Patriot7

Well if you're driving your car towards a cliff, I'd think you'd say fear is mighty handy.

NZSkep

for example when those children called Elijah 'baldy' and god sent two she bears to kill 42 of them, he gave the kids adequate warning (i.e. none) and the children were most certainly the agressors if you think calling someone bald is agression worthy of death by bear.

BMSMCMAM

Uh... what atheistic and agnostic perspectives? The ones people have been telling you since you started the thread? They certainly don't sound like what you're now saying.

Ellis

This is the hard part. However, religious morality does not solve the question. What do you do when "thou shalt not kill" conflicts with ""He that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death." -- Ex.21:17"

Just because a system is complicated doesn't mean it's totally invalid.

I don't have any kids, but I think I'll give it a shot anyway. Children don't always know what's best for them, because they do not have experience with life. It's the responsibilty of the parent to keep the kid safe until they have the necessary experience to live their own life.

I'm an atheist. I don't know for sure there is no God (I don't know anything "for sure") but I can be pretty sure it's not the God of the Bible, and I don't live my life based on the possibility that any religion is true.

By "morally euthanize" people, do you mean kill them in an ethical manner? (It's a bit unclear, you might mean "kill" their morality or moral status.) I don't think so, because who am I (or whoever else might do the killing) to judge how happy or potentially happy someone is? Happiness depends a lot more on a person's perspective on life than on their objective conditions. You never know when a person is or could be happy; most people don't want to die even if they aren't as happy as they might be; and killing them ends what little happiness they do have.

You speak as though the only alternative to killing them is to let them suffer. Why not help them? Besides, killing them would be a lot more harmful to the people around them than ignoring them. And if someone is so miserable they want to die, let them committ suicide. (Note that many people who attempt or consider suicide change their minds afterwards; but it's still better than presuming you know what they want.

It is physically possible for life to exist outside of our planet, and for that life to decide it wants to carry a person away. It is physically impossible for a person's brain to function after it no longer exists.

Jehanne

#1 (being abducted by spaces aliens) falls within the naturalistic framework. #2 (dying and going to Hell) falls within the supernaturalism framework. Lots and lots of evidence for naturalism; zero evidence for supernaturalism.

aa5874

But isn't it possible that you could go there? This is written by the unknown author of Matthew 24:4-5, 'And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceieve you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ and shall deceive many'.

And in Matthew 7:21, 'Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven'.

Remember God can harden your heart just like He did to Pharoah. You very well know that if God decides to burn you up, there is nothing you can do. Anything is possible if you believe.

Haran

Ok, then tell me what the ultimate consequences are for any secret, hidden, evil acts that you may commit? Most atheists/agnostics recognize there are no ultimate consequences for hidden evil actions. In fact, "evil" becomes a question mark. If you truly don't understand this, then contact me via PM or ask about it in the Morals community. There are some who try to weasel their way out of this connundrum, but they are simply engaging in the same tactics that Christian apologists are accused of....

Jehanne

Agreed.

Agreed.

Jehanne

Ever hear of the doctrine of "eternal security," believed by over half of all Evangelical Christians in the US today?

Patriot7

In the context you are using the word evidence you are correct. There is lots of physical evidence for naturalism because naturalism demands that only physical evidence be considered as an explanation. It defines what reality must be and then ignores the rest of human experience. And it is a false worldview.

I know that things like emotions and ideas exists. Naturalism fails to explain this. I know that the color red exists independant of a word or a space in the color spectrum. I can think of something red and if you were to open my skull and look at my brain you would not see what I was thinking! Consciousness is unexplainable by naturalism short of "brain states".

Further, if all that exists are natural things, physical things, then why should I consider your "truth claims"? Truth claims aren't physical things. They're ideas and ideas don't exist according to your philosophy.

Regards,
Patriot