Atheism - Paradox

  • Thread starter Thread starter swplan76
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
:rolleyes:

No, pseudo-morality that has nothing to do with protecting real people is considered invalid. Having (safe) sex is not harmful, and therefore not immoral. Just like being gay, working at a landfill, or anything else that makes you say “eww” is not immoral.
I wouldn’t expect an atheist to say anything otherwise. But you are still wrong, sorry.
 
How is it irrelevant?
Because you put it to hitchens personally when his statement did not imply that.

You also didn’t qualify the statement…by your statement I read that all sex is immoral. is that right? Even sex between a married coulpe? hmmm…just some observations.
 
And those examples are irrelevant, because becoming a monk is not a moral question.
The practice of chastity and obedience is a Christian virtue. Hence, can an atheist live up to these Christian standards? Heck, can an atheist live out in totality the Christian/Catholic moral code? He is stating that they can, and I state no they can’t (not without the grace of God working through them).
 
Because you put it to hitchens personally when his statement did not imply that.
Well, he said athiests (which would include him) could do anything morally that a Christian could. But I doubt he would even take the challenge of his own statement so who cares what that dude says? 🤷
You also didn’t qualify the statement…by your statement I read that all sex is immoral. is that right? Even sex between a married coulpe? hmmm…just some observations.
No, I didn’t mean what you imply.
 
:rolleyes:

No, pseudo-morality that has nothing to do with protecting real people is considered invalid. Having (safe) sex is not harmful, and therefore not immoral. Just like being gay, working at a landfill, or anything else that makes you say “eww” is not immoral.
But Christopher Hitchens is comparing himself/atheists to Christians, i.e., Christian morality. So whether you agree with that morality or not is of no import (because that was not relevant to the statement he made).

Edit: This is the problem with moral relativism. You get to decide what’s moral.
 
I think we have a misconception here. Morality doesn’t evolve, discernment does. The way a person conceives of something may change but the subject does not. Murder is wrong, always has been. But people discern murder in different ways. People justify it in different ways.

People perceived slavery as acceptable 250 years ago, that doesn’t mean God did. Christians are called on today to denounce slavery because people have conceived that slavery is contrary to love. Whether that is relative to God is up to the person doing the discernment. Obviously, Christians believe that love has it’s source in God. Atheists do not. That doesn’t change the source of love or the morality that is defined by love. It may however change a person’s discernment of love and therefore change the social perception of everything having to do with love, such as sex.

Atheist: there is no God so love doesn’t come from God and sex doesn’t necessarily come from love so God plays absolutely no part in sex or love. (kinda sad really) It just kinda happens wherever, whenever for whatever reason. :confused:

Christian: love comes from God. Sex should come from love, the kind that takes place with commitment. Therefore the two are intertwined with God for God’s purpose, not ours. We love one another for God’s purpose, not our own. God’s will is done when love is experienced. Anything to the contrary is outside of God’s will. It’s pretty simple.
 
About this statement above, Didn’t god perceive slavery as OK since the beginning of civilizations, if you read the bible ? :confused:
And the time has come, sigh.

Yes, but are you speaking of slavery in the time of Moses or slavery in the time of persecution of blacks? Very different form of slavery. Again, morals don’t change, people’s perception of them does. Case in point.
 
And the time has come, sigh.

Yes, but are you speaking of slavery in the time of Moses or slavery in the time of persecution of blacks? Very different form of slavery. Again, morals don’t change, people’s perception of them does. Case in point.
I dunno, a slave is a slave.
from where I sit, at one time god condoned it and later he (or his people actually interpreting things differently) condems it.
 
I dunno, a slave is a slave.
from where I sit, at one time god condoned it and later he (or his people actually interpreting things differently) condems it.
Well, that’s a good way to oversimplify it and reiterating what I noted. The subject has already been traversed in this forum and I’m sure there are others here who are better at debating slavery in antiquity with you.
 
About this statement above, Didn’t god perceive slavery as OK since the beginning of civilizations, if you read the bible ? :confused:
Furthermore, I think people were perceiving slavery itself much different than God did. Once again proving that perception evolves, not the basic right or wrong.
 
Let us not forget that if we’d followed God’s prescribed morals (his will) in the beginning, we’d still be in Eden. 😃

Okay I’m done. I seem to be alone. 😊
 
Well, that’s a good way to oversimplify it and reiterating what I noted. The subject has already been traversed in this forum and I’m sure there are others here who are better at debating slavery in antiquity with you.
Okay, I’ll try to find it in this forum when I have some time (I’m at work, and while it’s relatively easy to reply on the last few posts of a thread, searching will take some time.)
 
Okay, I’ll try to find it in this forum when I have some time (I’m at work, and while it’s relatively easy to reply on the last few posts of a thread, searching will take some time.)
I will offer this (however from a Christian POV), take the Hebrews who were delivered from “slavery” by the Romans in Exodus. If God had intended the persecution of humans in this manner, then He wouldn’t have freed them from it.

Slavery in Scripture is not equatable to the persecution of certain groups of people through slavery as has been the case in modern times. In fact, I believe Scriptures denouce persecution (by slavery) of people that stems fro racism of any kind.
 
How is adoring his creator moral? :confused:
Moral: [Good or right in conduct or character]

Adoring his creator shows his good conduct and his good character.

I believe in God. You don’t. So what? One of us is right and the other is wrong. I am happy with my belief and so should you be with yours unless you have doubts.

Atheists do not believe in Satan either. I am very sure that he is happy that you do not. You see, if you are wrong about God, then he gets you for eternity by default and you will not be aware of it until it is too late.

After the judgment, which you do not believe in, there are but two places available to spend eternity; the one is heaven and the other is hell.

Atheists claim “morality” for themselves because they believe that when they do good moral things, that these things are strictly done due to their own volition, but the Christian would say that this is simply the atheist obeying the law of God that is written in every man’s heart. (Romans 2:14-16)

What it boils down to is this, either a person believes in God or he does not. But, whichever the belief chosen, each person should be sure that he is happy with his choice, because his belief is a choice that cannot be changed once he dies and he will face the consequences of his choice for eternity.

Whether a person believes in eternity or not makes no difference. There either is an eternity or there is not. Its existence does not depend on anyone’s personal belief in it. There either is a God, or there is not. His existence does not depend on anyone’s personal belief in Him. There either is a heaven and hell or there is not. Their existence does not depend on anyone’s personal belief in them. Satan either exists or he does not. His existence does not depend on anyone’s personal belief in him.

We each are free to make our own choices. :extrahappy:
 
The key word here is still faith :cool:
When we get down to it, faith is the basis for everyone, not just Theists. In real life, you have to make a value judgment for actions. That value is based on something you cannot prove beyond a doubt, therefore you base it on faith.
Since “Creator” is still unproven, there are some problems with this statement.
So is a lack of one. It amazes me that people who appreciate science and reason so much would come to the conclusion that there is no meaning to the order that they see or nothing which gave them the ability to see that order in the first place. Instead, they loop around into their own causal framework, which is far more easier to disprove as the creator of the universe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top