Starboy

Ed, I have been following your exchange with NOGO and I think you have summed up your position in this last post. Christian morals do not require any sentimentality for the human species. To take it further, a complete disregard for the humanity of all but gods chosen is required. As such I can see that the Nazis had a very fine understanding of Christian morals, their only defect was they were not gods chosen. Thanks for clearing that up Ed.

Starboy

[ October 02, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]</p>

GunnerJ

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Atheism is not a worldview. Never has been. Never will be. Please cease this pointless mental masturbation which has been shown to be incorrect many, many times.

Name one "ethical system" "besed on" "atheism." I'm frankly at a loss to understand how simple lack of belief in god(s) can be the basis for any eathical system. Sounds as looney as an ethical system based on a lack of belief in Santa Claus. Or are you STILL on that repeatedly flogged-to-a-richly-deserved-death concept that "atheism" is a "worldview?"

Pot, kettle, black. Your morality is based on sentimentality for a magical fairy godking who lives in the sky and claims to grant wishes. (John 14:13-14) It's also based on threats of eternal torture if you misbehave. "People in glass houses..."

If "atheistic" "morality" is "based" "on" "sentimentality" "for" "the human species," it still automatically has a leg-up on Xianity in the rationality dept. At least we know humans exist.

NOGO

Ed,

Where are you?
Are you going to answer my latest post?

Ed

I notice you did not answer any of my questions. I will take that you are unable to answer them. Also you totally misunderstood my post. My point is that only if there is a moral creator is a there an objective and rational morality, and you have yet to demonstrate that assertion is incorrect and you have yet to demonstrate that belief in God is irrational.

GunnerJ

Wow! After a long hibernation, the trollbot Ed has returned! Did your programmer have to install a patch on you?

Duh. They were not adressed to me. My post was to illustrate how ironic it is to have you lecturing anyone on how to have a rational morality.

Perahps you should ask the person you adressed the question to that?

...and my post was to put the lie to that statement by demonstrating to everyone what your morality is; essentially, the morality of a three year old afraid of misbehaving lest he be exiled to "the Corner."

Who missed the point of whose post?

A blatant lie, unless your programmer has simply cleared your memory banks of my, and several others', thorough and complete deconstruction (nay, demolition!) of your proof for god's existance. Then you may be excused for lack of recollection.

Ed

They married them, there is a big difference between marriage and rape.

Jack the Bodiless

Time for a reality check.

They rounded up all the captives.

They massacred ALL the men, including the fathers and brothers of these virgins.

They massacred ALL the non-virgin women, including the mothers and many of the sisters of these virgins.

They massacred ALL the virgins they didn't want for themselves.

...Now for the kicker, Ed:

Do you think that the surviving virgins wanted to marry these murderers, and do you believe that they freely consented to sex afterwards?

Even the authors of the Bible were not THAT stupid. There is no mention of any requirement for consent. Those men took and RAPED those women. There is no attempt in the Bible to hide that fact.

Again you are projecting your non-Christian moral values onto the situation. Nowhere in the Bible is rape described as wrong. Biblical rape is ONLY a crime against men (the husbands or fathers of the victims): it is NEVER a crime against women.

Are you married, Ed?

If so, do you have any surviving in-laws?

If you killed them, would your wife object at all?
And, unfortunately, you don't seem to understand what the difference actually IS. Hint: married men CAN rape their wives.

Ed

If it is like etiquette then why should we lock people up if all it is is similar to bad etiquette? Also what about those that want a different social contract and not one that reflects judeo-christian morals so much. What about those who want a sadomasochistic social contract where they can have the freedom to hurt people a little bit? Is such a social contract any better than another? If so, why?

Pierre

Would you go into a social contract with a sadomasochist? Would I? Would anyone other than a SM?

No, and therefore there would not be any social contract. The rest of you question is therefore not relevant.

NOGO

We are in a democracy, majority rules. If a large majority of people develop saomasochistic needs have you any doubt that will be the law of the land.

Capturing virgins in battle was the law of the land back OT times. Could you imagine if during the war on Iraq American soldiers brought home Iraqi virgins what you you say?

You would tell them that they should marry them. Right!

Ed you failed to answer my previous post.
I must insist that you do.

[ October 29, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>