Atheism - Paradox

[josie_L]

Please, please tell me that you haven’t just spent countless hours condemning stoning only to find no moral transgression in ripping a child into pieces and sucking it out of its mother’s womb!!!

Yes, cause that’s much less barbaric and horrible than stoning!



I am curious to know in what sense I am acting as my own God. I expect that I will die, but I don’t know when. Are you wearing shoes at the moment?

I would say that if you find nothing wrong with abortion, but you find stoning barbaric and morally wrong, THAT is how you are acting as your own God.

 

[Hope3]

Greed and self-gratification: they were invented by atheists in the late 1940s.

Greed and self-gratification were tempered because of fear of God and belief in the eternal consequences of offending God.

So, how has society improved since this fear of God no longer exists? Do you leave your house unlocked? We never locked ours when I was growing up. No need to.

Do you go for a walk at night by yourself without fear? I remember being able to do that.

Of course, most people were in church on Sundays also back then, so perhaps this fact just might be the reason that we did not have to lock our house doors or car doors and we could let children play at night outside without adults hovering over them worrying about their safety.

I repeat, how has society improved now that the world is as you want it – Godless?

 

[Eleve]

According to our times, yes. But things back then are not what they are now. Read about the times (and different tribes) then and maybe you’ll get a better picture.

So, you’re saying that a vast collection of hideous wrongs, coupled with a comparably smaller collection of abhorrent wrongs, produces a right?

Try to imagine yourself in God’s shoes: what would you do to ensure the maximum salvation of souls without contradicting your own nature and the free will of his creation?

I thought up an answer, but it’s futile; you can reject whatever I would do by saying that it contradicts God’s nature.

Is it so unappealing that the Almighty is willing to protect you at all cost?

Plainly, this is not what I stated to be unappealing. The theological understanding that somebody has to get brutally killed is unappealing.

You don’t fee protected by that? Nevermind. I know that question is N/A.

No, I’d feel plenty protected by that. The problem is the flip side; for the majority of people, the final judgment according to Christianity is far worse than the final judgment according to atheism.

Re abortion — by what token did this become a discussion of my views on abortion? Are you seriously trying to argue that stoning can only be wrong if abortion is wrong?

 

[Eleve]

I will answer your question when you answer mine.

Which question would that be?

(If you think that I am just too lazy to go back and figure it out, then I am guilty as charged. )

Yes, always.

Do you have a definition of “good” which you ascribe to God by this statement, or do you consider it to be a corollary of the reflexive property?

Yes, It. Is. And you won’t answer the question because you know exactly what I intend to say on the matter. Nevertheless you cannot pick and choose what consists of “fundamental” human rights or who has a right to them?

Fine. Humans. Humans have human rights. I understand that you disagree, but I do not consider a fetus to be a human being for most of its gestation. This has nothing to do with the rights of women, or anyone else liable to be stoned*, whom we can all agree (I would hope) to be human beings.

*I suppose the people most likely to be stoned are white college-aged men.

Don’t you think if He was God he would have a better sense of judgement than you do?

Yes, but I qualify that I do not consider the deity described in the Bible to meet the definition of a God by which I make this affirmation.

I repeat, how has society improved now that the world is as you want it – Godless?

Society is not “as I want it,” and it is far from godless. As for improvements, to give you even one example, I’d have to ask if you managed to sleep through the entire civil rights movement, or if anything seemed to have been moved around when you woke up.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Greed and self-gratification were tempered because of fear of God and belief in the eternal consequences of offending God.

So, how has society improved since this fear of God no longer exists? Do you leave your house unlocked? We never locked ours when I was growing up. No need to.

huh? I always hear this appeal to nostalgia, but what are we saying really? Did people molest less or did the media merely report it less? Did spousal abuse occur less often or again do we merely have more awareness of it today? When I think of decades past, sure there’s Ozzy and Harriet (which btw was only a TV show)… but there was also Jim Crow. Heck, even Mr. Brady turned out to be a gay dude with AIDS.

Do you go for a walk at night by yourself without fear?

yes I do … where the heck do you live anyway?

Of course, most people were in church on Sundays also back then, so perhaps this fact just might be the reason that we did not have to lock our house doors or car doors and we could let children play at night outside without adults hovering over them worrying about their safety.

I repeat, how has society improved now that the world is as you want it – Godless?

child abuse, spousal abuse, molestation, segregation … all went unnoticed, unreported, and unpunished. There were numerous street gangs in New York City at the turn of the century and even before. Was it anymore safe to walk the streets back then? Walk anywhere in NYC today & try to find a street gang (you’ll much sooner find one of New York’s finest patrolling the streets).

I say nostalgia is really just historical amnesia.

 

[josie_L]

So, you’re saying that a vast collection of hideous wrongs, coupled with a comparably smaller collection of abhorrent wrongs, produces a right?

It is not wrong if God deems it necessary (it is not about right and wrong at this point but what was needed to ensure that his chosen people would not succumb to surrounding influences). I’m sure God would have wanted a situation in which he wouldn’t have to use such a deterrent but that was not the case, the times were bad.

I thought up an answer, but it’s futile; you can reject whatever I would do by saying that it contradicts God’s nature.

Well, give it a go.

Re abortion — by what token did this become a discussion of my views on abortion? Are you seriously trying to argue that stoning can only be wrong if abortion is wrong?

What is your view on abortion, please?

 

[happilycatholic]

Re abortion — by what token did this become a discussion of my views on abortion? Are you seriously trying to argue that stoning can only be wrong if abortion is wrong?

No, I’m trying to figure out how someone who is against stoning adults who have commited crimes can be okay with killing an unborn child who is innocent.

But you’ve said enough to make me remember why we believe that atheists are open to morality that is subjective to human whim.

 

[Hope3]

Society is not “as I want it,” and it is far from godless. As for improvements, to give you even one example, I’d have to ask if you managed to sleep through the entire civil rights movement, or if anything seemed to have been moved around when you woke up.

How can you say it is far from godless when you do not believe in any god?

Did Dr. Martin Luther King believe in God? Yes, he was a minister. This is what his Phd was in - theology. Didn’t Martin Luther King appeal to God to help Blacks obtain civil rights? Yes! Perhaps his prayers and those of many others were actually answered by God. YES!

So, I would conclude that the civil rights movement succeeded with God’s help.

 

[josie_L]

Do you have a definition of “good” which you ascribe to God by this statement, or do you consider it to be a corollary of the reflexive property?

Jesus.

Fine. Humans. Humans have human rights. I understand that you disagree, but I do not consider a fetus to be a human being for most of its gestation. This has nothing to do with the rights of women, or anyone else liable to be stoned*, whom we can all agree (I would hope) to be human beings.

*I suppose the people most likely to be stoned are white college-aged men.

That is where you are wrong because that fetus is a human fetus, emphasis on the human. May I understand how you came to discern Catholicism when you don’t even agree with her on key moral issues?

*I suppose fetuses that are aborted are not of the human variety.

Yes, but I qualify that I do not consider the deity described in the Bible to meet the definition of a God by which I make this affirmation

.

So you’re passing judgement.

 

[Eleve]

It is not wrong if God deems it necessary

But only because you’ve built your definition of “wrong” around your definition of “God.” If I were to accept this assumption, I would also have to find nothing wrong with murder, were God ever to condone such a thing.

Oh, what’s that, 1 Samuel 15:3? Dang.

Well, give it a go.

All right. I’d obviate the need for salvation. Heaven is the presence of God, and hell is the self-willed absence of God? Fine. I’d put a punch bowl and some comfy couches in a room down the hall, and the infidels could hang there. If anyone decided he missed Me, he would just have to take a short trip (I could install moving walkway, even) and there would be no worries. If anyone got fed up with Me or any of My followers, they could take a trip the other way until things blew over.

Obviously, that’s a bit whimsical, but I think you see my point. There’s no reason for all this “weeping and gnashing of teeth” to be intrinsically linked with separation from God.

What is your view on abortion, please?

I do not consider a fetus to be a sentient being for most of its gestation. Therefore, I do not consider the vast majority of abortions to be a destruction of human life. Therefore, I do not consider the vast majority of abortions to be immoral. I am less certain about abortions very close to labor, but not to the extent that I would overrule the choice of the mother.

But you’ve said enough to make me remember why we believe that atheists are open to morality that is subjective to human whim.

Of course, I am making all this up as I go along.

 

[Hope3]

I say nostalgia is really just historical amnesia.

How about answering the question about locking doors and cars? People did not lock them because they did not feel they needed to. Why? Because people were more respectful of other’s people’s property back then. They actually adhered to the commandment, “Thou shall not steal.” Divorce was rare except for the Hollywood set, but we have no need to go into “that” for this discussion except to note that the divorce rate in this enlightened society which provides easy divorce is now about 50 percent. Surely this is not an improvement for society as we all get farther and farther away from God’s plan for us?

 

[josie_L]

But only because you’ve built your definition of “wrong” around your definition of “God.” If I were to accept this assumption, I would also have to find nothing wrong with murder, were God ever to condone such a thing.

Oh, what’s that, 1 Samuel 15:3? Dang.

All right. I’d obviate the need for salvation. Heaven is the presence of God, and hell is the self-willed absence of God? Fine. I’d put a punch bowl and some comfy couches in a room down the hall, and the infidels could hang there. If anyone decided he missed Me, he would just have to take a short trip (I could install moving walkway, even) and there would be no worries. If anyone got fed up with Me or any of My followers, they could take a trip the other way until things blew over.

Obviously, that’s a bit whimsical, but I think you see my point. There’s no reason for all this “weeping and gnashing of teeth” to be intrinsically linked with separation from God.

I do not consider a fetus to be a sentient being for most of its gestation. Therefore, I do not consider the vast majority of abortions to be a destruction of human life. Therefore, I do not consider the vast majority of abortions to be immoral. I am less certain about abortions very close to labor, but not to the extent that I would overrule the choice of the mother.

Of course, I am making all this up as I go along.

Wow, Eleve I think you came here under false pretenses!

 

[Hope3]

Wow, Eleve I think you came here under false pretenses!

I don’t think that “uncertain” is her “real” religious affiliation.

 

[Eleve]

How can you say it is far from godless when you do not believe in any god?

Did Dr. Martin Luther King believe in God? Yes, he was a minister. This is what his Phd was in - theology. Didn’t Martin Luther King appeal to God to help Blacks obtain civil rights? Yes! Perhaps his prayers and those of many others were actually answered by God. YES!

So, I would conclude that the civil rights movement succeeded with God’s help.

Because I am not society, and there are five people in our society who do believe in God for every one who does not.

However the civil rights movement succeeded, it is an example of something that has improved in society since the supposed advent of godlessness.

Jesus.

Is that your answer, or a New Testament interpretation of the second commandment in light of Christ’s atoning sacrifice?

To be less snarky, and to use plainer language, do you mean that certain properties are good, and that they all apply to God, or is God good simply because Good is God?

That is where you are wrong because that fetus is a human fetus, emphasis on the human. … *I suppose fetuses that are aborted are not of the human variety.

From my perspective… well, my perspective on the humanity of fetuses is offensive from your perspective. My disagreement with you is not that a fetus is human, but that a fetus is a human person.

May I understand how you came to discern Catholicism when you don’t even agree with her on key moral issues?

By “discerning,” I meant to say “considering.” If I agreed with the Church on key moral issues, I’d have signed up for RCIA yesterday.

So you’re passing judgement.

On whether the person described as God in the Bible fulfills the attributes otherwise considered to define the nature of God? Yes.

 

[josie_L]

I don’t think that “uncertain” is her “real” religious affiliation.

I’m beginning to see that now.

 

[happilycatholic]

I do not consider a fetus to be a sentient being for most of its gestation. Therefore, I do not consider the vast majority of abortions to be a destruction of human life. Therefore, I do not consider the vast majority of abortions to be immoral. I am less certain about abortions very close to labor, but not to the extent that I would overrule the choice of the mother.

Wow, what would you consider the last human fetus on earth to be? If there were only one mother with child left on earth and she aborted the child. What has she done?

 

[Eleve]

Divorce was rare except for the Hollywood set, but we have no need to go into “that” for this discussion except to note that the divorce rate in this enlightened society which provides easy divorce is now about 50 percent. Surely this is not an improvement for society as we all get farther and farther away from God’s plan for us?

Has desire to divorce gone up, or only divorce? I do not consider the freedom of people to end harmful relationships to be a bad thing.

I don’t think that “uncertain” is her “real” religious affiliation.

“I” am not a “her,” I am indeed “uncertain” (I am more interested in happycatholic’s explanation of punishment before Christ vs. grace afterwards, etc., than I let on, and I wouldn’t still be here if I weren’t willing to learn from people like him/her and Josie), and I “wonder” why you use so many “quotation marks.”

 

[Eleve]

Wow, what would you consider the last human fetus on earth to be? If there were only one mother with child left on earth and she aborted the child. What has she done?

Ended the human race. In your contrived example, things would end soon enough as the child would not be able to reproduce. If there were only one woman left, and she were not with child, would she have a responsibility to get pregnant?

 

[humble_in_doubt]

How about answering the question about locking doors and cars?

gee wiz … I provide a laundry list of things that were horrible about our past, and you harp on doors and cars. Are you going to tell me there weren’t thieves and outlaws back in the day? We have a great collection of outlaw legend in this country. From Jesse James to Al Capone … I just don’t see yesteryear in the same way you do.

Did people have to lock their doors 50 or 60 years ago? What did people really have to steal back then? We have plasma TV’s, computers, x-boxes, i-pod’s, stereo equipment worth thousands, etc. What did people have back in the day? I’m sure people who had articles of substantial value took care to ensure their property was secured. Today even a working class family has stuff worth thousands of dollars.

Didn’t we have heroin addicts back in the day, drunks, horse thieves, wife beaters, racist gangs, street gangs, whores, bank robbers, mobsters, and everything else you can think of? Geesh

They actually adhered to the commandment, “Thou shall not steal.”

this world you’re conjuring up has no real basis in history.

Divorce was rare except for the Hollywood set,

I see nothing wrong with divorce when a couple deems it’s for the best (frankly I think marriage should be purely contractual anyway).

but we have no need to go into “that” for this discussion except to note that the divorce rate in this enlightened society which provides easy divorce is now about 50 percent. Surely this is not an improvement for society as we all get farther and farther away from God’s plan for us?

isn’t god all powerful? If that’s true how can his plan be foiled. Isn’t god omniscient? So then before he created us he knew the American divorce rate would hit 50% (but went ahead and created us anyway). So then god’s plan must include a 50% divorce rate in the US

Let me guess … free will? But still, you believe everything I said is true right? So then god did know Americans would divorce more frequently in the 20th and 21st centuries before he created anything. Sure, we divorce by our own volition, but logically it still must be part of god’s plan!

 

[happilycatholic]

Ended the human race. In your contrived example, things would end soon enough as the child would not be able to reproduce. If there were only one woman left, and she were not

with child, would she have a responsibility to get pregnant?

Still, she has ended the human race. How could she have done that if the unborn child had not been a continuance (however short as you so aptly pointed out) of the human race?

And, if there were another man who was not the father left, would he not do everything he could to save the child? Would he then consider the unborn child to be just a jumble of worth-less cells, not worthy of saving?

You’re subjective view again gets you into relative morality. I don’t mean to be confrontational, but if there were not objective morality to tell us murder is always wrong and that murder is the termination of life, then we would have to rely on our own subjective POV. We don’t. God says the termination of a human life is wrong. He doesn’t say a human life begins when it actually looks and functions as a human. Human life begins in the womb if it doesn’t then where does it begin?