you offered what appeared to me an even less particular objection with the "attitude" line...and so my comment.

My queries and/or answers need not be specific to substantiate my position that “evil” exists within religion because of the doctrines of religion. Religion “teaches” people to treat his/her fellows in ways inconsistent with itself.

. . . as if yours IS the ONLY “perspective.”

That would be damning had I said or inferred it. I didn't though. Just pointing out your declaration was only that. It isn't an argument or a fact. Having designated your belief system I was left to assume you meant it as one or the other and silence in the face of that would be assent.

It was a rhetorical statement made for the same reason you outline here.

. . . an assertion on your part made without evidence can be dismissed on my part without evidence . . .

Which works well for any posit regarding the foundation of reality, though there isn't an absence of evidence for Christendom, only an absence of objective proof, as there is for any posit on the subject.

There is no absence of evidence Christianity exist only an absence of evidence for its basic foundation . . . and reason enough (on my part) to reject it in total.

Don’t fault me . . . I’m only working from your “established” standard . . .

Not faulting--clarifying.

Clearer now. . . as mud.

How I choose to refer to your chosen deity is not meant as disrespect on my part and shouldn’t be used to negate a reasonable response on your part.

So if you were black and I began an address with the N-bomb because I liked the sound of it and meant no offense...

People are offended by what they choose to be offended by. Now that you “know” there is no offense offered you have no excuse for your perceived taken offense.

That you are offended is your problem since I rarely refer to the Judeao/Christian/Muslim deity in any other way.

Rather, it's yours if you want an answer. But continuing to ask questions in a manner that precludes my participation and then declaring any sort of victory or inability on my part to answer will look like the thing it is and not the thing you declare. Suit yourself on that count.

Sorry my friend. Either develop a thicker skin or answer the question. As you are now (from my perspective), one way makes you look dishonest the other makes you look evasive.

I see. So your definition of “sexual immorality” includes “rape.” Thanks for clearing that up.

Sex outside of a marriage bed isn't sanctified even when voluntary.

I reasonably doubt you “waited” for marriage before you had sex the first time though I suspect you will deny it. Either way the mere appearance of impropriety makes you seem hypocritical.

Belief in...

Fortunately I've already told you what the practice accomplishes for you, both with me and along the margin. So I'm left to conclude that as you aren't ignorant of it and aren't lacking in intelligence or vocabulary its a matter that time will likely cure.

Sorry my friend. Either develop a thicker skin or answer the question. As you are now (from my perspective), one way makes you look dishonest the other makes you look evasive.

. . . and chess is a sport . . .

Or a musical, but only when capitalized...

Stay on topic . . .

Is rugby played outdoors or in?


























"He goes on about the wailing and gnashing of teeth. It comes in one verse after another, and it is quite manifest to the reader that there is a certain pleasure in contemplating the wailing and gnashing of teeth, or else it would not occur so often." - Bertrand Russell

 

[Lighthouse]

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).

I never claimed such a thing. You read way too much into my statements.