Dr. Retard

The Apologist,

Here are some quotes from you:

All of them share the same problem: The Contentious Assumption. It's when you preface your statements on highly controversial allegations. Here are a few parodies:

Theists must be totally irrational; after all, there's no good reason to believe in God.

Since Republicans are always looking to screw the poor, it's no surprise that Bush would push for a tax cut.

It's pretty obvious that the Pope knew about the WTC attack beforehand, as his robotic brain has the future elegantly mapped.

Statements like yours, that presuppose extremely disputatious beliefs held by certain theists, may be highly appropriate in the Faith and Philosophy steam room, but these forums are for debating exactly the sorts of presuppositions you're appealing to.

sidewinder

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ingenuous truth is that atheism is extremely tempting. What could be simpler? There is no God, no morality, no responsibility - you can do whatever you want, because there is no authority, nobody to answer to, nothing to restrain you, and best of all, you have majority on your side; theists are "ignorant" and all of the "cool" or reputable people are atheists; macro-evolution is widely accepted as scientific fact; most people reprehend anyone who publicly professes theism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Christian apologist is the biggest liar on the planet. He lies and distorts to his fellow all just to justify their religion. It's sick and wicked. The morality argument is old and has been refuted quite nicely many times. Yet, I'm sure naive Christians swallow it up without question.

By the way, if we prove to the apologist that there are many atheists that are moral and responsible people, doesn't this blow his theory? Nah, I'm sure the apologist would invent something to explain it to the flock. What a sick bunch these apologists.

Jayhawker Soule

Except for those who aren't and don't.

sighhswolf

The Bible says that"blah, blah blah", how do you
reconcile this with reality mr. theist?

"Oh that wasnt intended to be taken literally"
OIC.......
So that means that this verse here "blah, blah" wasnt to be taken literally?

"No, no this one is way too important, it must be taken as it's presented."

OIC....

Well how do you respond to this phrase , "blah, blah"?

"You have taken that phrase out of context, you must read the entire chapter to ascertain the "true" meaning."

OIC......

This verse seems to be indicating that "blah, blah".

"It may seem that way to you, but I assure you that the true meaning will always escape you unless you study with the Holy Ghost."

OIC......
So, in other words you have to be a believer Before you read the texts, so that you can be granted the gift of the Holy Spirit to understand
the "true" meaning?

And the two step goes on and on..
Wolf

<img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" />

sidewinder

Except what it all comes down to is that if I'm a Christian I must interpret all wordly phenomena in such a manner that will not conflict with the doctrines of my religion. If it does, then my religion is false. Therefore, with all the knowledge we've gained of science and biblical criticism, apologists have to outright lie just so nothing conflicts with the doctrines of their religion.

Dargo

To be fair to Christians, apologists for other religions are just as dishonest and their followers can be equally naive in trusting these lies. Listening to the crap spewed by Scientologists and noticing the similarities they had with Christians was one thing that led to my leaving Christianity.

Ojuice5001

[ May 29, 2002: Message edited by: Ojuice5001 ]</p>

The Apologist

I see we have a friendly troop of open-minded thinkers here.

Rather than simply stating that my allegations are deficient (a common method of arguing here, it seems), please demonstrate why or how they are so.

Do you notice the trend? It is as if you write only the introduction to your refutation, and forget to explain precisely why my case is supposedly fallacious.

Of course atheists can be moral. I do not question that. What I question is why they are moral and how the ethics are derived.

Atheists' morals are not absolute. They do not have a codified set of moral laws by which right and wrong are judged. This can be a problem as the norms of society shift and the ethics shift with them. In one century abortion is wrong. In another, it is right. Well, is it right or not? If there is a God, killing the unborn is wrong. If there is no God, then who cares? If it serves the best interest of society and the individual, then kill. This can be likened to something I call, "experimental ethics." In other words, whatever works best is right. Society experiments with ethical behavior to determine which set of rules works best.

By all means, present your antithesis and we will see what I can do. I promise not to lie.

Philosoft

The Apologist,

I posted this in another thread but I want to make sure you see it.

Please read <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000299" target="_blank">this thread</a> before you start thinking your ideas about atheism and morality are at all novel.

The Apologist

Would you care to simplify, summarize, and apply it to my brief argument, Philosoft?