Freethought & Rationalism Archive

One of the last sane · 06-30-2002, 06:39 PM

Looks like Media-1 can't answer Not Prince Hamlet.

Nicely argued, counsel.

bonduca · 06-30-2002, 06:40 PM

Frankly, Media-1, I don't give a damn what you think. Not you, nor anyone else who thinks we are amoral monsters because we don't take orders from an imaginary friend.

But, stick around. You may be able to mock us when we read about another senseless tragedy, or mourn the loss of a beloved family pet.

I'm looking forward to another fine display of Christian charity.

[ June 30, 2002: Message edited by: bonduca ]

The Other Michael · 06-30-2002, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Media-1:
You seem to be implying that I'm angry that two little kids are in a better place, or that I'm angry because God's plan is unfolding. This is not what makes me angry. I'm angry at the woman for what she did to her kids. It was wrong.

I'm puzzled here. If the two kids are better off, and this is all part of God's plan unfolding, what are you doing bitching about the woman doing her part of God's plan to improve the situation of those kids?

cheers,
Michael

TollHouse · 06-30-2002, 06:44 PM

Quote:

You are wrong on every count.

First of all, morals do not require "grounding." Morals exist in networks of values, beliefs, and facts and are mutually intersupporting. There isn't any "ground" that they rest on; they rest on other values, some cultural, some innate. To the extent they are grounded, they rest on innate moral biases.

Second, we don't require a "ground" to say that what the woman did is wrong. All we need to do, as everyone has said, is say "That's wrong." We need reasons only if someone disagrees, to convince them. Thus, our moral judgements are as valid as yours; more valid, for we consider the human as the center of the equation, whereas you place a fictional being at the center.

Atheist morals are derived from the same place yours are; namely, the culture around you, your parents, the stored wisdom of the human species, your own thinking and observations, and your experiences. Our morals, like yours, are situational, ad hoc, and relative. The only difference is we don't pretend to have some absolute system we can impose on everyone.

Your system is inhuman, nihilistic, meaningless and incomplete. It is inhuman because it focuses on something other than people. Nihilistic because in the end, nothing humans do matters, only your deity counts. Meaningless because it is incoherent and contradictory. Incomplete because despite being "absolute" there are whole areas of values your system fails to address. For example, what is the proper way to manage a river basin? Should we subsidize infant industries? What type of personal weapons should be legal? What is the proper level of taxation? How should incinerators be sited? What level of individual risk is safe? And so on.

Additionally, your Bible is worthless as a guide to proper behavior because of the kind of behavior it produces: intolerant, violent, narrow-minded, evil and ignorant. One need only look at the way Christians behaved for the 1800 years prior to the Enlightenment for confirmation. Any decent behavior Christians have -- love, tolerance, liberty, democracy -- they brought in from outside Christianity.

Christian clerics running death camps. Christians aiding Hitler. Christian clerics acting as dictators. Christians hunting Muslims in Indonesia and Buddhists and Hindus in India. Christians sending in missionaries to places like China and Afghanistan where converts are murdered. Christians fighting democracy in the US. Christians murdering each other in Ireland. Christian clerics planning genocide in Rwanda. Christian clerics supporting Chiang Kai-shek, Franco, Hitler..... The list goes on. And you want to lecture us on what is moral? You people don't know shit about what is moral.

Here's one for you: no atheist has ever committed genocide for the purpose of atheism. Communists killed for Communism, not atheism (they executed freethinkers in China, Vietnam and Russia). Meanwhile, Christianity has given us twenty centuries of murder. But you guys are the moral ones....

I get a little tired of the group that argues that the majority of individuals in society -- women, gays, atheists -- should have reduced civil rights telling us that they are morally superior.

What is the purpose of this absolute morality of yours? Dominance. Authoritarian power. Control over the minds and bodies of others. God's love is the same as Hitler's: Follow me or die! Is that what you stand for? I feel sorry for you.

So bring on your absolute morality and answer the following questions:

According to your god, what is the morally correct way to...

manage a river basin?
subsidize infant industries?
site nuclear reactors?
site incinerators?
subsidize industries vital to the national defense?
manage a wilderness area?
compensate injured workers?
treat a slave?
handle a disobediant child?
sell one's daughter into slavery?
permit people to own personal weapons?
choose local and national political leaders?
constitute the educational system?
handle the national defense?
engage in alliances with other nations?
treat women in politics?
handle gay marriage?
handle gay adoption?
legislate for the internet?
handle copyrights?
handle human rights?
handle political revolutions?
find the proper level of personal risk?
invest, loan, and borrow money?

Vorkosigan

Holy shit! Vorkosigan demolishes Media-1!

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Media-1, your response?

[ June 30, 2002: Message edited by: TollHouse ]

Not Prince Hamlet · 06-30-2002, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Media-1:

If someone doesn't answer this soon, I'll just assume that most atheists get "morally" angry only because of the way certain events affect them emotionally. Either your moral outrage is due to some real moral wrong, or it isn't.

Media-1

*Yawn*. Another nice try, trying to divert the focus of the argument onto us. Then, when we try to keep you on topic, you can flee the scene going, "Ha ha. They couldn't answer my question. I sure showed them."

You can assume whatever you want, buddy. You've not demonstrated how your "good book" makes you any more moral than us.

Jeff

bonduca · 06-30-2002, 06:45 PM

He didn't answer Vork's post, either. I suppose that compensates me for having my other question ignored, too.

Media-1 · 06-30-2002, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Prince Hamlet:


"I think the words you're looking for are:

"I'm sorry I insulted the atheists on this forum. In retrospect, I realize that atheists have a set of morals that is at least the equal to my own, and it was wrong of me to impugn them."

All I'm getting is personal attack and evasion. If no one is willing to answer my question about what, specifically the woman did that was morally wrong, and why it was wrong, then I'll just assume that you are all evading my questions.

In case I haven't been clear as to why I consider human life to be more precious than ant life, it is because God created mankind in His own image.

Media-1

bonduca · 06-30-2002, 06:49 PM

Since you took this thread into another topic by attacking atheists and their supposed lack of morals, your complaints are amusing, to say the least.

Since you are determined to ignore my posts, will you at least reply to Vork's?

PS - There is no god.

Not Prince Hamlet · 06-30-2002, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Media-1:


All I'm getting is personal attack and evasion. If no one is willing to answer my question about what, specifically the woman did that was morally wrong, and why it was wrong, then I'll just assume that you are all evading my questions.

In case I haven't been clear as to why I consider human life to be more precious than ant life, it is because God created mankind in His own image.

Media-1

Yes, but God has shown you through His own words (the holy Bible) that human life means nothing to Him. Shall I continue to list the number of attrocities in the Bible? I was just getting started, you know.

And then, you admitted that you'd have problems doing everything your psychotic god told you to do, thereby admitting a difference in morality between you and your alleged God.

If you're reluctant to do something your own god tells you to do, and it's not out of fear for your own life, then it must be because your moral code differs from God's.

And for you to HAVE a code that differs from God's proves that it is possible to have a moral code WITHOUT a God.

Therefore, it is possible for we atheists to have moral codes as well.

QED.

Media-1 · 06-30-2002, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Other Michael:


"I'm puzzled here. If the two kids are better off, and this is all part of God's plan unfolding, what are you doing bitching about the woman doing her part of God's plan to improve the situation of those kids?

cheers,
Michael"

I suggest you look at Romans 6, the whole chapter. Paul really says it much better than I could.

Media-1

06-30-2002, 06:40 PM	#142
bonduca Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: . Posts: 1,653	Frankly, Media-1, I don't give a damn what you think. Not you, nor anyone else who thinks we are amoral monsters because we don't take orders from an imaginary friend. But, stick around. You may be able to mock us when we read about another senseless tragedy, or mourn the loss of a beloved family pet. I'm looking forward to another fine display of Christian charity. [ June 30, 2002: Message edited by: bonduca ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-30-2002, 06:39 PM	#141
One of the last sane Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: hereabouts Posts: 734	Looks like Media-1 can't answer Not Prince Hamlet. Nicely argued, counsel.

06-30-2002, 06:45 PM	#146
bonduca Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: . Posts: 1,653	He didn't answer Vork's post, either. I suppose that compensates me for having my other question ignored, too.

06-30-2002, 06:49 PM	#148
bonduca Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: . Posts: 1,653	Since you took this thread into another topic by attacking atheists and their supposed lack of morals, your complaints are amusing, to say the least. Since you are determined to ignore my posts, will you at least reply to Vork's? PS - There is no god.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.