Third Child Shall Walk the World Blind

Probably from other atheists .... who seem to have no compunction about misrepresenting anything.

Besides, who exactly is it that is blaming who for the world's problems ala Hitchens? Dawkins? Wells? ALL yoru websites?

BTW - what we say about atheists is that you guys are essentially self worshippers, and that you seek degrade others in order to justify yourselves in comparison.

 

Yes, we should use a fat man to save a run away train rather than the brakes ... cutting the fuel line ... disengaing fuel, drive train, etc.

It is amazing how these hypotheticals, that are all rare and almost perfectly absurd, rely on people doing dumb things when there are clear alternatives available. I guess though, we can continue to add 'what ifs' indefinitely - but that sortta violates the rules of logic and easily takes it into the arguement from absurdity position.

So, if atheists give us absurd or extreme examples, I mean the moaist rebels in teh Naxalite insurgency in India are atheists - but their killing is .... er, we'll get back to you, then indeed because they themselves would never be placed into these absurd situations .... they are better than Christians.

Only, Christians do not place themselves in these absurd situations either. Making the entire premise of comparative absurdity simply absurd.

 

an athiest simply mean they do not believe ing od. You are truly misguided in your harsh interpretation of anyone who is athiest. Wolverine does it to the thiests as well but at leasts he asks a valid question. All of your comments on any issue are nothing but hate filled tripe. We get it, you think all athiests love themselves or something. You think anyone who is an athiest hates all religion (which is by no means true, if you want to find the people who don't care otherwise what other people think look somewhere besides the RELIGION section on a DEBATE forum). You refer to athiests as if they are your school bully and they are just mean to you because they have low self-esteem or come from an abusive home or something. no. It is an an idealogy, a code of beliefs and a mindset that is ever growing around the world. You may not like it but at least don't treat it as some trivial tripe as others have done to you.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

I find the notion of secularists have "relativistic" morals to be amusing, especially considering the theistic moral code train wreck in the thread concerning American mistreatment of homosexuals. All arguments condoning such a vile act on the part of American theists who under the thin veil of relativistic morals.



That is the OP .
Written in appalling English by a supposedly educated American . Presumably .

Obviously "American" has been substituted for " Nigerian".
Then , we have pages of mumbo jumbo .
It cannot be about the OP , because , in itself , that is mumbo jumbo .As above .


I have been accused of being anti American .
I believe that it is Americans themselves who are anti American because they know no better .
You should be setting an example to outsiders not reinforcing the idea that you are retards .

 

Ok. Then what is your point exactly?

I see some incoherent points made here and there, but no conclusive point to the whole thing.

 

Being accurate is not being mean.

You tell me what drives atheists to consistantly blame anyone of a different faith for all manner of wrong doing? Why they pour money into their scions like HItchens and Dawkins whose sole credit is simply bashing religion and grossly mischaracterizing its beliefs?

Why do they need to do this? How is a belief with no doctrine, no code, no nothing? How do you explain someone wo first claims that all their beliefs are proven facts gosh darn it! But when asked for proof of said positions .... well, gosh darn it the burden of proof is not on them ... they aren't REALLY claiming that their is no God only that they donot believe in one ... for reasons they cannot explain ... but you are still screwed up.

This is not merely my opinion. THis is the opinion of a good chunck of professional theologians who find teh contemptuous practices of many modern day atheists to be little more than narcissism.

If you have an alternate explanation for teh continuous hubris and and inaccurate derision of out faith, please let me know. I will not muzzle an opinion simply because some find it distateful or mean. Truth is truth.

 

As a non-theist, I was looking for something more objective. I find the natural rights ethic to be the most objective, but it does not apply to all situations where one might feel wronged. I do believe that it can supply a definition for crime in which there are never any contradictions (one can't prove a negative, of course.)

The answer to the trolly problem is not so simple, though I'd answer that the intentional killing of another human being is always homicide or murder, except where that human being has initiated aggression and the killing is reasonable self-defense. Killing one to save five would be immoral, but it may also be heroic. The cost, of course, is bearing the consequences of one's immoral and homicidal act. If it's worth it, then do it. If it's not worth it, then sit back and accept that you are not part of their fate except as an unwilling observer.

 

And yet, these things are done in order to alleviate suffering in the future, or at least with that intention. The honor killing is performed in order to rescue the honor of the family and to prevent the sort of suffering that would come to future generations of that family due to being dishonored. Denying a child medical treatment is done in order to no incur the wrath of God and so to save the world from suffering. If it is moral to prevent suffering, then these are small costs for a greater good.

 

Yes, and we also have hooked noses and killed Jesus.

 

Dishonored for the upkeep of silly religious practices, hardly justification.

Silliness.

 

I would suggest reading the book, or watching the video I posted, The Moral Landscape.

It is the basis for my argument, and Sam Harris does a much better job explaining it than I can.

 

The point is that your original Post is Gobbledy Gook . It has no discernible meaning . It certainly does not qualify as easy and clear English with transparent sense .
And worse , when you substitute Nigerians to Americans , there is no change in attempted meaning .
Look at it . Read it aloud .


" I find the notion of secularists have "relativistic" morals to be amusing, especially considering the theistic moral code train wreck in the thread concerning American mistreatment of homosexuals. All arguments condoning such a vile act on the part of American theists who under the thin veil of relativistic morals."


There are other points , but if you cannot see that your opening statements simply make no sense , there is no point mentioning later matters .

 

Oh yes, the plight of educated, free atheists is worse than that of Jews and the entire history of slavery.

You clearly make Buddhist Monks look like fat cats.

Are we supposed to take this seriously?

 

How many honor killings are either of you two experts actually familiar with?

How many responses have you ignored from the community you bash, but was horrified by these actions - just like people around teh world are horrified by criminal actions.

Not atheists though, its more about putting someone else down ... because EVERYONE but them thinks the behavior is just great.

Hmmm ... my, my what we we do without your assembled and lofty guidance? Having placed yourself as an object of worship and example ... well, its not self worship.

Biased sample fallacy some more. Excellent example of moral conduct.

 

And all of that will have something to do with human beings trying to tell other human beings how to live. So my statement still stands.....before one goes about telling, correcting or imposing on other human being what they believe is right, they must first take a look at themselves first and see if they are not guilty of some injustice themselves on other human beings.


Matthew 7:1-6 (NKJV)
1 "Judge not, that you be not judged.
2 For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you.
3 And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye?
4 Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me remove the speck from your eye'; and look, a plank is in your own eye?
5 Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
6 Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces

 

No more silly than most justifications that I hear for do-gooderism.

Irrational, yes. So, what makes them incompatible with your "universal moral code to prevent suffering" if, in fact, they are systems that people have put into place and intended to prevent the suffering of many? Are you negating them just because they are religiously based? I would argue that most religions exist because people seek patterns in a seemingly random universe and they hope to change those patterns to be favorable to human beings by following certain rituals and rules. How can the intent to relieve suffering possibly be immoral?

 

And this would be an example of a self licking ice cream cone.

Two atheists confirming their derisive views of religion, and ignoring the actual responses from Christians.

Its like watching Narcissus stare at his own reflection in a mirror.

 

I'll check it out. It shouldn't be hard to explain. The harder it is to explain, the more difficult it becomes to defend with reason. The Christian ethic is simple: do unto others as you'd have done to you, yet look at how much they twist everything around in order to justify all sorts of atrocities. Atheists will do the same, in order to justify whatever agenda they might have.

 

I wasn't under the impression that you take anything seriously. People who are serious about fruitful discussion don't simply generalize, demonize, and extemporize. Since you do all three of these things and, from what I have seen, nothing else, I figure that you aren't serious.

 

I wasn't ignoring you. I was playing right along with your silliness. Weren't you gratified by it? You certainly seemed to be, since it just made you act more silly.

 

There is much to be learned from that, and it's much more simple than trying to decipher a moral code from science. One need not believe in a deity in order to embrace the spiritual message of forgiveness and non-judgment of the worth of other human beings.

 

True, but without God there would be no moral code. In fact, there would even be no me, you or everyone else.

We live in a world in which human beings are constantly trying to act as lord or ruler over other human beings, but are totally incapable controlling themselves.

 

You mean like you Beavis continually do?

One standard for you, another for everyone else.

This is science to atheists?

 

Nope, just resorting to more babbling insults and pointedly avoiding those things that you cannot actually address ... which is pretty much everything.

Best to be mean about it while you are at it ... that makes it more rational.

 

So, what is this alleged standard do I have for me and then what other do I have for everyone else?