It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

'Duck Dynasty' Star Imagines Vivid Rape And Murder Scenario For Atheist Family

page: 10
31
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 01:06 AM
link   
a reply to: undo

Try the second link you seem to have missed a lot.

The ones in Asian countries were pretty interesting.




posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 01:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
So basically it's never wrong to punish people for their immoral actions?


Morality is subjective. I think it's immoral to give money to a corporation that will turn around and use that money against us such as Nestle and their buying of water rights. I think it's immoral to subject animals to hellish conditions in factory farming. I think it's immoral to open a restaurant and lace my food with an addictive drug. I think it's immoral to make decisions today that will be causing serious problems for my generations grandchildren.

Do I have the right to punish people who disagree with me on any of that? The answer is no.



So what? "Murder" isn't objectively wrong, according to you, so no biggie, right?


Do you believe in self defense? How about a right for people to carry firearms and stand your ground laws? Under Christian morality such a thing (as it was taught to me in the Catholic school I grew up in) is blatantly wrong.



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 01:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
But you have no criterion besides your subjective feeling that anything *is* a crime...or what punishment fits it. As far as I can tell, according to you, there should be no punishment, unless people are agreeable to it...right? You said,


The law and morality are very different things.

The law is about how society interacts with each other as a group in order to ensure we don't destroy ourselves. It takes a very macroscopic view of things. Morality on the other hand, is how we choose to conduct ourselves on an individual level, it's a microscopic view.



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 02:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: undo

Try the second link you seem to have missed a lot.

The ones in Asian countries were pretty interesting.


ahh thanks for that!

well, it's not AS bad as i thought, but you gotta admit there was a problem. dynastic egypt spanned 4000 years and only had 3 female rulers, most of which were just temporary fillers till their sons reached age. noticed the solitary chinese one in the first link , also was only temp. lol



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 06:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: Xaphan

Man he's crazy.

Like..how could you even put that all together, say it and than not shoot yourself for what just happened?

Good lord.

If there is a hell, there's a special place in the devil's heart for those Duck Dynasty folk.

~Tenth



"

Umm thats the same thing I thing of when I hear some of the stuf hard line liberals spout all the time.

But of course I have come to understand that you can spout anything you want and degrade anybody you want in the name of a liberal cause. And don't tell me that is wrong I've seen to much of it in the media and even here.

- If your conservative you are a gun toting, religious, homophobic nut bag that wants to kill or control everybody.
- If you have any disagreement with the liberal agenda at all you are a conservative (Which means you need to refer to the above.)
- If you do not agree with the Atheist agenda see above


On the other hand if you are a liberal you are just expressing your view and no one should be upset with you.


Phil was using a extrema example of a situation to get his point across. His point is that sense Atheist don't believe in God what bases do they use to determine moral behavior? All of our laws and legal systems are based on the religious beliefs of moral behavior. You would be hard pressed to show me an example of a moral belief that is not linked to some religion. As far back as the Code of Hammurabi, which much of our current laws are based and/or derived from, was hand down from Shamash, god of justice.



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 07:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: dismanrc
But of course I have come to understand that you can spout anything you want and degrade anybody you want in the name of a liberal cause. And don't tell me that is wrong I've seen to much of it in the media and even here.

- If your conservative you are a gun toting, religious, homophobic nut bag that wants to kill or control everybody.


That's funny because I often see conservatives calling liberals Communists or Marxists that want to control everybody... Hmmm...


- If you have any disagreement with the liberal agenda at all you are a conservative (Which means you need to refer to the above.)


Again that is funny because I am often called a liberal for disagreeing with conservative viewpoints.


- If you do not agree with the Atheist agenda see above


What is the Atheist agenda?


Phil was using a extrema example of a situation to get his point across. His point is that sense Atheist don't believe in God what bases do they use to determine moral behavior? All of our laws and legal systems are based on the religious beliefs of moral behavior. You would be hard pressed to show me an example of a moral belief that is not linked to some religion. As far back as the Code of Hammurabi, which much of our current laws are based and/or derived from, was hand down from Shamash, god of justice.


We all know what his point was and we have all pointed out how silly that reasoning is. Your further reasoning is even sillier, because if the Code of Hammurabi was handed down by Shamash, god of Justice then that means that there are more than one god in the universe. This makes Christianity wrong. So either the Code of Hammurabi was invented by humans who SAID it came from a god or you just disproved your own religion. Good job.
edit on 27-3-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 08:03 AM
link   
he's a disgusting excuse for a human being!
edit on 27-3-2015 by secretcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 08:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: dismanrc
But of course I have come to understand that you can spout anything you want and degrade anybody you want in the name of a liberal cause. And don't tell me that is wrong I've seen to much of it in the media and even here.

- If your conservative you are a gun toting, religious, homophobic nut bag that wants to kill or control everybody.


That's funny because I often see conservatives calling liberals Communists or Marxists that want to control everybody... Hmmm...


- If you have any disagreement with the liberal agenda at all you are a conservative (Which means you need to refer to the above.)


Again that is funny because I am often called a liberal for disagreeing with conservative viewpoints.


- If you do not agree with the Atheist agenda see above


What is the Atheist agenda?


Phil was using a extrema example of a situation to get his point across. His point is that sense Atheist don't believe in God what bases do they use to determine moral behavior? All of our laws and legal systems are based on the religious beliefs of moral behavior. You would be hard pressed to show me an example of a moral belief that is not linked to some religion. As far back as the Code of Hammurabi, which much of our current laws are based and/or derived from, was hand down from Shamash, god of justice.


We all know what his point was and we have all pointed out how silly that reasoning is. Your further reasoning is even sillier, because if the Code of Hammurabi was handed down by Shamash, god of Justice then that means that there are more than one god in the universe. This makes Christianity wrong. So either the Code of Hammurabi was invented by humans who SAID it came from a god or you just disproved your own religion. Good job.



Well there you go proving my point.

Did I any where say I was a christian?

Did I say I was a conservative?

But because I bring up the points I'm immediately a Conservative Christian.


In fact I'm closer to a Libertarian then anything and although I believe there is a God, I'm unsure of which religion, if any, is the right one.



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: dismanrc

I didn't call you a conservative. So don't put words in my mouth. But you ARE siding with Phil Robertson on this, so it should be safe to assume that you are Christian. If you aren't, then you have some warped values. Also, the fact that you think there is an "Atheist agenda" really speaks to what type of religion you favor. Mostly because it is people of a certain religion that misunderstand what it means to be atheist and create terms like "atheist agenda".

Morality is a subjective thing determined by the society you live in. Every society has different morals, even the ones that share the same religions. Also, my point still stands. Unless you believe that Shamash, god of Justice was a real god that handed down the Code of Hammurabi to the people, then you have to admit that morality came from humans.
edit on 27-3-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: undo




i'm just not going to allow the "christianity" is the worst thing ever spiel to go on, while extolling the virtues of paganism, as it applies to the treatment of their people, particularly the women and children. the natural order is, frankly, not conducive to jesus' teachings. the natural order is brutal and preys on the weak or less physically/technologically capable in a brute show of force.


And, I'm not going to allow the "Atheists have no moral compass and would go on murdering, raping and pillaging sprees without the "religious" imposing their, self professed, perfect morality!" spiel, while Christians have historically pushed their agenda through violence, lies, coercion, wars, and all manner of human indignities, for hundreds and hundreds of years.

I believe the goodness that is in mankind will shine through, regardless of the social structures it emanates from, whether it be Shamanism, Paganism, Judaism, Christianity, atheism, science, parenthood, art, music, animal husbandry, ecology, even prisons and hospitals. If you raise one above the other, as being more moral or more "holy" then surely you're begging for that one to be singled out and exposed as NOT more moral and not holier than any other human expression of goodness.



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 10:30 AM
link   
originally posted by: Aazadan


Morality is subjective.

Is this an objective or subjective statement?



I think it's immoral to give money to a corporation that will turn around and use that money against us such as Nestle and their buying of water rights. I think it's immoral to subject animals to hellish conditions in factory farming. I think it's immoral to open a restaurant and lace my food with an addictive drug. I think it's immoral to make decisions today that will be causing serious problems for my generations grandchildren.

Do I have the right to punish people who disagree with me on any of that? The answer is no.


What gives anyone the right to do anything?



Do you believe in self defense? How about a right for people to carry firearms and stand your ground laws? Under Christian morality such a thing (as it was taught to me in the Catholic school I grew up in) is blatantly wrong.


Sure, I believe in those things. Your Catholic school's version of Christian morality is not endorsed by all Christians–in fact, I rather suspect it is not in line with most Catholic doctrine.



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 10:31 AM
link   
originally posted by: Aazadan



The law and morality are very different things.


I know




The law is about how society interacts with each other as a group in order to ensure we don't destroy ourselves. It takes a very macroscopic view of things. Morality on the other hand, is how we choose to conduct ourselves on an individual level, it's a microscopic view.


So, do you think that morality has any bearing on laws?



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

you know what i mean. christianity did not invent asshatery, it didn't invent sexism or racism. it's a social construct, just like any other social order, and as a result contains people of various viewpoints.



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 12:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: dismanrc
Phil was using a extrema example of a situation to get his point across. His point is that sense Atheist don't believe in God what bases do they use to determine moral behavior? All of our laws and legal systems are based on the religious beliefs of moral behavior. You would be hard pressed to show me an example of a moral belief that is not linked to some religion. As far back as the Code of Hammurabi, which much of our current laws are based and/or derived from, was hand down from Shamash, god of justice.


I want to live in a world where people aren't jerks to each other. That's enough of a reason for me to try to act like a good person, that way I don't perpetuate it.
edit on 27-3-2015 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: dismanrc


As far back as the Code of Hammurabi, which much of our current laws are based and/or derived from, was hand down from Shamash, god of justice.


Just because men told you those came from God's doesn't make it the case.

The reason that law has been handled under 'divine thought' is because at one point in our history, we still had people who considered themselves more important than your average surf. Those laws, because they came from a 'higher power' prevented any King or otherwise person from claiming your rights could be removed.

Obviously we've moved on from those dark dark times and know that nobody is more important than anybody else, if for no other reason than we are all human.

I don't need any kind of higher power in order to be a morally sound person. The idea that this is true is ridiculous and would imply that all children are evil little bastards, until some adult makes them find Jesus.

~Tenth



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
What gives anyone the right to do anything?


What does having the right have to do with anything? Having the right to do something doesn't necessarily make it good. You can cut someone off in traffic or cheat in a card game. Neither of those are illegal or forbidden, and the law will even be on your side if the other person gets mad and attacks you. Does that mean those are proper actions to take? The Bible does not forbid those acts, and neither does the Quran, Torah, or any other major book.



Sure, I believe in those things. Your Catholic school's version of Christian morality is not endorsed by all Christians–in fact, I rather suspect it is not in line with most Catholic doctrine.


Neat. So a school which routinely received lectures on these things from a Cardinal on this very subject is the one in the wrong. It is completely in line with the teachings of the church. It's you who are in the wrong here. You are not allowed to kill as punishment or in defense. In the case of the former, you are killing to show that killing is wrong which puts you in the wrong by definition. In the latter case if you had lived according to God's law you would be rewarded upon death and fighting back if you rejecting Gods reward in favor of perpetuating sin.


originally posted by: StalkerSolent
So, do you think that morality has any bearing on laws?


In an ideal world it doesn't. In the reality we currently live in though? If there's one thing people love to do, it's to project their lifestyle and beliefs onto others. The law is all too often an extension of this.



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 04:16 PM
link   
originally posted by: Aazadan


What does having the right have to do with anything? Having the right to do something doesn't necessarily make it good. You can cut someone off in traffic or cheat in a card game. Neither of those are illegal or forbidden, and the law will even be on your side if the other person gets mad and attacks you. Does that mean those are proper actions to take? The Bible does not forbid those acts, and neither does the Quran, Torah, or any other major book.


Ah, but you miss my point. Where do rights come from?



Neat. So a school which routinely received lectures on these things from a Cardinal on this very subject is the one in the wrong. It is completely in line with the teachings of the church.


Which church? Because the Catholic church seems to be OK with self defense.



It's you who are in the wrong here.

That may be the case




You are not allowed to kill as punishment or in defense. In the case of the former, you are killing to show that killing is wrong which puts you in the wrong by definition. In the latter case if you had lived according to God's law you would be rewarded upon death and fighting back if you rejecting Gods reward in favor of perpetuating sin.


Welp, the Catholic church (in New Hampshire, anyway) would disagree with you




In an ideal world it doesn't. In the reality we currently live in though? If there's one thing people love to do, it's to project their lifestyle and beliefs onto others. The law is all too often an extension of this.


So, in this ideal world, are we allowed to punish people for murdering other people?



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Xaphan

Hiya friend.

Perhaps that's why people like this guy Phil and others like him NEED religion.




How would they behave if it was somehow proven that this reward actually didn't exist? Would they still be able to follow these guidelines if they felt there was no longer any point?


Sometimes, though not always, I think it's better that they do follow the proverbial carrot on the stick. How would it really look like if they hadn't? Will the beast inside creep up and it the humanity within? See, I've dealt with my "demons", but what about others? Some people seem to NEED this, else...



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 07:35 PM
link   
originally posted by: Krazysh0t



Unless you believe that Shamash, god of Justice was a real god that handed down the Code of Hammurabi to the people, then you have to admit that morality came from humans.


This point doesn't stand. You can believe that morality was written on the hearts of man and that people just attributed it to random gods to increase the law's legitimacy (or their own.) Or you could believe that empathy-based morality was in effect, but that there is *still* an objective morality. Or you could believe that the Code of Hammurabi was written to uphold the social order and happened to align in some (or all, or no) points with an objective morality. Or, you could believe some combination of the above. Any of these options are well within the pale of Christian thought. Just because a moral system is created by mankind does not mean there is *not* an objective moral standards.

Another nifty option posited by some *atheists* is that there is a Platonic "form of the good" that sets an objective morality apart from any Deity. This idea is not without its problems, of course.



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 10:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
Ah, but you miss my point. Where do rights come from?


Society. Humans decide as a group what their rights are. Maybe if I phrase it in a more Christian way you will agree. The modern day concept is that the participants in a religion are the church, but it is also said that the church is the body of God. Therefore you are the body of God. If it is God that dictates certain things as inalienable rights then it is effectively saying that you, your family, your neighbor, and your townsfolk dictate those rights. Or as James Madison put it we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights. Our creator is those who give us life (our parents), and those who shape the person we become (society). So the roundabout answer to your question is our rights come from other people.



Which church? Because the Catholic church seems to be OK with self defense.


That pdf says a person who kills in self defense is not guilty of murder. They are still guilty of killing another, and one of the commandments is don't kill. Not don't murder, but don't kill. Or to quote directly from the literature you gave me


If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's


They quite clearly say that it is wrong to use self defense to kill another. It also says that accidents happen, but that you shouldn't set out with the intention of killing another. The intent here is more important than the result, if you answer lethal force with lethal force of your own you are guilty. If you stop the threat but the person unintentionally dies anyways you are in the clear.


So, in this ideal world, are we allowed to punish people for murdering other people?


Punishments for breaking the law can exist without morality. What is immoral about speeding? Why is there a punishment for it? People are perfectly capable of identifying what creates a dysfunctional society and outlaw it without relying on morality.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join