freddycashmercury Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 The problem you're running into is religious brainwashing. Your religion states that anyone who doesn't follow your religion is an evil pagan under the influence of Satan, therefore having no knowledge of "good." While that makes sense....sort of, it is completely unfounded and ignorant. If someone says, "I do not believe in God." then how, exactly, could (s)he 'worship Satan'? Wouldn't non-belief in God also mean non-belief in Satan? Therefore, an atheist is not under the influence of Satan, not evil, and can have morals.Actually, by your logic, religious people actually have less morals than anyone else. How can you have morals if you're simply basing your actions off of someone else? That not morals, that just command and follow. If God says don't murder, you don't murder, not because you think it's wrong, but because He does. The same relationship exists between a robot and it's master. A master tells the robot what to do, and the robot does it without question. So, you Christians are nothing more than robots of God, organic robots of God, at that. Even you would agree that robots don't express morals, correct? The thing about being atheist, is I don't need to pretend to have morals, I actually can develop my own. I think murder is wrong. You may think I have no reason for thinking so, but that's just what God wants you to think. He wants you to believe that everyone is as lost without Him as you would be. Umm, Ninja? Did you read my post carefully? I said that man does have morals. I said that since man was created in God's image, we have an innate sense of right and wrong. I am not arguing whether it is possible for man to have morals without religion, merely that the morals are unjustified without religion. Also, I'm going to ignore the blatant trolling evident in your posts. I'm not an idiot, and I know that I will probably never be able to convince you of God's existence unless He appears directly to you. Edit: I am going to stop my part in this debate. It is obvious that I will not be able to convince you no matter what I say. I am not saying you are right, though. I also don't want this thread to turn into a debate between Creation and Evolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninja_lord666 Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 Edit: I am going to stop my part in this debate. It is obvious that I will not be able to convince you no matter what I say. I am not saying you are right, though. I also don't want this thread to turn into a debate between Creation and Evolution.Yeah, I see now why religious debates are banned. I wasn't even trying, and I almost flew off the handle. I'm going to leave this one now before things get bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumonji Posted February 10, 2008 Author Share Posted February 10, 2008 ... I'm not an idiot, and I know that I will probably never be able to convince you of God's existence unless He appears directly to you.... Unfortunately, I AM an idiot. I probably wouldn't even believe in god if she told me to personally, but I would definitely stop drinking. On the other hand, can you possibly enlighten me as to how an athiest proves to a believer that they are being hoodwinked? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramul Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 'Unjustified'? Is your meaning that it's difficult or impossible to demonstrate that one set of non-divine morals is more or less valid than another? @Jumonji: To cover the entire spectrum: Exit counselingReligious conversion (I'm inclined to count atheism as a religion, but not agnosticism)Brainwashing Personally, I'd say "Leave well enough alone, unless you can demonstrate that their beliefs are both false and detrimental." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddycashmercury Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 Okay this is really my last post. What I mean by "unjustified' is that without a religious base, someone who says that eating people is morally fine is just as correct as someone who thinks cannibalism is morraly abhorrent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumonji Posted February 10, 2008 Author Share Posted February 10, 2008 Okay this is really my last post. What I mean by "unjustified' is that without a religious base, someone who says that eating people is morally fine is just as correct as someone who thinks cannibalism is morraly abhorrent. The sphegetti god appeared to me in a dream and told me cannibalism is ok as long as you eat those who are theists. Is it immoral to serve a fine chianti with my local priest? --- Ok, sarcasm is not working... but my point is simply this: you can't debate someone who thinks logic is not relevent to what they believe. That's not a debate, that's just a "my fantasy is prettie/older/more widespread/etc. than your fantasy" squabble. And that is definitely my last word. Again, I apologize for starting this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malchik Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 I don't think the idea was wrong (though the last post seems unnecessarily inflammatory) but it is a subject which many people cannot consider separately from belief and leads to the kind of issues we do not allow to be debated on this forum. However I do think some people posting here imagine the line between good and evil (or right and wrong if you prefer) is clear cut. It isn't. Take a simple example. A successful farmer is so efficient he realises there is a glut of his produce. To preserve his income he puts aside a proportion to be detroyed. A man who is extremely poor requests food for his starving children. The successful farmer refuses to assist. The desperate man steals some of the decaying goods but because it involves trespass is arrested for stealing. In most civil AND religious 'laws' the only CRIMES are committed by the poor man - trespass and theft. Some people would feel that the wealthy man's behaviour was inhumane (and so wrong/immoral/evil). Some might even claim that it was against their religion's code of ethics. And yet this kind of economic price manipulation is routinely carried out by companies and governments who are supposedly upholding or standing for those very codes of ethics. I have to admit to being very cynical on this matter having worked for charities in my time but those who say 'of course people should give to charity' usually mean either - of course (OTHER) people should give to charity; of course I will give to charity (as soon as I have everything I want); of course I give to charity (I need the tax break) or I regularly give to charity (but not enough so I actually notice the loss). When it comes to establishing the rights and wrongs of being charitable nothing is cut and dried. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marxist ßastard Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 If you have morals that are not supported by religious beliefs, they are not justifiable. If you say murder is wrong, but don't believe God has said so, then why is it wrong?A Christian and an atheist are engaged in a discussion about morality. The Christian tells the atheist that his moral code is backed by a system that punishes those who disobey and rewards those who obey it, for all eternity; he goes on to chide the atheist for having a moral code which is “unjustified, and really just made up on the spot.” The atheist follows up by asking the Christian where his morals actually come from, to which he replies, “they were told to me by my parents and priest.” “And so they deliever your eternal punishment?” the atheist responds. “No, no. But you see, my morals are still justified because theirs were justified, since each and every Christian's morality ultimately stems from the Bible. “The Bible delivers your punishment, then? An eternity of vicious papercuts sounds like something I'd like to avoid. “Well, the Bible was translated into a barbarian tongue from its original Greek version, which was itself a collection of manuscripts chosen by a council. The manuscripts were records of oral history which had been circulating for a few decades, and each discussed some aspect or interpretation of the early Christian church, the end of the world (which was prophesized to happen around 50 AD), and the life of Jesus,” the Christian says before inhaling deeply and pausing for a bit. “And so all of it—okay, well, the plain majority of it at any rate—is inspired by Jesus, who is God, who punishes sinners. All of the revision, translation, and dropping in and out of oral history which happened afterward just concentrated the holy purity of the text. The result is a book which specifies a moral code which is justified, since it has the thumbs-up from Jesus and so we can be pretty sure that we get punished or rewarded based on this.” “That makes sense, I guess. But in the end, is that moral code really ‘justified’? “Uh... what do you mean? “Well, where does God's morality come from? “He just made it up on the spot, I suppose, like the rules in a game of Mornington Crescent,” the Christian says after a few seconds of thought. “Ah, so God is an atheist! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddah Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 When this thread crossed from being a discussion of the existence of evil.....into a debate about religion it crossed the line, and is now closed. Buddah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.