Forums → WEPR → Theism and Atheism

Even if your father is an absentee father who when he is around is a drunk ******* and your mother is a useless crack *****. Yep definitely deserving of honor just because they got it on once in the back seat of a car and didn't use a condom.

I'm going to do this just like that short answer for stupid questions that Gameinformer did.
Yes.

Alright then. You're saying that it is part of a cell's natural life cycle to reproduce, right? You yourself said that the cell didn't have a choice. But we human's have brains and we have choices. So why do we choose to reproduce? Because it's our instinct? But why is it our instinct?

Fallacies, misconception, lies, fallacies, failures, contradiction, and more fallacies. Is your &quotoint" assuming that Christianity is real or not? Because if you are assuming Christianity is true, then your logic is impossible, because Christianity and God's morals have existed forever. If you're assuming Christianity isn't real, then your logic is STILL impossible because how can something exist before Christianity if Christianity doesn't exist? You are just a very confused little boy who blurts out endless fallacies. I wouldn't blame you if you left the debate now.

If they are the same word, doesn't that mean that they can be interchangeable?

I merely expose logic that you should be going by.

Those are the words I'm putting in your mouth.

So tell me why you are going to spit out those words. Tell me why that logic is wrong.

Okay. So to you think it's cool to steal? Because if your goal is to be happy, then your logic should be like the example above ^

As for your "Did society and culture dictate what we think is cool and uncool?" No they did not. People come up with what they think is cool. So thank you for defeating yourself again, because with your example of substituting words, I logically concluded that society is not a valid place to get morals.

And before you call me off on "People come up with what they think is cool." Just think. If people think it's cool to wear a belt everywhere, that's fine and they may wear as many belts as they'd like. But God most likely doesn't give a care about what belt you wear. So the words "Cool" and "Moral" are not always substitutable.

So tell me why you are going to spit out those words. Tell me why that logic is wrong.

Like ever other person on this thread has said, read to our arguments this has been answered an excessive amount of times.

I'm not sure how logic works exactly,

Find a more efficient source before posting. Wikipedia doesn't host all the correct data in the world. .edu or .gov could suffice.
And you still never "rubbished" the fact they were the longest lasting. But this is getting off subject, that's my fault.

There ya go assuming again. I said "an unintelligent Human wasn't doing the recording" as MageGrayWolf posted about how there was a possibility of incorrect date posted from incompetent people. PlEASE read all before posting.

The Roman Empire, the most powerful, intelligent, and longest lasting form of government and Empire ever created on Earth lists these records, Peter, one of the main writers of the New Testament of the Bible, was even a Roman citizen, heck, even Jesus was a Roman citizen. Roman Centurions kept personal records, Pontius Pilate, the Rome's city governor, mentioned as Theophilus in the Bible, Titus Sabinus is his Roman name, kept records.


I am aware of this, there are many accounts of Jesus's existence on Earth and not only in the Bible, though the Bible considered by many History professors as being a History book, I was merely stating that we should take into account some credible sources of recording there

It's called logic, pal. You should try it sometime.

You just said "We survive and reproduce because we survive and reproduce." That makes no sense, and I shall regard your statement as irrelevant.

I asked you why slavery was wrong. If you don't answer, I will comprehend it as your loss of the debate.

So you are not bound to your meaning of life? Therefore your happiness is not really the meaning of life. Thank you for defeating yourself.

It is all short-term happiness, kiddo. (Remember this is from an atheist perspective) When you die, you're happiness is over, therefore it is short-term.

Why is life valuable?? We're all just walking meat-bags, right? We have no eternal souls, so nothing really matters, right?

Explain.

You are denying the Bible and God. If you don't believe them, then you reject them.

Those feeling from your consciousness are feelings of the basic morals that God built into us.

Why do they value life?

If you don't think life has objective meaning, why don't you end it? Because you want to be happy? Happiness is not a solid meaning of life.

It didn't.

We had morals before Christianity arose.

Christianity claims that it is the source of morals in society/the world.

This can thus be proven a false claim.

The above is false because the premise is incorrect. While morals do come from religion, that is NOT the ONLY place they can come from.

because being happy all the time no matter at which cost, is not part of my goals.

I thus consider you unqualified to lead a real discussion about it, and I don't see any way anyone could 'win' this nonsensical rabble that has been going on.

The thing is that "Christian morality" isn't even homogeneous. Christian Churches and individuals disagree -time after time- among each other over what they think is God's moral law, God's word is -almost always- interpreted differently by different Christian sects.
As a matter of fact, Christian morality varies from time-to-time, place-to-place, person-to-person.

Thus, a concept of "Christian morality" just does not exist. Countless contradicting notions and ideas cannot be unified into one universal moral code. It simply can't be done.

Simply put, what I am saying is that:
1. A sole "Christian morality" is a completely imaginary concept. There is a plurality of -contradicting- "Christian moralities".
2. Its prima facie that its impossible for a person to get his or her's morals from something that its fictitious.

Let me say it again: Christian morality? No such thing.

It is all short-term happiness, kiddo. (Remember this is from an atheist perspective) When you die, you're happiness is over, therefore it is short-term.

Christian Churches and individuals disagree -time after time- among each other over what they think is God's moral law, God's word is -almost always- interpreted differently by different Christian sects.

Sorry for the double post.

Because you have an eternal soul

@afterburner0- I can't believe that I have to do this, but you forced my hand. you have forced me to forcibly regress back into my old christian mindset (I was an avid mormon at 16, and believed rather strongly in my religion. I then turned 17, and became an atheist because I learned physics. I stoped believing because physics disproved many things that the bible claims happened)

you will never understand why we tell you these things, because you aren't wired to understand us. we will never accept your beliefs, because we are wired in a way that makes us unable to see it your way.

this debate will go in circles forever, because both sides think their argument is valid (I'm not going to say which is though, because the moment I do, then the other will give me flak).

you won't budge, I won't budge, kasic, mage (etc.) won't budge. it's best we drop this now, before this becomes even more migraine inducing. better to have a truce, than to have a stalemate.

-Blade

What's all this ridiculous hullabaloo about atheists not possessing morality because all we know is logic? Really? It's parochial and insulting to be labelled as amoral just because I frankly don't believe that there's a Supernatural being up there who dictates the rules on Earth. It's a little like a non-sequitor. Let's start to crush the claims on why religion is absolutely necessary for morality to exist.


Now, religious folk claim that morality cannot be anchored without a reference to a higher power; that if God had not told us to do such and such and to be good, we would have no reason not to be good. So far so good.....until we examine this more closely. This claim betrays its own incoherence, for we can then ask, why does God command us to be moral? Does he have reasons for that edict? If so, then we too can make use of those reasons, for if they are good ones, they will stand on their own without reference to who is giving them. We don't require someone from a higher plane to tell us about the reasons for the reasons to stand. We don't need to be led by the nose.

On the other hand, if God has no good reason to give for why we have to act on his commands which tells us how to be good and moral, then it simply destroys the concept of morality stemming from religion; religious morality is cut loose from any anchor. For example, if God commanded us to be magnanimous to the poor, but has no reason to back that up, then it's a meaningless and arbitary choice to be kind to the poor. He can just as easily have told us to be cruel to the undertrodden, and those would be the definition of ''morally good'' if he has no other reason why we should choose one over the other.

Hence, religion is not even a required prerequisite to gaining morality.


So, Where does morality stem from for atheists? Well, largely from empathy for other human beings. Kindness, care, honesty, love, they all stem from empathy. I care not for others because someone from a higher plane told me to do so. We are social animals, tribal, to say the least, and this forms the basis of human morality. As Rousseau said succintly and nicely, ''it is an innate repugnance to see his fellow suffer.''. Would you hate to see people suffer, even when you have no inkling about religion? Unless you're a heartless jerk, you will.


You're worried that atheists have no compelling answer to a person who says, ''I'm going to do whatever I please.'', and that we can do whatever we want to because we somehow lack scruples. But religion does not solve that problem. If anything, the problem is far worse when the malcontent is a theist who claims that his desires are not just some idiosyncratic expression of individual preference, but the very will of God. An atheist, at least, has no warrant to claim holy sanction or divine infallibility for his opinions, and in theory can be persuaded by reason. On the other hand, a person who sincerely believes that they are acting in accordance with the will of the creator is immune to evidence, diplomacy, and compromise - as the many religious wars still smoldering after millennia should make abundantly clear.

Which is really what he is attacking here. He has built his own strawman argument and has been trying to argue that this whole time instead of what's actually being said. And as far as I can tell he seems to think this is a winning tactic.