Third Child Shall Walk the World Blind

The ability to debate sans emotional invective.

 

I'm not sure that I follow. It is your allegation that I hold some people to the standard that they use no emotional invective while allowing it from others. Can you explain from whom I allow it and from whom I don't?

 

No, the forum has a standard, normal civilized people have a standard about what a civilized discussion and disagreement are supposed to look like.

Why don't you go ahead and explain which salient point that is supposed to address? Which claim, about the absurdity of the premise is this supposed to make valid? After Christians don't actually do this little bit of imbicility, so how does it demonstrate moral relativism when ... we don't do it or tolerate it (as the atheist is claiming)?

Tell us all how involking the Jews and claiming the mantel of eating children addresses those points?

They don't, do they?

Instead, exactly as charged, we have two atheists in a traditional self licking ice cream cone. Avoiding answering any questions to heartily congratulate each other on the seran logic regarding a religion they have clearly gone well wide of the mark on.

After all, how would you respond to a Christian inquiring why atheists eat small children? But Christians? Well, obviously we pluck out the eye of every third child!

 

Christ...... I would suggest reading a thread from a week ago, "Nigerian Governmend Enforces Government Imposed Religion" (or something along those lines) for some context.

Move along now.

 

I am not removing my third child's eyes with a blade.

I do not see how your point is relevant..... it fails to address the original question.

 

Religiously based beliefs are not valid. They cannot be demonstrated. Using your argument a second holocuast would be justified in the name of preventing divine punishment for the failure to do so.

Your position is intolerable because it has no basis for what is right and wrong.

 

Yep, teh benefots of wisdom are well known and there is no such thing as grace and frogiveness in our faith.

Is there a reason atheists remain silent on such ding battery? Is there a reason that athests think being deliberately inaccurate is a sign of great intellect or ability?

Because in reality, its the opposite. And the silence and tolerance of tehe kinds of antics is telling.

Christians overwhelmingly reject the Westboro Baptist Church - atheists and their like minded extremists? What?

 

A second holocaust would be justified by the utilitarian argument that it would reduce suffering for the greater number of people. After all, to the Nazis, it was the undesirables that held back society from reaching it's greatest potential. If, as even your Sam Harris seems to think, morality is based on achieving the best lives for people, then whatever is intended to reach that goal is morally justified.

What I'm getting at is that (some or most) Christians are attacked for having a moral view that seems to come largely from a book. Those who do the attacking have little to offer when it comes to a system of ethics that is logical and from which right and wrong can be objectively derived. They offer little that does not allow for the sort of atrocities that can occur when people do base their morals on the words from a book.

You say that religiously derived [moral] beliefs are invalid, but you have not provided a standard for determining what makes for a valid moral code.

It's only emotionally intolerable to you, but it may not be intolerable to others.
If you are going to describe a moral code based on assumptions like "we should prevent suffering", you may consider that to be not doing anything that causes another to suffer, but others may take a much longer, more utilitarian view. If we eliminate the "undesirable" elements of society, for example, there will be less suffering overall, and that is in line with the moral stricture you have created, even if it fails your emotional litmus test.

 

And it is your assertion that you follow this standard yourself? Because I would assert that you do not, and I would be willing to provide an extensive list of posts that would bolster my assertion,.

The OP presents a hyperbolic situation in which a hypothetical culture, following the precepts from a book, blind every third child because they believe that the book is the written word of God and therefore must be obeyed.

I think it's quite clear to any intelligent observer that blinding children is not something that Christians do. I think that they'd find it repellent. I entered the conversation in order to challenge Wolverine on certain assumptions. You babbled some nonsense at me and I answered back with some nonsense which I assume is what you expected, since most of what you post is nonsense.

As I said, nonsense in response to nonsense.

You haven't asked any questions that a sane person could answer. You have a high opinion of yourself, presuming to speak for all Christians and having such an intimate knowledge of atheists that you know how they all think.

 

I disagree with that. I do believe that the western Christian traditions led to the Enlightenment and the establishment of individual rights and self-ownership. I think that the discovery of the natural rights ethics would have taken much longer, perhaps even beyond this time, without them. However, there is no need for an interceding deity to create these ethics. In fact, a being with such powers could arbitrarily decide to change the nature of rights at any time and by granting blessings, determines some to be more worthy of [His] love than others, which defies those moral codes.

If God blesses those who would rule, doesn't that indicate their right to rule?

 

As I said, I would suggest referring to The Moral Landscape.

You are not understanding something that is very apparent, your argument has no basis for the existence of human rights or ethics. You say the fear of the toothfaiy destroying a city is justification for a holocaust. To use imaginary and non-existent fears for the basis of justifying human suffering means that anything can be used as justification.

 

I need the proofs:

1. The Name of this "Holy Book".
2. The Name of the Tribe
3. The Number of Verse
4. The Link to the Story

Sorry, I do not believe that the story is true, therefore this thread is for me pointless.Interesting why you write in KJV's manner?

Warning for ALL True Believers!

The story is probably not true, but you believed it because the text has been written in manner of the King James Version.
Because only extreme very few people know the Holy Bible most of you will believe that this stupidity was indeed written in the Holy Bible.

Do not forget that Devil is everywhere and waiting to swallow you!

Fight for our Believe, here is our weapon!Read the Holy Bible and do not lead you deceive by numerous atheists!

 

I do not reject Westboro Baptist Church, if you are against, please explain why I should it do?Only because some Homosexuals want to rewrite the Holy Bible and to keep Christians silent?I support every church which preaches the Word of God and not only politically correct blah-blah.

 

Wow.

The tribe is hypothetical, as I have stated multiple times already.

 

Nice to hear, but the vague suggestion looks like the the attack on the KJV.
BTW I've read only your first post on this thread.

 

No, it is a hypothetical tribe in a far away land.

In no way is it related to the King James Version of the Bible.

 

Because God doesn't kill someone else because of your Sin or my Sin. Pretty simple.

You can be against homosexuality without being a dick about it - without disrupting someone morning the lose of their loved ones.

Is that what you think Christianity is?

 

It comes from God.

Its also not some random book - so go ahead actually address what it actually says rather than pulled the old bait and switch, and saying that Nazism was based on a book.

Guess what atheists? When you quote Harris and others, do you know what you are acknowledging? That your ideas came from a book.

Somehow, despte recent history pointedly indicating otherwise, you are not suspectible to things you fear?

So tell me, while you are busy scanning far and wide to ensure that Christian, who are not attempting to kill you, remain that way ... who is minding the gate of your humble abode? Who is ensuring YOUR accountability?

 

Well, I can point to several instances where I respond to your points and indeed make counter points.

You cannot do that can you?

You are right its hyperboyle - and it is hyperboyle meant to say, inevitably, "You see Christians! You suck!"

Except no Christian is taking the silly bait (and that is what it is), and that means either EVERY CHRISTIAN out there is smarter than the author of teh OP, or he is just wrong in his deductions.

Maybe you should go back and read because I left a perfect opportunity for Wolv to push his assumption on something a little less stupid. He balked and avoided, so did you.

WHose fault is it that atheists only see what they want to? But whenyou point out an opportunity that you think proves nefarious intent .... whoops that opportunity was already rejected by the side you support.

Now, deduce what that means logically.


As I said, nonsense in response to nonsense.

Right, so not only are asking baiting hyperbolic questions and expecting a rational answer, we are also presaging insanity in anyone who disagrees with our position?

THis is atheism's idea of a civil disagreement? Of being respectful to others?

Nice to see that your emotional fear of confrontation drives you to call others arrogant - but then, some people actually have accomplishments behind their name - some are just dicks.