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.
Second, an atheist gets his morals from instinct or parents - so a child that is beaten by his parents, sees nothing else but violence has every right to treat others the same? As I said, the atheist position is ridiculous.
It's a shame you don't see life as sacred. That is THE problem.
The fact that morals have gone down the toilet
primarily due to atheism and the notion of evolution,
and so as you say, life isn't valued or respected.
A murderer is the product of a bad upbringing,
so isn't inherently to blame.
It's a sad sick world, and I have to say that although you might be a fantastic individual, reading parts of your post made me feel actually sick.
You say "No part of what I said was tantamount to the idea that the child has the right to to harm to others."
According to your previous sources of morals, the child has every right to harm others, as it is right in the eyes of the child and no absolute morals exist. Who are you to judge what is right?
Macro evolution, which relates to your monkey comment isn't at all factual. There is absolutely no proof of it whatsoever.
I think the thing that made me want to vomit the most was the statement "Life is not sacred and therefore lives can be valued and all lives are not of equal value".
This type of belief is like that of Adolf Hitler
Originally posted by sinthia
reply to post by mr-lizard
My comments weren't directed at you. My initial point earlier in the thread was that the atheist position is ridiculous (see for yourself). The moral debate just seems to be how things turn out.
Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by sinthia
You say "No part of what I said was tantamount to the idea that the child has the right to to harm to others."
According to your previous sources of morals, the child has every right to harm others, as it is right in the eyes of the child and no absolute morals exist. Who are you to judge what is right?
And who are you to? Everyone has a different take on what is right and what is wrong. I personally base my morals on the mist logical I can conceive.
Exactly. Everyone has a different take on what is right and wrong in your view - hence there is no absolutes. If I wanted to kill someone in your worldview, it is totally fine if I decide what is wrong or right.
Macro evolution, which relates to your monkey comment isn't at all factual. There is absolutely no proof of it whatsoever.
Said like a true christian who appreciates the science she likes and disregards the science she doesn't by ignoring the science-proven macro evolution (which is just lots of microevolution - it's like saying you get cents but you don't get dollars).
Perhaps you have some proof of macro evolution you could share with me?
There is evidence of dogs changing breeds, but NO EVIDENCE of dogs turning into anything other than dogs. If you have evidence to the contrary, i'm sure even the evolutionists will be interested in it, because they haven't yet got any.
I think the thing that made me want to vomit the most was the statement "Life is not sacred and therefore lives can be valued and all lives are not of equal value".
This type of belief is like that of Adolf Hitler
Reductio ad Hitlerum. This is a logical fallacy.
What if you found yourself in a situation where there were two groups of people, one group was going to die and what you did determined which group that was. All you know is that one group has ten times as many people in it than the other. Which group do you choose?
It would be illogical and irrational to choose the small group. But you made a choice and to make it you needed to value human life.
If life was truly sacred, this could not be done and one life would be as valuable as 100 others - it's like 1 times infinity and 100 times infinity.
The idea that life is sacred always leads to this conundrum.
If I wanted to kill someone in your worldview, it is totally fine if I decide what is wrong or right.
Perhaps you have some proof of macro evolution you could share with me?
There is evidence of dogs changing breeds, but NO EVIDENCE of dogs turning into anything other than dogs. If you have evidence to the contrary, i'm sure even the evolutionists will be interested in it, because they haven't yet got any.
It's your logical fallacy!!! I merely said it was the same ideal as Adolph Hitler,
You have turned the argument around to number of lives rather than life itself - nice trick, but I spotted it.
Ironically, your example of of one life in exchange for 100 times infinity lives mirrors the sacrifice of Jesus Christ - Well done!