Does Atheism Necessarily Imply Subjectivism?

You are making a claim that is easily shown to be in error.

You live in America, not Somalia or Afghanistan/Pakistan where they do indeed still stone people for adultry, where tribal rules are errily similiar to deuteronomy.

Morality developed whil our society was overwhelmingly Christian, and many of the pinciples you hold dear are Christian principles - including secularism, which emerged frm the aftermath of the 30 Years War in Central Europe, creating the very apparatus of the modern Nation State and tolerance.

Now contrast this with the Middle East? With Sudan? With North Korea?

Yet, you do not want to respect Christianity so you reject this? Facts remain facts however.

 

So, we've been through this. Logically show me how the belief in Jesus is flawed?

Logically show me how every religion out there is invalid?

I use logic everyday, It has helped me reason through some of the more complex theological position to arrive at the wisdom behind it.

What you say is little more than an article of your faith, and you cannot be part of a respect based community - a community based on tolerance - if you consider every opinion other than your own as illogical.

You have claimed the mantel of logic, now pove there is no God or Gods. Go ahead.

But do not act like this is just self evident, because MOST people fundamentally disagree, and its not like only 3% of teh world is logical alone.

You are no longer debating.

They have speculated, and the historical record disagrees.

You are saying religion is invalid because it has been usurped. Well, then so is everything - but you are not saying that either.

Yep, something is invalidated because it can be usurped, therefore we ignore the good and unusrped because ...

Do you understand yet why I refer you to Jesus and not the Crusades?

.

The only problem is that you are not referring any of the legal traditions of religion, but instead cultural ones. The example I gave you, Pashtunwali verses religious law - sharia, makes that point explicit.

Now, which of your arguements above are cultural, and which are religious?

I was.

 

Let try this again Stroll.

http://www.politicalforum.com/religion/88620-god-evil-94.html#post1766313

Agh yes, you have totally been misquoted, eh?

OK, well, you reported me in your last escapade for calling you a liar, but now the conduct is fine because someone dares to call you on what you have clearly said?

<<< Mod Edit: Insult >>>

 

Morality predates the existence of Christianity by tens of thousand, if not hundreds of thousands of years.

 

Yep, and take a look at the morality that pre-dates Christianity. Go ahead.

Morality has changed significantly since the introduction of Christianity. Fact.

 

Not significantly different from the morality that post dates it.

It changes all the time... proving again that there is nothing objective about it.

 

You just proved my point.

The Bible calls for stoning people and we as a society don't do that anymore.

This means we, separate of the Bible, decided it was wrong and stopped doing it in violation of the Bible.

However, since we don't like the idea of having to do it we act like it isn't there.

That proves that morals are ultimately secular, whether they coincide with religion or not.

 

Really?

So the Baal worshippers and Aztec Human Sacrificers were identical to todays morality? The ancient tribal codes that existed in a warlord like state for millenia and can still be seen in Somalia, Northern Nigeria, Southern Sudan, and the Af-Pak border region are absolutely identical to our traditions and moral compass today?

Proving that there is indeed a lack of objectivity somewhere.

 

No, The Bible does not.

Deuteronomy and few select texts from the OT testament, which are widely regarded as rules for ancient clergy and are rejected even by modern Jews do as well.

That contrasts rather sharply with Jesus's treatment of the adulteress in John 8 does it not?

Again, one of the mainstays of Christianity is Grace, which contrasts sharply with the rules based construct of the OT, there are ten commandments from God.

Additionally, Jesus clarifies:

This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. (John 15:12)

So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. (Matthew 7:12)

And one for atheists.

Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. (Matthew 7:7)

I find myself wondering why atheists pretend that the new testament isn't even there?

 

Maybe you're trolling...but you're definitely proving my point. If the Bible calls for it and you do it, it isn't wrong at the very least. If you went and stoned a homosexual, God would be down with it according to the Bible.

Also, you pointed out how contradictory it is, too. One part tells you to kill your enemies, the other says to love them. Is that not a bit of a warning sign? When even the Book can't agree on something?

 

No he wouldn't.

Again, Jesus very cleary does not stone teh adulteress woman when she s presented to him. Nor indeed is David when he committs adultry with Bathsheba.

Indeed, the concept of grace changes a LOT about the sacrifice based rituals of the old testament, indeed informs the very sacrifice of Jesus.

Christians do not hide mistakes from the past. We lay them bear so that others will not do the same folly.

I find it curious that few, if any, Christians stone adulterers, but every atheist thinks we do and are commadned by God to do it anyway? Totally ignoring the evidence and explanation of OUR FAITH - apparently needing it to be so obviously screwed up when it OBVIOUSLY is not?

Sounds like a personal problem? Needing something to be screwed up when it is not?

Or, maybe you are just trolling?

So, you go ahead and find me a quote of Jesus telling me to kill or atone adulterers. Go ahead.

I am a Christian, not an old testament wonk - thoe appear to be atheists.

 

Why should she -Cass?
This is not something she has claimed, it is not even related to her post, as she already pointed out politely.

Is there an echo in here? You asked this a few days ago and I answered it then.Where have I said I am being "misquoted?
Hint: nowhere!!!

Where in the quotes do I accuse you or anyone else here of being "rapists"?
Hint: nowhere!!!!

Learn to understand what you read and quit the insults.


Oh, and thanks for not addressing any of the other thoughtful responses in my comment...
I sometimes wonder why I even bother...

 

Isn't this exactly what several people have repeatedly argued, and was vehemently rejected as false atheist reasoning by you???

 

Because that is the claim she made, and we support our claims don't we?

Unless you are an atheist. Apparently.

Really, I directly quoted you saying exactly what I claimed you were saying. Learn to tell the truth.

Oh, you made a thoughful comment? I guess I missed it the same way you missed my direct quotes from your previous posts.

Super victim .... again.

How is this not trolling?

 

No, as you can see above, there are several atheists claiming the opposite.

More obstinance.

I have been claiming for quite some time that our western values developed in tandem and as a result of Christianity.

Leave it to stroll to simply pull a reverse in the middle of the arguement. Again.

 

Don't blame her for your unwillingness to understand what she's written, the failure lies entirely on your side, not with the atheists you despise so much.

No, you haven't.

That's the question, how are the constant, obstinently repeated false accusations and insults, and the blatant refusal to engage the actual meaning of comments, not trolling?

 

Hmmm..., could it be that you misread her comment, even after it's been pointed out several times?

 

Hmmm..., could it be that you are simply being contentious, after that has been point out several times?

 

but they do not in the west - nor in the majority of muslim countries - what does that tell us about the relationship between religion and morailty?

 

Morality, like religion, comes from society. Societies teach morality in order to survive. Without morality, people can't live and work together successfully. Religion is an effective way to put teeth into moral codes. It's pretty hard to beat an afterlife and the existence of Hell to keep people on the track that is best for societal survival.

Both morality and religion are good things. I know of no society in history that ever survived without them. Atheists should understand that and smile knowlingly when something religious comes up. Instead, they become evangelistic in their beliefs. It boggles the mind.

 

because of your very nasty tendency to quote people out of context, I am reposting your post in full, complete with the parts of my post that you were supposedly "responding" to.

explain how anything you have said here is a response to what I have said:

firstly - where did I say belief in Jesus is flawed?

secondly - where did I say that every religion is invalid?

thirdly - the use of logic every day is irrelevant to what I said.

religion NEVER WAS based on logic until relatively recently. it lives in the world of myth, emotion and the needs of the human psyche.

I have never seen evidence that you argue logically when discussing religion. nastily - yes, but logically, no.

Fourthy - do not argue that I can not be part of a respect based community until you look at yourself. I am generally respectful towards people of faith, but I refuse to be bullied by people such as yourself who attempt to claim some superior morailty because of your faith.

you should try living christianity instead of spending so much time talking it.

I have not claimed the mantel of logic - and anyone with half a brain can tell I am not arguing for proof of God.

I have made it clear that God can notbe proven to exist, or to not exist - at least a broader concept of God.

your narrow petty minded God however clearly does not exist - and if you really were familiar with theology, you would understand that this particular version of God is not what real theology understands God to be.

you ceased to debate on this issue a long time ago Neutral.

everyone here knows that.

where is the evidence that the historical record shows that morality is based on religion?

I did not say it has been usurped. It has morphed into something it was never meant to be. St Augustine, Calvin and many others made it clear that religion should not compete with science.

your response is irrelevant.

you either show signs of some kind of unhealthy obsession with "winning" an argument by misrepresenting what people say, or really have no clue what I am talking about.

I fail to see the relevance of this response to anything I have said.

religion IS culturally based. Interpretations of moral codes can be based on numerous variables.

You clearly have no understanding of the social sciences.

but you were responding to what I said, so therefore your comment was out of context of what I originally said.

 

false.

you are misrepresenting what I said yet again.

as you do with all who don't share your views on this forum.

 

I don't disagree that many "enlightenment" values arose at the same time as the protestant reformation - but really - if they were "christian" values - they would have been mainstream in europe at least for many centuries before that.

And lets face it - while christians may have been at the forefront of some of the social justice reforms that have taken place in the last two hundred years - not all have even been related to christianity.

where were the churches when women were arguing for the right to vote?

where were the churches when the Jews were being persecuted?

what have the churches had to say about family violence?

the church has lagged behind popular support in some of these - and other - issues.

 

Perhaps you are familiar with imperialism?

What did the Spanish find when they arrived in what is today Mexico?

What was happening when Islam broke free of teh Arabian peninsula? And do you think honor killings are today encouraged in the Koran or are they remnants of an ancient tribal code?

What does that tell you about the influence of religion, when religious leaders use scripture to condem these acts?

 

What did Martin Luthur use to base his disagreement with the church on? Christian values. People drift away from core values, that does not mean they are not core values.

Most atheists are honorable (most anyway), but if an atheist lies, does that mean that honesty is not a core value to most atheists?

Luthur, and indeed the Catholic Church, returned to its core after it drifted - these abuses were also part and parcel to political influence and power and the result was the 30 Years War that shaped the very status of our world - at tremendous cost.

And they continue to be. I still find myself amazed that abolition can begin in Christian circles, and this is considered good, but today, the church talks about abortion and people scream secularism and decry it as an evil.

http://external.oneonta.edu/cooper/susan/suffrage.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman's_Christian_Temperance_Union

There are also scriptures that make plane the duty of men to treat women as equals, it is a commandment. People drift, our scriptures give us a way to make right what is wrong. Steady progress is nevertheless made.

You mean like Saint Kolbe?

You mean like this?

In a memorandum from the leaders of the Confessing Church at Whitsundie, 1936, they stated:

"When blood, race, nationality and honor are regarded as eternal values, then the first commandment obliges the Christian to refuse this valuation. When the Aryan is glorified, the Word of God teaches that all men are sinful. If the Christian is forced by the Anti-semitism (sic) of the Nazi Weltanschauung to hate the Jew, he is, on the contrary, bidden by the Christian commandment to love his neighbor."

This sort of courage in 1936 was a virtual death sentence for the Christian clergymen who issued the memorandum, but these true Christians accepted martyrdom as a price of their faith.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/christian_opposition_to_nazi_a.html

what have the churches had to say about family violence?

Seriously? Do I even need to prove this? How many womens and family shelters are set up and run by Christian organizations?

I have never, not in any church I have ever been in, seen a church that supports or will turn a blind eye to domestic abuse. Quite the opposite, most clergy are heavily involved in marital and family counseling, and when it happens, trust me, there are both legal and spiritual counseling - including excommunication.

Is that strong enough?

No, it has not. The Catholic Church may be lagging behind American desires, but it is a global organiztion and it reflects the gobal consensus on many of these issues and works very hard to change perceptions on many of these issues.

Just remember, even as it does so, when it supports what you want, it is seen as good, when it works for something like anti-abortionism, it is seen as evil and a threat to secularism.

Dambed if they do and dambed if they do not.