 |
reply posted on 19-6-2008 @ 05:40 PM by Bigwhammy
|
reply to post by Gigatronix
I understand. You are a very polite person. I suppose I'm a bit battle weary and jaded. Bottom line, I still don't take it back because after a lot
of study lately I truly do find atheism to be the antithesis of logical on many levels. One of the biggest reasons that surprised me being morality
and the Moral Law. Today I posted a science take on it The case for the creator on
BTS.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 19-6-2008 @ 08:40 PM by Gigatronix
|
 Originally posted by Bigwhammy
You are a very polite person.  I dunno about very polite hehe, look up some of my posts on other threads. One of the biggest reasons
that surprised me being morality and the Moral Law. I take it you mean your research has led you to believe they have a moral code or lack
therof that you don't agree with?Let me be the first Atheist to agree with you that some Atheists have bad moral judgement. Some use Atheism to
justify their worldview, some don't. I don't, Atheism is a byproduct of my worldview.The point is, every religion,philosophy, or ideology has people
who claim to believe in it, but also lack good moral judgement. It's a human condition, one that we're not likely to overcome anytime soon.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 20-6-2008 @ 09:47 AM by Bigwhammy
|
reply to post by Gigatronix
No I mean the very existence of universal human morality proves Gods existence. Didn't you watch my video before?
bwWaNBW6oko
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 20-6-2008 @ 03:33 PM by Gigatronix
|
Cant say that I have. However I don't believe that human morality can prove or disprove God's existence. Simply because morality
varies from culture to culture and from time period to time period. Universal human morality would be consistent and eternal, and what we have and
have had is not.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 20-6-2008 @ 10:49 PM by riley
|
Originally posted by GigatronixSimply because morality varies from culture to culture and from time period to time period. Universal
human morality would be consistent and eternal, and what we have and have had is not.
For instance.. falsely accusing fellow atheist members of being nazis and posting insults purely because "it's well deserved" even after
fellow members have respectfully asked this to stop to me is immoral. Morality does not prove god and believing in 'him' certainly doesn't make
anyone more moral than anyone else.
..and of course I agree that 'universal morality' does not prove a creator. We are a socially orienated species that depends on eachother for
survival. If we did not have moral considerations we probably would've become extinct long ago.. we're lucky we haven't wiped ourselves out
already.
[edit on 20-6-2008 by riley]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 20-6-2008 @ 11:12 PM by Bigwhammy
|
reply to post by Gigatronix
Simply because morality varies from culture to culture and from time period to time period. Universal human morality would be consistent and eternal,
and what we have and have had is not.
That is a common modern error due to the logical inconsistencies of the atheist faith. There is such a thing as absolute truth and a Moral Law written
in our consciences. This thread reveals what happens to political systems that deny that...
No actually morality doesn't vary at all. Just perceptions of the circumstances do. For instance we used to burn witches... now we don't... you
might tell me our morals changed. No they didn't. We used to believe witches murdered people with curses and destroyed crops. Now we don;t believe
that anymore. We still think murder and destroying property is wrong... we just don't think witches do it. Americans eat cows. East Indians don't.
Indians believe their grand mas soul might be in a cow... Americans don't eat grand ma either... The morality isn't different just the perception of
the circumstances.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 21-6-2008 @ 11:44 AM by Gigatronix
|
Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by Gigatronix
Simply because morality varies from culture to culture and from time period to time period. Universal human morality would be consistent and eternal,
and what we have and have had is not.
That is a common modern error due to the logical inconsistencies of the atheist faith. There is such a thing as absolute truth and a Moral Law written
in our consciences. This thread reveals what happens to political systems that deny that...
No actually morality doesn't vary at all. Just perceptions of the circumstances do. For instance we used to burn witches... now we don't... you
might tell me our morals changed. No they didn't. We used to believe witches murdered people with curses and destroyed crops. Now we don;t believe
that anymore. We still think murder and destroying property is wrong... we just don't think witches do it. Americans eat cows. East Indians don't.
Indians believe their grand mas soul might be in a cow... Americans don't eat grand ma either... The morality isn't different just the perception of
the circumstances.
Yes things changed because our concept of morality changed. Our concept of morality will continue to change.
To take a page out of your book(literally) The OT was written for Jews yes? Why are their laws so different from NT laws? Because things changed
apparently, here I thought the word of God was eternal and universal, but apparently different kinds of people need different kinds of laws.
This universal law/moral code stuff sounds like a bunch of self-serving religious blackmailing(again)
Join us so you will know the perfect moral code, if you do not you're an illogical morally bankrupt degenerate thats going to hell!
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 21-6-2008 @ 12:05 PM by Bigwhammy
|
Yes things changed because our concept of morality changed. Our concept of morality will continue to change.
No morality didn't change peoples perspectives of the circumstances did. Killing innocent people is immoral. Stealing is immoral. That has never
changed. We intrinsically know these things.
To take a page out of your book(literally) The OT was written for Jews yes? Why are their laws so different from NT laws? Because things changed
apparently, here I thought the word of God was eternal and universal, but apparently different kinds of people need different kinds of laws.
Laws are matters of state not just morality. You have them confused. You can act in a legal way that is still immoral.
This universal law/moral code stuff sounds like a bunch of self-serving religious blackmailing(again)
Join us so you will know the perfect moral code, if you do not you're an illogical morally bankrupt degenerate thats going to hell!
See you are missing the point entirely. It doesn't come from a book.
So I guess you don't not believe in basic human rights either then?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
If rights & morals are matters of human opinion - then as long as the majority agrees its moral. So in Germany Hitler was moral because he had the
popular opinion by your standard.
[edit on 6/21/2008 by Bigwhammy]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 21-6-2008 @ 12:36 PM by Gigatronix
|
 Meh I don't have the energy to get into semantics here. Believe what you want, rest assured that as an Atheist my morals are just
as sound as yours any day of the week. Where you prefer to deferr to an invisible being on moral matters, I choose to make my own way. And it's worked
out pretty good so far. Get this notion out of your head that Atheism automatically leads to nihilism,anarchy,evil, whatever. Just because you can't
wrap your head around it doesn't mean it's wrong.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 21-6-2008 @ 12:37 PM by undo
|
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 21-6-2008 @ 01:06 PM by Bigwhammy
|
reply to post by Gigatronix
Still missed the point. Your so called "atheist morals" are the same God given morals everyone else has.  The fact that humanity shares a
moral law is what points to a moral law giver.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 21-6-2008 @ 01:11 PM by riley
|
Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by Gigatronix
Still missed the point. Your so called "atheist morals" are the same God given morals everyone else has. The fact that humanity shares a
moral law is what points to a moral law giver.
..or your 'believer morals' are just a product of human evolution.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 21-6-2008 @ 01:13 PM by Bigwhammy
|
reply to post by undo
Very cool ... I saw him back in 1992 or something... amazing guitar player. I have his first record from 1973 or something
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 21-6-2008 @ 01:16 PM by Bigwhammy
|
reply to post by riley
 that's a laugh!
Sorry human morality goes completely against evolution. Evolution says we do what is necessary to survive and have your DNA carry on to the next
generation. Morality tells us we "ought" to do something even when its not to to our genetic advantage. If evolution is responsible for morality
then eugenics is completely moral.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 21-6-2008 @ 01:29 PM by riley
|
Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by riley
that's a laugh!
Sorry human morality goes completely against evolution. Evolution says we do what is necessary to survive and have your DNA carry on to the next
generation.
We are a very social species and our survival depends on co-operating with eachother. Being nice to eachother and having a support system and allies
is generally to our own advantage.
Morality tells us we "ought" to do something even when its not to to our genetic advantage.
No it doesn't.
If evolution is responsible for morality then eugenics is completely moral.
Eugenics has nothing to do with natural evolution.
[edit on 21-6-2008 by riley]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 21-6-2008 @ 01:41 PM by undo
|
reply to post by riley
No it doesn't.
Ghandi.
That's all I have to say. Thank you for reading. Have a nice day
[edit on 21-6-2008 by undo]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 21-6-2008 @ 02:07 PM by riley
|
My point was that morality is to our genetic advantage.
..and so is a second line in this post.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 21-6-2008 @ 02:43 PM by Bigwhammy
|
reply to post by riley
No its not. By Darwinian standards it make sense to kill off the defective gene pool i.e. eugenics. Life is not sacred we're just animals... We
don't keep handicapped cows alive- then why humans? Why allow the weak genes to continue in the population?
It also doesn't explain people that give their lives for a higher good. Or stop a bullet for a friend... nope morality makes no sense in Darwinian
terms.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 21-6-2008 @ 02:44 PM by undo
|
reply to post by Bigwhammy
whammy link that video you made of darwin quotes. i think that will speak volumes about what you're trying to say.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 21-6-2008 @ 02:51 PM by Bigwhammy
|
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
