Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Mageth · 07-12-2003, 01:10 AM

Originally posted by Keith
Yes, I see a difference, and I will point out that it was BECAUSE of religious/philosophical differences of opinion that the terrorists committed themselves to attacking us.

And does the same hold true for us attacking them in retaliation? Or was that done according to global society's moral standards?

You are treading on dangerous ground. Does a "social norm" equal moral rightness?

Quite often, IMO. For example, many religious people think homosexuality is wrong because it's not the "social norm" and goes against "nature" or "god's law". Public nudity is also considered "wrong" in the U.S. due to a "social norm". Recently, public smoking has become "wrong" due to a "social norm".

What if most of the world believed in a god, and also believed that heretics and infidels should be burned?

You're describing Christian Europe from not that long ago...

And you're also describing what your god supposedly has planned for us heretics and infidels in the next life...'

Not to mention some of God's OT directions to his chosen people on how to treat the "unchosen" - typically it was quite bloody.

So I wouldn't go too far down this road if I were you.

Which culture's "social norms" are most morally correct, Saudi Arabia's or America's? How do you know?

Obviously, Saudi Arabia's social norms are "correct" for their society, and the U.S.'s social norms are "correct" for our society. They do things that we consider wrong, and we do things that they consider wrong. So neither you nor I should make a "universal" judgment on which is more "morally correct".

If we want a moral system that's "correct" for all societies, then we'll have to reach a global consensus on what that moral system is. Work has already begun on that, but there's a long way to go.

If we want Saudi Arabia to change their "evil" ways, then we'll have to convince them that "our" ways are better.

And ask yourself that question. Do you have to resort to your Holy Book? Well, so do the Saudis. Which book is correct? Remeber that your opinion on this is subjective unless you can objectively prove that your holy text is the more correct.

Mageth · 07-12-2003, 01:11 AM

Ronin, those must be the eyes of god's "nature".

Keith · 07-12-2003, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dangin

"What was your worldview based on when you were? Were you a strong or weak atheist? How did you reconcile morality when you were an atheist? What was it about religion that made you an atheist, and how did you overcome it to "return to the flock"?

Or were you just someone who "sinned" a lot, didn't think about religion, and was thus "secular".

I was a strong atheist. I denied that any gods exist, or can exist. I denied that a god is necessary to make sense of morality, or any thing else about reality. But at some level, like all atheists, I knew of God's existence and I desperately sought to suppress this knowledge, just as all atheists do.

So, atheism is claimed as an actual viewpoint that people hold, but in reality, there are no atheists, for God has made his existence plain to us all.

Keith · 07-12-2003, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth

"That should be plain to see. Don't need god for that - simple survival is enough. Humans can agree that murder is wrong without resorting to god.

Heck, even chimpanzees, crocodilians, sharks, and lions don't go about murdering others of their own species wantonly - it's best for their group (or species) not to do that."

I can easily understand why I should care about my own personal survival, but if I'm an atheist, why should I care about what's best for my group or my species? I thought 'nature' has no purpose?

Queen of Swords · 07-12-2003, 01:39 PM

Originally posted by Keith
But at some level, like all atheists, I knew of God's existence and I desperately sought to suppress this knowledge, just as all atheists do.

Unless you can read the minds of all atheists, you have no idea what they think. Moreover, I don't know about anyone else, but I find it highly annoying to be told by someone else what I think or know. Is it your intention to try to insult people with untrue and sweeping generalizations?

Keith · 07-12-2003, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth

"Any moral dictates handed down to us by god are subjective and arbitrary."

Why would this have to be true? I'm not following your logic.

Keith · 07-12-2003, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by QueenofSwords

"Unless you can read the minds of all atheists, you have no idea what they think. Moreover, I don't know about anyone else, but I find it highly annoying to be told by someone else what I think or know. Is it your intention to try to insult people with untrue and sweeping generalizations?"

I meant no insult. I believe that what I said is true, and if it's true, it would still be true even if it offends billions of people.

Queen of Swords · 07-12-2003, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by Keith
I meant no insult.

Nevertheless, I found what you said insulting. Unless you wish to insult me again, please do not include me with the entire population of atheists whose thoughts you may reveal again.

I believe that what I said is true,

Naturally, you could provide no evidence to back up your blanket statement.

and if it's true, it would still be true even if it offends billions of people.

First show that it's true.

Keith · 07-12-2003, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by QueenofSwords

"Naturally, you could provide no evidence to back up your blanket statement.

First show that it's true."

O.K., a bit of evidence. Why are atheists arguing with theists (here and elsewhere) over whether God exists? For Christians to argue their case makes perfect sense--many of us Christians believe that it is our God-given duty to defend our faith to those who say that God doesn't exist, and to those who's view of God is warped. In fact, God used a few Christians who were busy defending their faith, to save me.

But why do so many atheists want to participate in discussions about their "lack of belief" in God? If belief in a sky-daddy (God) is really that silly, why spend even one minute discussing it? The obvious fact that atheists as a group are thoroughly obsessed with God is clear evidence that on some level, atheists know God--and they shudder.

Queen of Swords · 07-12-2003, 08:35 PM

Originally posted by Keith
O.K., a bit of evidence. Why are atheists arguing with theists (here and elsewhere) over whether God exists?

Because we are told that a god exists and urged to believe in this god.

For Christians to argue their case makes perfect sense--

Do you think that when religious people proselytize, atheists should just give in and agree to accept that particular religion? Or should we just keep silent?

But why do so many atheists want to participate in discussions about their "lack of belief" in God?

Maybe they feel that've been in the closet too long and that their arguments can stand up to any scrutiny.

If belief in a sky-daddy (God) is really that silly, why spend even one minute discussing it?

If belief in evolution is really that silly, why do creationists spend even one minute discussing it?

If atheism is really that silly, why do you spend even one minute discussing it?

The obvious fact that atheists as a group are thoroughly obsessed with God

This is not an obvious fact. You would have to show that all or the majority of atheists in the world have an obsession (which I at least don't), and so far you have not done this.

is clear evidence that on some level, atheists know God--and they shudder.

No doubt you conducted an extensive survey of all atheists to see if they were shuddering?

Personally, if anything would make me shudder, it is what you consider to be evidence and which is nothing more than another sweeping generalization that is, once again, insulting.

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

07-12-2003, 01:10 AM	#131
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Originally posted by Keith Yes, I see a difference, and I will point out that it was BECAUSE of religious/philosophical differences of opinion that the terrorists committed themselves to attacking us. And does the same hold true for us attacking them in retaliation? Or was that done according to global society's moral standards? You are treading on dangerous ground. Does a "social norm" equal moral rightness? Quite often, IMO. For example, many religious people think homosexuality is wrong because it's not the "social norm" and goes against "nature" or "god's law". Public nudity is also considered "wrong" in the U.S. due to a "social norm". Recently, public smoking has become "wrong" due to a "social norm". What if most of the world believed in a god, and also believed that heretics and infidels should be burned? You're describing Christian Europe from not that long ago... And you're also describing what your god supposedly has planned for us heretics and infidels in the next life...' Not to mention some of God's OT directions to his chosen people on how to treat the "unchosen" - typically it was quite bloody. So I wouldn't go too far down this road if I were you. Which culture's "social norms" are most morally correct, Saudi Arabia's or America's? How do you know? Obviously, Saudi Arabia's social norms are "correct" for their society, and the U.S.'s social norms are "correct" for our society. They do things that we consider wrong, and we do things that they consider wrong. So neither you nor I should make a "universal" judgment on which is more "morally correct". If we want a moral system that's "correct" for all societies, then we'll have to reach a global consensus on what that moral system is. Work has already begun on that, but there's a long way to go. If we want Saudi Arabia to change their "evil" ways, then we'll have to convince them that "our" ways are better. And ask yourself that question. Do you have to resort to your Holy Book? Well, so do the Saudis. Which book is correct? Remeber that your opinion on this is subjective unless you can objectively prove that your holy text is the more correct.

07-12-2003, 01:11 AM	#132
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Ronin, those must be the eyes of god's "nature".

07-12-2003, 01:39 PM	#135
Queen of Swords Contributor Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Canada. Finally. Posts: 10,155	Originally posted by Keith But at some level, like all atheists, I knew of God's existence and I desperately sought to suppress this knowledge, just as all atheists do. Unless you can read the minds of all atheists, you have no idea what they think. Moreover, I don't know about anyone else, but I find it highly annoying to be told by someone else what I think or know. Is it your intention to try to insult people with untrue and sweeping generalizations?

07-12-2003, 01:59 PM	#138
Queen of Swords Contributor Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Canada. Finally. Posts: 10,155	Originally posted by Keith I meant no insult. Nevertheless, I found what you said insulting. Unless you wish to insult me again, please do not include me with the entire population of atheists whose thoughts you may reveal again. I believe that what I said is true, Naturally, you could provide no evidence to back up your blanket statement. and if it's true, it would still be true even if it offends billions of people. First show that it's true.

07-12-2003, 08:35 PM	#140
Queen of Swords Contributor Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Canada. Finally. Posts: 10,155	Originally posted by Keith O.K., a bit of evidence. Why are atheists arguing with theists (here and elsewhere) over whether God exists? Because we are told that a god exists and urged to believe in this god. For Christians to argue their case makes perfect sense-- Do you think that when religious people proselytize, atheists should just give in and agree to accept that particular religion? Or should we just keep silent? But why do so many atheists want to participate in discussions about their "lack of belief" in God? Maybe they feel that've been in the closet too long and that their arguments can stand up to any scrutiny. If belief in a sky-daddy (God) is really that silly, why spend even one minute discussing it? If belief in evolution is really that silly, why do creationists spend even one minute discussing it? If atheism is really that silly, why do you spend even one minute discussing it? The obvious fact that atheists as a group are thoroughly obsessed with God This is not an obvious fact. You would have to show that all or the majority of atheists in the world have an obsession (which I at least don't), and so far you have not done this. is clear evidence that on some level, atheists know God--and they shudder. No doubt you conducted an extensive survey of all atheists to see if they were shuddering? Personally, if anything would make me shudder, it is what you consider to be evidence and which is nothing more than another sweeping generalization that is, once again, insulting.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.