Ask An Atheist Anything

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by ChickenPie
I asked you why we should avoid pain and like a dunce you replied by explaining what pain is or what it can lead to.

I did not explain what pain is. I provided my actual response cut and pasted from this thread. Like I said, use my actual posts instead of inventing your own dialogue.

You're correct in the literal sense, but we're discussing morality here. To give what I'm saying more perspective, why should I not hurt other people? Is your answer going to be I shouldn't hurt people because I will hurt them? Are you kidding?

There are consequences that come from hurting others. This should be self-evident.

Duh...

You get hurt... damaged... your life may be threatened, but that answer just explains the reality of pain. But the reality of pain does not mean it should be categorized as bad. And if you're not categorizing pain as bad (which you obviously are), then why do you avoid it? Your answer will be to explain the reality of pain, again... It's OK, sir. Not everyone can be as smart as me. Maybe one day you'll get it.

Originally posted by ChickenPie
Your claim: morality is subjective. It's worth noting that you didn't say you believe morality is subjective. If that claim is true, then it implies certain things. One of which is that God does not exist, because God would be objective morality.

No, my statement only implies such a thing if you believe there's a god and it provides an objective morality. You need to support your beliefs first before insisting my statement makes implications about your beliefs.

If you want to work a different angle by saying since evidence shows that God probably doesn't exist, then it follows objective morality probably doesn't exist either, then that's different. But you didn't do that. You unequivocally claimed that morality is subjective. You didn't say it probably doesn't exist, or you believe that it doesn't exist, etc. You lose. Good day sir.

Not to mention, the whole idea that there exists the possibility of creating evidence to prove God's existence is ridiculous in itself as a point out here:

www.belowtopsecret.com...

If it's not clear to you, I am an atheist. As I stated, there is no apparent god and there is no objective evidence confirming the existence of any deities. It's your job to support you claims that there is a god and that this god provides objective morality. No more avoiding it.

Now, if you're claiming that it's ridiculous to provide evidence to support you claim that there is a god then your claim of a god is unsupported and something I'm not going to consider as a factor when discussing moral behavior. You can either take on the burden of supporting your claims and beliefs or leave them out of the discussion.

Originally posted by ChickenPie
Duh...

You get hurt... damaged... your life may be threatened, but that answer just explains the reality of pain. But the reality of pain does not mean it should be categorized as bad. And if you're not categorizing pain as bad (which you obviously are), then why do you avoid it? Your answer will be to explain the reality of pain, again... It's OK, sir. Not everyone can be as smart as me. Maybe one day you'll get it.

That answer does not "explain the reality of pain". It simply states that there are consequences. Nor does it imply that it should not be categorized as bad. Though the reasoning in your response implies that there is a subjective interpretation of events in play which supports my statement about the subjectivity of morals. So which is it that you're arguing here? Oh, and while you're at it please provide the evidence of this objective morality you keep referring to and if you can, the evidence for the god you believe provides it.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by ChickenPie
Your claim: morality is subjective. It's worth noting that you didn't say you believe morality is subjective. If that claim is true, then it implies certain things. One of which is that God does not exist, because God would be objective morality.

No, my statement only implies such a thing if you believe there's a god

This makes absolutely no sense. Let me try this again with you.

You're an atheist. Are you a strong atheist? A weak atheist? I don't know.

If you want to say based on evidence God probably doesn't exist, and then go ahead and make a small leap of faith and say God does not exist, even though you do not have certain knowledge, then that's your business. If that's what you think, then you can say things like, "Morality is subjective." But it follows that this statement would also be a small leap of faith.

Then there's the possibility that based on evidence you have concluded God probably doesn't exist. In this scenario, it would follow that you would also believe morality is probably subjective...

Do you understand yet?

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by ChickenPie
Duh...

You get hurt... damaged... your life may be threatened, but that answer just explains the reality of pain. But the reality of pain does not mean it should be categorized as bad. And if you're not categorizing pain as bad (which you obviously are), then why do you avoid it? Your answer will be to explain the reality of pain, again... It's OK, sir. Not everyone can be as smart as me. Maybe one day you'll get it.

That answer does not "explain the reality of pain". It simply states that there are consequences. Nor does it imply that it should not be categorized as bad. Though the reasoning in your response implies that there is a subjective interpretation of events in play which supports my statement about the subjectivity of morals. So which is it that you're arguing here? Oh, and while you're at it please provide the evidence of this objective morality you keep referring to and if you can, the evidence for the god you believe provides it.

Can we just end this?

Why do you avoid pain? Give me the details. Don't tell me it should be self-evident. That's lazy.

Originally posted by ChickenPie


Why do you avoid pain? Give me the details. Don't tell me it should be self-evident. That's lazy.

Can you make your points without the fluff and hysteria?

So - there is something pertinent to respond to.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

and the OP has a number of assignments, the latest of which is to report an instance of Christ teaching something that is contrary to his "love God, love each other" explanation of how to be right with God.

I'm sorry, I don't believe I challenged that. If I said something that was interpreted that way I apologize: I wasn't claiming such a thing. What were the other "assignments"?

[edit on 1-8-2010 by traditionaldrummer]

I pointed out that Christ's teaching was "love God, love each other", and you replied:

It would have been nice if he simply would have left it at that. But of course he didn't, and he has much more than this to say about things.

There's no "interpretation" in there that I'm getting wrong -- you're flat out saying that Christ subsequently made statements that contradict his two great commandments. I asked you to cite an example in scripture of Jesus teaching something that is contrary to the core message of love God, love one another. If there are none, then he did "leave it at that", and you're misrepresenting my faith, yet again.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by adjensen

And refusing to answer a question, which you have consistently continued to do, makes your participation in a thread about asking questions a bit redundant, aside from hoping for a few "atta-boys" from like thinkers who appreciate your non-answers.

You are wrong.

I have answered it. You simply refuse to acknowledge it - because you didn't like the answer.

Here's your last word on the subject, in this thread:

Although humans are animals with inherent instinct - - - they can also reason and work with their evolved knowledge and understanding.

I see Zero need for any external force.

That's pretty much a non-answer, at least in being a valid proof of anything. You're saying that the selfish child "figures sharing out", without direction, disapproval, or input from anyone else. And that's obviously absurd, so you duck the question because you apparently can't bear to say "okay, I was wrong, there is a need for an external force, I just don't want it to be God."

On another note - - I did however notice you chose to totally glaze over the information about Hitler being religious.

No I didn't, I even commented on it. If Hitler was religious, he clearly had a skewed perspective on religion, the Nazis committed their atrocities for power and control, not in the name of religion, and I've never denied that people of faith can do pretty terrible things.

reply to post by adjensen

I pointed out that Christ's teaching was "love God, love each other", and you replied:


It would have been nice if he simply would have left it at that. But of course he didn't, and he has much more than this to say about things.

I think, and i don't wish to misinterpret, what Tradionaldrummer is saying that if his message is of love, and love only, why would he condone genoside or slavery of any people? why would he even sacrifice his "son"? (and i know what you'll say: "he died for our sins") Why would he flood a race of people just because a few are causing trouble? Why would he command Abraham to sacrifice his own son? Why would you see this as morally accetable? Why would he condemn homosexuals when they act on "love" too, why would it even be considered a sin, or a shame

if God's main principle is "love". Why would it give you prejiduce, why would it cause wars if thats how it caused people to act, why would it be causing evangelical christians to be preaching "GOD HATES FAGS"

There are many questions to your God's claim to love, his need for edornment, his dictatorial absolutist values that are not subject to the same updates and progression as secular society.

[edit on 1/8/10 by awake_and_aware]

Originally posted by ChickenPie

Do you understand yet?

What I understand quite well is that when required to back up your statements about there being a god and that same god providing objective morality that you'll go to great lengths to avoid doing so.

Originally posted by ChickenPie
Can we just end this?

Why do you avoid pain? Give me the details. Don't tell me it should be self-evident. That's lazy.

I avoid pain because I find it unpleasant.

I don't go into huge amounts of detail because apparently it takes us three pages to unravel the misunderstandings you got from a single sentence response that I made.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by adjensen

 

I pointed out that Christ's teaching was "love God, love each other", and you replied:


It would have been nice if he simply would have left it at that. But of course he didn't, and he has much more than this to say about things.

I think, and i don't wish to misinterpret, what Tradionaldrummer is saying that if his message is of love, and love only, why would he condone genoside or slavery of any people? why would he even sacrifice his "son"? (and i know what you'll say: "he died for our sins") Why would he flood a race of people just because a few are causing trouble? Why would he command Abraham to sacrifice his own son? Why would you see this as morally accetable? Why would he condemn homosexuals when they act on "love" too, why would it even be considered a sin, or a shame

if God's main principle is "love". Why would it give you prejiduce, why would it cause wars if thats how it caused people to act, why would it be causing evangelical christians to be preaching "GOD HATES FAGS"

There are many questions to your God's claim to love, his need for edornment, his dictatorial absolutist values that are not subject to the same updates and progression as secular society.

[edit on 1/8/10 by awake_and_aware]

Look, you clearly do not understand Christian theology, so I'll skip the question of "why would he sacrifice his son". My comments, and TD's response, are limited to the teachings of Jesus, so forget all of that Old Testament stuff. Christians are not reconciled to God through the Bible, or the law of the OT, we are reconciled through Jesus. Again, your lack of understanding of Christian faith causes you to make foolish misrepresentations of the faith.

As for entities like the Westboro Baptist Church, I know of no one (but you, apparently, because it helps your cause to do so,) that sees them as Christians in any sense of the word.

If I go out and act like an ass in your name, is that your fault or mine?

Originally posted by adjensen
I pointed out that Christ's teaching was "love God, love each other", and you replied:

It would have been nice if he simply would have left it at that. But of course he didn't, and he has much more than this to say about things.

There's no "interpretation" in there that I'm getting wrong -- you're flat out saying that Christ subsequently made statements that contradict his two great commandments.

I went back to try to find that post to see what you had said but I couldn't find it. I thought you said said he had (paraphrasing) based his whole religion on those statements or those concepts, something to that effect. And that's what I based my comment on - NOT that I suggested that Jesus made contradictory statements, and there's nothing in my quoted reply that indicates I thought Jesus made contradictory statements. I'm not misinterpreting your faith "again", as you said, and in all fairness it appears that you are interpreting my response incorrectly. Once again, if I misinterpreted something or lead you to believe that's what I was implying with my statement, I wasn't.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware

I think, and i don't wish to misinterpret, what Tradionaldrummer is saying that if his message is of love, and love only, why would he condone genoside or slavery of any people? why would he even sacrifice his "son"? (and i know what you'll say: "he died for our sins") Why would he flood a race of people just because a few are causing trouble? Why would he command Abraham to sacrifice his own son? Why would you see this as morally accetable? Why would he condemn homosexuals when they act on "love" too, why would it even be considered a sin, or a shame

That's not what I was actually saying and that one response of mine has received way too much attention. I wish I could find the post I was responding to but I couldn't.

To establish the proper context, I thought adjensen said something to the effect of the entire religion being based on a simple instruction. All I was saying is that Jesus said a lot more things than one nice sentence.

If anyone read more into it than that I hope this explanation can clear up any misunderstandings from not making myself clear enough the first time. My apologies.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by adjensen
I pointed out that Christ's teaching was "love God, love each other", and you replied:

It would have been nice if he simply would have left it at that. But of course he didn't, and he has much more than this to say about things.

There's no "interpretation" in there that I'm getting wrong -- you're flat out saying that Christ subsequently made statements that contradict his two great commandments.

I went back to try to find that post to see what you had said but I couldn't find it. I thought you said said he had (paraphrasing) based his whole religion on those statements or those concepts, something to that effect. And that's what I based my comment on - NOT that I suggested that Jesus made contradictory statements, and there's nothing in my quoted reply that indicates I thought Jesus made contradictory statements. I'm not misinterpreting your faith "again", as you said, and in all fairness it appears that you are interpreting my response incorrectly. Once again, if I misinterpreted something or lead you to believe that's what I was implying with my statement, I wasn't.

Here's the original, your reply and my reply to that, which still stands.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

If I said that "it's all wrapped up in that sentence" (which I did,) then you saying "he has much more than this to say about things" is either you saying that he subsequently contradicts that core, or you making a nonsense statement of "he has much more to say, and it's all in support of that core, and that bothers me."

I'm not interpreting what you said, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're not making a nonsense statement and that you know of words or actions of Jesus that contradict what he told that fellow in Luke.

Originally posted by adjensen

Here's the original, your reply and my reply to that, which still stands.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

If I said that "it's all wrapped up in that sentence" (which I did,) then you saying "he has much more than this to say about things" is either you saying that he subsequently contradicts that core, or you making a nonsense statement of "he has much more to say, and it's all in support of that core, and that bothers me."

I've already stated multiple times that I did not mean the Jesus contradicted himself. All I was saying is that he had much more to say than the single sentence - not necessarily that it bothers me. It would have been much nicer if he had left it at that one simple concept but he didn't.

For example, Jesus introduces some very specific concepts about Hell, something largely absent from the first two thirds of the bible. Now, this may support the core of the "love god" message but these concepts add a rather strict "or else" to the end of it. So, although it would have been nice if the entire religion were based on the simple "love god" concept, it's not intellectually honest to represent christianity as being that simple.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by adjensen

Here's the original, your reply and my reply to that, which still stands.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

If I said that "it's all wrapped up in that sentence" (which I did,) then you saying "he has much more than this to say about things" is either you saying that he subsequently contradicts that core, or you making a nonsense statement of "he has much more to say, and it's all in support of that core, and that bothers me."

I've already stated multiple times that I did not mean the Jesus contradicted himself. All I was saying is that he had much more to say than the single sentence - not necessarily that it bothers me. It would have been much nicer if he had left it at that one simple concept but he didn't.

For example, Jesus introduces some very specific concepts about Hell, something largely absent from the first two thirds of the bible. Now, this may support the core of the "love god" message but these concepts add a rather strict "or else" to the end of it. So, although it would have been nice if the entire religion were based on the simple "love god" concept, it's not intellectually honest to represent christianity as being that simple.

Okay, fair enough. And I would agree with your point, I'd just as soon not have that component, as well, as I've said before. But it is what it is. From my standpoint (not yours,) the fact that he says it validates that it is real, and it was important enough for him to teach on. But I still opt for the other side of things, wanting to follow him out of love, not fear.

[edit on 1-8-2010 by adjensen]

Originally posted by adjensen
Okay, fair enough. And I would agree with your point, as well. I'd just as soon not have that component, as well, as I've said before. But it is what it is. From my standpoint (not yours,) the fact that he says it validates that it is real, and it was important enough for him to teach on. But I still opt for the other side of things, wanting to follow him out of love, not fear.

Well, naturally I have a far different viewpoint on the matter than you but I respect your right to believe in all of it as you wish. I too would prefer, as you, to opt for following out of love (although I have issues with that as well) rather than the accompanying somewhat coercive element of the fear of hell. Without that element alone we may not have had splinter fanatic groups such as Westboro - you never know. But I digress. I hope we've got beyond the issues that arose from that one comment I made. So anyway, were there any other "assignments" as you'd said that require a follow-up?

Originally posted by adjensen

There's no "interpretation" in there that I'm getting wrong -- you're flat out saying that Christ subsequently made statements that contradict his two great commandments. I asked you to cite an example in scripture of Jesus teaching something that is contrary to the core message of love God, love one another. If there are none, then he did "leave it at that", and you're misrepresenting my faith, yet again.

You want me to reference scripture? Are you serious?!?!

Why would I reference scripture? I don't believe in Jesus.

The bible and scripture has no meaning to me - Zero.



[edit on 1-8-2010 by Annee]

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by adjensen

There's no "interpretation" in there that I'm getting wrong -- you're flat out saying that Christ subsequently made statements that contradict his two great commandments. I asked you to cite an example in scripture of Jesus teaching something that is contrary to the core message of love God, love one another. If there are none, then he did "leave it at that", and you're misrepresenting my faith, yet again.

You want me to reference scripture? Are you serious?!?!

Why would I reference scripture? I don't believe in Jesus.

The bible and scripture has no meaning to me - Zero.



[edit on 1-8-2010 by Annee]

If you would be a little more reflective, and a lot less reactive, you'd have taken enough time to read what I wrote and seen that it wasn't directed to you. I don't really care what your opinion of scripture is, but thanks for sharing.