Atheism and the Church

[Texas_Roofer]

Texas Roofer:

1. Since he now either violates nothing, or violates a non-binding agreement, then who does he injure?

anotherd:

It depends on his morality (as we have defined it.) If his wife and children are important to him, he may feel a sense of loss, hopelessness, helplessness, abandonment, failure, etc. or any combination of these.

Whether or not he believes in a god or not do not change the way a human being will react in this situation. We ALL can experience these feelings throughout our lives, at any time and in any manner.

Your worshiping a god or an empty coffee can does not change this fact.

This is called a Freudian slip. The question was who did he injure? The posted answer by another is himself. And thus the naked issue -----only he mattered!!! The children, wife, society, god, angels, saints, etc were not listed in the injured. So what did the atheist base his morals on? well there was his, him, he, and he, that is the references listed.

 

[WildEyedAtheist]

I find the ‘Do you actually have a question for us’ sinister. Sorry but that is how I discern it.

No offence intended. Who is the ‘us’?

Us heretics (Atheists) posting to the thread.

And no, it was not meant to be sinister or condescending in any way.

Simply an offer to engage in debate.

 

[Verisimilitude]

That is a cultural question, not a moral one.

How obtuse are you? It is a moral obligation for parents to raise their children so they are well and safe and able to join society when they are an adult. The culture has nothing to do with the obligation though it influences how they are raised.

The humanistic relativism you are spewing is about as moronic as moslem apologists justifying their faith and founder? As far as evolution being fact and natural selection being theory- bunk. You can no more prove the primordial amoeba evolved to a bird to a man- than allowing natural selection to explain Genesis after each species is created by God.

Don’t go outside when it’s raining, slick. That uptuned nose of yours might make it hard to keep breating.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

One:

Of course it matters. IF I believe something is right, and you wrong, but it’s neither right nor wrong per se but simply relatively right or wrong - depending on which chemicals are affecting us then you have no real ‘right to’ tell me I’m wrong, and vise versa.

TWO:

Uh…yeah.

You are going to have to elaborate on that convoluted statement.

it is just
Existence is a matter of faith
Nonexistence is a matter of faith

So the evaluation is faith vs faith

 

[Texas_Roofer]

…It is a moral obligation for parents to raise their children so they are well and safe and able to join society when they are an adult. The culture has nothing to do with the obligation though it influences how they are raised.

The humanistic relativism you are spewing… As far as evolution being fact and natural selection being theory- bunk. You can no more prove the primordial amoeba evolved to a bird to a man- than allowing natural selection to explain Genesis after each species is created by God…

Please let’s calm down a little. I believe God indwelled us with a set of morals which designs us to raise our children. Now if one rejects God is one free to abandon these children? If not from where does the obligation (or moral) derive?

Please lets stick to the issue

 

[Montalban]

Uh…yeah.

You are going to have to elaborate on that convoluted statement.

Ah, great master debator! You’re going to have to come up with better responses then just your say so something I say is convoluted.

We’ve gone days now with you avoiding discussion with me.

 

[Montalban]

Us heretics (Atheists) posting to the thread.

And you speak for them all!

And no, it was not meant to be sinister or condescending in any way.

Simply an offer to engage in debate.

Offer accepted by me, but declined by you who won’t answer questions.

All I get back from you is bluster

 

[WildEyedAtheist]

Evidentally giving people more information is very difficult for you as you have refused to answer this, but have instead given me some awfully interesting information on the nature of Matryoshka dolls!

Please forgive me, I did not realize how important this was to you.

Answer: I apparently did not link correctly.

I stand with head both bowed and bloodied before your razor sharp wit and insurmountable intellect (as well as your inability to use your spell check function.)

I asked you what was the point of this? Are you simply wanting people to go around in circles? It’s an attempt to see from you what it is you want. Instead you’ve avoided this all this time.

Once again, I apologize. I assumed that the intelligent people on this thread would have figured that one out for themselves (and they did.)

“Hmm, he must have made a mistake linking.”

It seems, however, that you could not. You had to have it explained to you. I m sorry to hear that.

I hope you understand, by now.

I understand you have wasted a huge mount of everyone’s time behaving like a child who won’t let go of a toy.

Actually both are pertinent to the issue of the basis of morals. You must have missed that. You gave a little post about the origins of your own morals, this goes to directly to that. You’ve missed that too!

I answered a question posed to me by TR.

We, however, wait breathlessly for you to actually ask a question ABOUT morals (or we can all sit around and throw quotes at each other.)

Who’s ‘we’

Already answered (twice). To take a quote form you, “You seemed to have missed it.”

Emotive appeal here! Very interesting play

Thank you. I do try.

 

[WildEyedAtheist]

So much anger!

Anger? Try amusement.

 

[WildEyedAtheist]

There’s at present two mutually exclusive theories;the “Out of Africa” model and the “Multi-regional” model (aka “Diregional” model)

Agreed.

There is a fossil record and it points to common decent, however, for every filled gap in the record two more are created. The answer to that largley depends on what the asker is willing to consider a “direct link.”

 

[Montalban]

Please forgive me, I did not realize how important this was to you.

Yes debate is important to me.

Answer: I apparently did not link correctly.

And that took how many days?

I stand with head both bowed and bloodied before your razor sharp wit and insurmountable intellect (as well as your inability to use your spell check function.)

That’s projection of aggression on your part. I simply wanted an answer to my question which you spent days berrating me about not asking you, and now you ‘concede’ but only whilst being sarcastic - so much for contrition on your part.

Once again, I apologize. I assumed that the intelligent people on this thread would have figured that one out for themselves (and they did.)

How clever of you to know what everyone else thinks - and of course this complelely undermines your whole attempt at not answering me - you want every argument at once; both still seeking to be snide to me for asking, then avoiding it,

It seems, however, that you could not. You had to have it explained to you. I m sorry to hear that.

As I said, you can’t make up your mind whether I’d asked you at all, before. Now you can, only that I shouldn’t have!

Step back and count to 10, your rage is unbalancing you.

I understand you have wasted a huge mount of everyone’s time behaving like a child who won’t let go of a toy.

More bluster!

I answered a question posed to me by TR.

Good for you. You want points for doing what people tend to do on debate fora?

We, however, wait breathlessly for you to actually ask a question ABOUT morals (or we can all sit around and throw quotes at each other.)

I’ve raised several points including asking one about Locke that should have evoked a reasoned response from you

Already answered (twice). To take a quote form you, “You seemed to have missed it.”

“Other people” have asked you the same question but you continue to think you can answer for everyone.

Thank you. I do try.

You call that trying. Well it’s been a trial. Several days to get one answer from you

 

[Montalban]

Anger? Try amusement.

That’s why I know you’re such a master debator. Self-amusement

You want to discuss further about Locke now, or would you rather just avoid this for a few more days?

 

[Montalban]

So far I’ve learnt the following stunning fact…

WildEyedAtheist:

Thus my moral “base” is centered on humanism and the predisposition of empathy, which is the mechanism that drives morality.

But we know that WildEyedAtheist believes all morals are subjective.

I quoted a good quote from CS Lewis that debunks this. Here it is again…

"My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too - for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist - in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless - I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality - namely my idea of justice - was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know if it was dark. Dark would be a word without meaning.

Lewis, C. S., (2002), “The Complete C S Lewis”, (Harper; San Francisco), p30.

In response I’ve had WildEyedAtheist’s just-so statement that it’s irrelevant. Why? Who knows?

Interspersed with his royal announcements (using we) I’ve seen him demand that I ask a question which he has now admitted to - but only through more bluster.

Getting a response from him that actually deals with what is written, and in a logical format has been a trial.

 

[WildEyedAtheist]

The difference is we can measure their doings against their claims.

Great! Let’s start with the Massacre of the Cathars in 1209 by the Roman Catholic Church!

Pray tell the church’s “claims against their doings” and the “morality and grace” of slaughtering 7,000 men, women, children and INFANTS (including a large number of Roman Catholics.)

They claim “X” is immoral. And if they do “X” we can say “Ah-ha, you’re being hypocritical!”

Define immoral. And why is your definition of immoral applicable to or better than anyone else’s definition of immorality?

For you we can’t because you can suddenly make anything you want ‘moral’… because you are your own judge.

Correct. Based on our “morals.” Back to square one. Why are your morals correct and my morals incorrect? Who decides?

 

[WildEyedAtheist]

Is that the same John Locke who supported slavery?

He didn’t think he had a moral right to interfere with a person’s private property

The very same!

Now tell me the Roman Catholic Church’s position on slavery during that time period AND that ALL Catholics in the South were slave free.

Don’t be a hypocrite.

 

[Montalban]

Great! Let’s start with the Massacre of the Cathars in 1209 by the Roman Catholic Church!

Pray tell the church’s “claims against their doings” and the “morality and grace” of slaughtering 7,000 men, women, children and INFANTS (including a large number of Roman Catholics.)

Already addressed. We can know that a massacre is wrong - by putting it against the measure of what the Church preaches as being ‘good’. And we can’t do this with you because you’re own sense of good may change day to day -depending upon which synapses are firing.

Define immoral.

Something no moral.

And why is your definition of immoral applicable to or better than anyone else’s definition of immorality?

See quote by Lewis

Correct. Based on our “morals.” Back to square one. Why are your morals correct and my morals incorrect? Who decides?

That’s the point! The point that you can’t decide makes your system imperfect. See reference to Locke above. He was in a bind over slavery for this very reasons because he couldn’t go up to a slaver and say “My system of morals are superior to yours, so you go on ahead and keep slaves”

Appealing ‘over’ or ‘above’ humans is not uncommon - even our laws are based on a the idea of having a system ‘above’ the individual.

By analogy if the law was as you have morals then everyone would be free to drive in whatever manner they wished to - anarchy.

 

[Montalban]

The very same!

Now tell me the Roman Catholic Church’s position on slavery during that time period AND that ALL Catholics in the South were slave free.

Irrelevant. See above regarding measures.

Don’t be a hypocrite.

How am I being a hypocrite?

 

[Montalban]

WildEyedAtheist two groups are involved.

We’ll call one “Catholics”. Catholics say “Slavery is immoral because all men are created in the image of God”

We see Catholics holding slaves. Can we judge them? Yes, against the standards they themselves propose.

How would that make me a hypocrite?

The other group, “Liberal Atheists” (such as Locke) say “Slavery is immoral to me”

Based on what? Well it is, because it is to them - because of chemical reactions, synapses firing in a certain sequence.

Can we judge them? We can. They can’t.

 

[Montalban]

WildEyedAtheist’s criticism against the massacres by the church is only relative to himself as it’s not right or wrong in an absolute sense

 

[Texas_Roofer]

…
Correct. Based on our “morals.” Back to square one. Why are your morals correct and my morals incorrect? Who decides?

It seems you said YOU decide your morals and indirectly imply each of us decides our own morals. We maintain God decided all morals. Which is to say you may have undermind all your cohorts. They usually deny being their personal moral compass, this is due to the implications of such.