“No. That is not justice. Notice how you only gave women rights, and didn't bother helping the men. That is women gaining status while leaving men behind. You only fought for the right for women to wear pants, not for guys to wear dresses.
You fought to make women superior not equal. That is feminism, but it is not the fight for equality or justice.
Rebecca got it wrong, and you got your interpretation wrong as well.”
“If you don't want people to ridicule your beliefs, get less ridiculous beliefs.
Regardless, you still are part of the religion. You belonging to Christianity gives those nut-cases that want to force it onto everyone some more credibility.
And no, I will not respect your beliefs because they are abhorrent. Your beliefs (i.e. Christianity) declare homosexuality an abomination worthy of death, women as mere possessions of men, slavery as perfectly acceptable and so much more. They are not worthy of respect. If you want people to respect your beliefs, get respectable beliefs.”
“Yes, that is the dishonest point. In reality, it would present a conundrum for everyone. One which has been plaguing mankind since its dawn. Does objective morality exist, and if so, where does it come from? I am yet to see a truly satisfactory answer given by anyone.
This is not why Antony Flew became a deist. He became a deist primarily due to the teleological argument and first cause argument.
His position is logical inconsistent and in reality merely a god of the gaps, where he fills in his ignorance and inability to understand with a god.
He also in no way indicates this god helps with morality and also claims this god created a lot of evil.”
“Because they don't have any actual arguments, so will they try to use arguments that have been shown to be wrong countless times in the hopes of converting a few that haven't heard them before or to simply re-affirm their faith.”
“No. I am using the definition that is the actual definition. Most atheists I have encountered are fine with that definition. Most atheists I have encountered would reject your definition, that is, that an atheist is a materialist.
An Atheist is one that is not a theist. That is all.
Lots of people, both theists and atheists, want to try and make atheism seem like something more, when that simply is not the case.
I don't really care if you want to reject the meaning of the word and make it out to be something else. An atheist is someone who does not believe in a god. They do not need to be materialists, no matter how much you want them to be. As long as someone isn't a theist, they are an atheist.”
weisschr on Dec 21, 2013 at 16:45:46
“Tell you what... read the "New" atheists such as Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens and see if you think your argument is valid.
Being a pagan or wiccan or whatever does not make you an atheist. Similarly, Buddhists may not be traditional theists, but they still look at another world, divine people on journeys, etc. Buddhists are not atheists either.”
You have Matthew 13, which describes Hell (not named as such), as a furnace of fire where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. It also states this is the place where things that offend or practice lawlessness will go.
You have Matthew 18, with things like “If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life lame or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the everlasting fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire."
You also have Mark 9, with things like "If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched
‘Their worm does not die
And the fire is not quenched.’"
So no, Hell is a Biblical concept. There is a mention of it.”
“I think you are ignoring what is being said to you.
An atheist does not believe in gods. That is all. They are free to believe in whatever they want, as long as it isn't a god. They can believe in witches and witchcraft, an afterlife, a soul, as well as other forms of magic, supernatural or immaterial things.”
weisschr on Dec 21, 2013 at 14:41:12
“You are applying a definition that most atheists would reject, including this atheist.”
A god/Theism does nothing for morality. It doesn't matter if you are an atheist or a theist, either objective morality exists above any sentient being, or objective morality does not exist. A god does not help.
Theism is also amoral or without morals. All religions have are commands. They teache obedience, not morality.
You also have it the wrong way around. Give me an example of a "moral value" that existed first in a religion. You cannot. Mankind made made up religions and included their own "morality" in them. Mankind, just like other heard animals, already had a form of morality before religions came along.
As for an example, how about not killing each other. Even piranhas follow that.
Look at any heard species, they have a system of morality, without any religion at all.
What you, and a lot of other theists, need to learn to accept is that religions do not have a monopoly on morality. Religions are irrelevant to morality other than various commands of religions that go against morals. Atheists being moral has nothing to do with religion. Religious people being moral most likely has nothing to do with their religion, especially considering all the parts they ignore because they are immoral.”
“It is actually far worse. With your assumption of God's omnibenevolance you would be assuming that an objective moral standard exists. In order for it to make any sense to apply that to God, this standard must exist external to God and thus God is not the reason for this objective moral standard. Alternatively, you would have circular reasoning where you say God is good because God is good, or just get a subjective moral standard. There is no logical way to state that God is the sources of objective morality. The same applies to any sentient being.”
“Oh one more big problem for you, why the compassion for the dying with your world-view? You should be celebrating, they are either good people who will be going to a far better place (i.e. heaven) or they are horrible people worthy of eternal torment, which they are about to receive (i.e. hell). So why feel compassion for them?”
Daniel Ortiz T on Dec 20, 2013 at 04:57:43
“Well... for one... there is no heaven and hell, not in the sunday school meaning anyway... those are greek mythologies that crept into the church”
“While your statements can be taken as technically correct, your implications are horribly horribly wrong.
A god does not help with objective morality. Either objective morality simply exists above any sentient being, or morality is subjective/non-existent. There is no way around this.
A god defining morality is no better than Hitler or any other person defining morality.
This means it doesn't matter if a god exists or not, or if you believe one exists or not, either there is an objective morality or there is not.
So being an atheist has nothing to do with it. If you wish to actually use logic (and follow your reasoning) you will be forced to admit there is no good anyone, theist or atheist.
Any theist who recognizes objective meaning and morality defies the theism that he contends is true. (at least those theists that which to claim morality comes from their god).
Also to note, unless you are a very horrible person, is that you reject the morality given by your religion.”
Daniel Ortiz T on Dec 20, 2013 at 05:02:30
“I think you missed the point of the piece. Atheism by itself is amoral, this is not to say that atheists are immoral, only that they follow morality that is already present within religious people. In other words, give me an example of an moral value that doesn't have it's origin in religious thought? Thus, if you are a moral person and an atheist you are still following religious practice.”
“Regardless of what the liars say, Christianity is incompatible with science.
Christianity has a 6 day creation in the wrong order, science and reality has a several billion year creation, in the right order.
They are incompatible, regardless of what lying conmen which to tell you.”
“However it is a day, not an era.
You also have things in the completely wrong order.
In the Bible you start with Earth, then develop the Earth and on day 3 you get plants. Then on day 4 you get the sun and stars and moon, then sea life and birds on day 5 then land animals on day 6.
In reality, you have space first, with countless stars, then only after several billion years, you get the sun. Then shortly after you get the moon and Earth. Then you have sea life first. Then this life leaves the ocean and moves to the land, giving you plants on land and land animals. Then you get birds, and only after that do humans appear.
So no, even if you lie about the Bible and replace day with era, it is still bullshit.
Also, all atheist are fundamentalist atheists as there is only 1 thing that makes them atheists, their lack of belief in a god. This doesn't include belief's that command you to do atrocities or preach hate like religious fundamentalists have.”
“The God of the OT is meant to be the same God as that of the NT (which some people also say Jesus is meant to be as well, rather than simply the son of that god, and if he is the son of that god, then his words carry far less weight).
How can a god that evil, that supports slavery, stoning your rebellious son to death and many other things that are vile, evil and violent, truly have a message of love?
You are basically using Jesus as propaganda to try and hide all the evils of the OT and pretend that God is a loving god, rather than the evil psychopath he is in the OT.”