Ask An Atheist Anything

Originally posted by adjensen

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.

OK - I apologize as I did respond to the wrong post.

Reflective? Don't understand what I should be reflective of.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by adjensen

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.

OK - I apologize as I did respond to the wrong post.

Reflective? Don't understand what I should be reflective of.

He's telling you to think before you write so you won't have to apologize for responding to the wrong post again.

You should watch this video for your own benefit before it's too late.

www.youtube.com...

[edit on 2-8-2010 by ChickenPie]

Originally posted by ChickenPie

He's telling you to think before you write so you won't have to apologize for responding to the wrong post again.

Truthfully - I was reading a response to me - got distracted - came back and responded to the wrong one.

I am hardly the first person to respond to the wrong post.

I'd think by my short aphoristic style - you'd know I'm not much of a "fem" gabfest - - but the video was cute.

Just threw the Reflective part in for fun.

Oh Yeah - and I just had dental surgery and I'm on meds.



[edit on 2-8-2010 by Annee]

reply to post by ChickenPie


So I was wondering if you had yet managed to present your case for 1. the existence of the existence of a deity, and 2. the objective morality provided by this deity.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
reply to post by ChickenPie

 

So I was wondering if you had yet managed to present your case for 1. the existence of the existence of a deity, and 2. the objective morality provided by this deity.

I've never made such a claim.

However, you've claimed that morality is subjective. We've been over this before.

Originally posted by ChickenPie

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
reply to post by ChickenPie

 

So I was wondering if you had yet managed to present your case for 1. the existence of the existence of a deity, and 2. the objective morality provided by this deity.

I've never made such a claim.

However, you've claimed that morality is subjective. We've been over this before.

You claimed that there was a god and that god provided an objective morality. You did so while making assumptions about my observation that morality is subjective.

I'm just wondering if you're willing to support your stance. Otherwise you have no basis for your objection and assumptions.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by ChickenPie

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
reply to post by ChickenPie

 

So I was wondering if you had yet managed to present your case for 1. the existence of the existence of a deity, and 2. the objective morality provided by this deity.

I've never made such a claim.

However, you've claimed that morality is subjective. We've been over this before.

You claimed that there was a god and that god provided an objective morality. You did so while making assumptions about my observation that morality is subjective.

I'm just wondering if you're willing to support your stance. Otherwise you have no basis for your objection and assumptions.

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.

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.

This still puzzles me, what does the fact that moral is subjective has to do with the existence of god? We know it is subjective because we observe different morals between different cultures and between different time periods. If this fact means to you that god does not exists, then you are either an atheist or denying reality.

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.

And there's your claim. Back it up.

Prove the existence of this "god", then establish your assertion that this "god would be objective morality".

Originally posted by -PLB-
This still puzzles me, what does the fact that moral is subjective has to do with the existence of god? We know it is subjective because we observe different morals between different cultures and between different time periods. If this fact means to you that god does not exists, then you are either an atheist or denying reality.

That was exactly my reaction when I read that post.

Subjective morality - - does not necessarily eliminate the possibility of god.

Both could exist simultaneously. (NO I am not saying god exists).

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by -PLB-
This still puzzles me, what does the fact that moral is subjective has to do with the existence of god? We know it is subjective because we observe different morals between different cultures and between different time periods. If this fact means to you that god does not exists, then you are either an atheist or denying reality.

That was exactly my reaction when I read that post.

Subjective morality - - does not necessarily eliminate the possibility of god.

Both could exist simultaneously. (NO I am not saying god exists).

Honestly, this guy is assumptive and arrogant with no reason and absolutely nothing to back up his assertions. We'll see if he can back up his claims (but he can't) or whether he'll keep waffling (which he will).

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


What gets me is - when you answer a question directly and succinctly - with logic and real situations - - - not faith or the "unseen".

"They" refuse to accept or acknowledge it. As if "they" can not function on their own.

And YOU always give those kind of answers.

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.

And there's your claim. Back it up.

Prove the existence of this "god", then establish your assertion that this "god would be objective morality".

Once again, I've not claimed anything. Did you even read what you replied to?

You're the one claiming that morality is subjective. I'm just discussing the implications of such a claim.

Honestly, this guy is assumptive and arrogant with no reason and absolutely nothing to back up his assertions.

Ironic.

We'll see if he can back up his claims (but he can't) or whether he'll keep waffling (which he will).

What claim have I made?

You've claimed that morality is subjective and I've simply explained to you the implications of that claim. I've also tried explaining to you why such an idea is dangerous.

Finally, the three of you are starting to sound like a group of girls passing notes to each other in gym class. Of course you agree with each other... because all three of you are ignorant and all three of you hold the same illogical ideas.


[edit on 2-8-2010 by ChickenPie]

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by -PLB-
This still puzzles me, what does the fact that moral is subjective has to do with the existence of god? We know it is subjective because we observe different morals between different cultures and between different time periods. If this fact means to you that god does not exists, then you are either an atheist or denying reality.

That was exactly my reaction when I read that post.

Subjective morality - - does not necessarily eliminate the possibility of god.

Both could exist simultaneously. (NO I am not saying god exists).

See, this is completely illogical.

Just because you write something doesn't make it true. Explain yourself. Wouldn't God have an opinion? If a God had an opinion, then how would it not supersede everyone else's? If God's opinion supersedes everyone else's, then wouldn't that make it objective?

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.

And there's your claim. Back it up.

Prove the existence of this "god", then establish your assertion that this "god would be objective morality".

You still have not adequately rebutted the following:

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.

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.

Instead, you continue to act like I'm the one making a claim. You're being ridiculous.

[edit on 2-8-2010 by ChickenPie]

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by ChickenPie
But it's nice to know that you think morality is subjective. That's not a dangerous idea at all.

Morality is subjective and arbitrary.

On page 51 traditionaldrummer made this claim. I'd like to know what his claim is based on. After traditionaldrummer tells me what his claim is based on, then I'll gladly explain to you kids why it's merely a belief of his.

[edit on 2-8-2010 by ChickenPie]

Originally posted by ChickenPie

Finally, the three of you are starting to sound like a group of girls passing notes to each other in gym class. Of course you agree with each other... because all three of you are ignorant and all three of you hold the same illogical ideas.

Ignorant: lack of knowledge or intelligence. Uh - because why?

Posters in an Atheist thread who do not believe in a god - agree. Shocking!

Illogical: not observing the principles of logic. Interesting.

Originally posted by ChickenPie

Originally posted by Annee

That was exactly my reaction when I read that post.

Subjective morality - - does not necessarily eliminate the possibility of god.

Both could exist simultaneously. (NO I am not saying god exists).

See, this is completely illogical.

Just because you write something doesn't make it true. Explain yourself. Wouldn't God have an opinion? If a God had an opinion, then how would it not supersede everyone else's? If God's opinion supersedes everyone else's, then wouldn't that make it objective?

That doesn't make sense to you? Really? I realize I post very simplistically.

Is God now a dictator? What ever happened to Free Will?

Try this: Subjective morality - - and the "belief" in god can exist simultaneously.

I would like you to explain to me exactly what "subjective morality" is.

Originally posted by ChickenPie

You still have not adequately rebutted the following:

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.

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.

I think I need a translator.

Is it just me?

Seriously - - the pain meds and anti-biotics are kind of strong. Is that why I feel I'm on a "whirligig"?

reply to post by ChickenPie


I would like you to explain what this means: Morality is subjective and arbitrary.

I want to know - if you know - what you are arguing against.