hey ATHIESTS, was Hitler right?

[notself]

So, is human life precious because we can ask these questions in the first place? Because we can destroy on a whim?

All Life is precious.

We can destroy on a whim but we have the ability to control our whims. If we don’t learn to do that, human life may cease,

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

All Life is precious.

We can destroy on a whim but we have the ability to control our whims. If we don’t learn to do that, human life may cease,

Why is humanity worth saving?

 

[notself]

Why is humanity worth saving?

Because we are human and most of us are not suicidal. We are just deluded.

I do admit to occasionally thinking we are one of the worst pathogens ever produced by evolution. But then I drink more water and the thought passes.

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

Because we are human and most of us are not suicidal. We are just deluded.

I do admit to occasionally thinking we are one of the worst pathogens ever produced by evolution. But then I drink more water and the thought passes.

In my opinion, the fact that we can ponder God’s existence is proof He exists…

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

Because we are human and most of us are not suicidal. We are just deluded.

I do admit to occasionally thinking we are one of the worst pathogens ever produced by evolution. But then I drink more water and the thought passes.

Yeah, that last thing I posted was just rambling, but I didn’t feel like deleting it.

Anyway, I still don’t see how that justifies the continuation of the human species.

 

[ralphinal]

Because we are human and most of us are not suicidal. We are just deluded.

I do admit to occasionally thinking we are one of the worst pathogens ever produced by evolution. But then I drink more water and the thought passes.

LOL. I am beginning to think that we are in a circular arguement. If we just leave it at all life is precious, why should we kill to eat. Law of the jungle? Circle of Life? If we say that human life is precious because it is human, there is the issue.

I like what you said about controling our whims. Could human life be precious because we have the ability to rise above insticts and base desires? Is it precious because we contemplate the infinite? Could it be precious because we are more than base animals?

 

[notself]

In my opinion, the fact that we can ponder God’s existence is proof He exists…

It is only proof that some of us require answers about the unknown even if we make them up.

I know this is one answer you will not approve of but it works for me.

 

[notself]

LOL. I am beginning to think that we are in a circular arguement. If we just leave it at all life is precious, why should we kill to eat. Law of the jungle? Circle of Life? If we say that human life is precious because it is human, there is the issue.

I like what you said about controling our whims. Could human life be precious because we have the ability to rise above insticts and base desires? Is it precious because we contemplate the infinite? Could it be precious because we are more than base animals?

Are you suggesting that life is not precious to other species? Perhaps you can give an example of such a group.

 

[ralphinal]

Are you suggesting that life is not precious to other species? Perhaps you can give an example of such a group.

No, but I see where you read that into it. Life is precious to other species, if no life other than their own or their progeny. I think that humans may have the lowest “opinion” of life. We kill for sport, we kill for fun, we kill because we don;t think about it. We create bad situations for other creatures. We are the jerks of the animal kingdom

Is our life more precious than animals? Do we have the right to say that? Why would it be wrong to abort a baby with birth defects? Or one that is the wrong gender? Of has the wrong eye color? Or kill the aged or inferm?

 

[justinthemartyr]

Here is the rest of the article from the very fist post in this thread.

Hitler being wrong only if God exists leads us directly to the reason for “Why Atheists Have No Rights.” If there is no God, then Hitler wasn’t wrong not only because the Jews’ lives had no inherent value, but because the Jews had no rights - no right to life, no right to liberty, no right to property, no right to freedom from persecution, no right to anything. In fact, if there is no God, then no one has any rights. Ask an atheist if they have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. When they say yes - and they will say yes - ask them how this is so. Point them to the Declaration of Independence, which says, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

They only have rights, under our system of law, because our system of law is built around the belief that the Creator has endowed them with these rights. And when were they endowed with these rights? At the moment of their creation. Which is when? When they were born? Don’t think so. When they first came into existence…when mommy’s egg cell met daddy’s sperm cell. I’ll get into that more in the next newsletter. But, suffice it to say, that atheists have a problem when it comes to unalienable rights because of the fact that they don’t believe in the God Who has supposedly given them their unalienable rights. Without a God Who endows us with rights, any attempt to say we inherently have rights as human beings is merely based on one’s subjective opinion.

So, I advocate that those who wish to take God out of our school’s, out of our legal system, out of the public square, should be given their wish. After all, if choice is one of their gods, and it is, then let’s give them their choice. When it comes to atheists, every one needs to act as if God doesn’t exist. As a result, they should have no rights under our system of law, after all, there is no Creator to endow them with those rights. So, I say we should throw them all in jail (without a trial, of course); or perhaps make them work for the public good at minimum wage for their entire lives; or maybe make them work as pooper scoopers in the public parks where folks walk their dogs; or some such thing.

And, furthermore, I say they should have no access to legal counsel nor to our court system nor to any other means of legal redress. After all, the legal system is founded on the belief in a Creator who endows us with our unalienable rights. They don’t believe in that Creator, so why should they be upset to not have access to a legal system founded on such a belief?

One last thing, if you ever want to drive home the point of all of this with someone who claims to be an atheist, after asking them if Hitler was right and going through all of what we talked about above regarding the Declaration, ask them to give you a reason for why it would be wrong for you to kill them. Just look them straight in the eye and say, “Can you give me an objective moral reason for why it would be wrong for me to shoot you where you stand?” You might startle them. But, no matter what they say, simply reply, “Well, that’s just your opinion. I don’t believe that. Give me an objective moral reason, not simply your opinion.” Again, without the existence of God, all they can give you is their opinion. Tell them you believe in Darwin’s survival of the fittest and that you don’t believe they are very fit and therefore you place no value on their lives whatsoever. “So, why would it be wrong to kill you?” There is no objective moral reason they can give you, unless they admit to the existence of God.

In Conclusion As always, I would appreciate you letting others know about this newsletter and about the Bible Christian Society, in general. The website is: www.biblechristiansociety.com

 

[notself]

No, but I see where you read that into it. Life is precious to other species, if no life other than their own or their progeny. I think that humans may have the lowest “opinion” of life. We kill for sport, we kill for fun, we kill because we don;t think about it. We create bad situations for other creatures. We are the jerks of the animal kingdom

Is our life more precious than animals? Do we have the right to say that? Why would it be wrong to abort a baby with birth defects? Or one that is the wrong gender? Of has the wrong eye color? Or kill the aged or inferm?

When one kills, one not only takes a life, but takes away all the possibilities of the life. I wish it was always possible to avoid killing any living thing. But then, we would end up killing ourselves. So we live with the fact that we kill thousands of small creatures in growing and harvesting crops. Some of us don’t eat meat to avoid being part of the killing of animals. But killing and life are joined. It may not be a “sin” but it is a damn shame and every effort should be made to keep the killing to the minimum.

As for euthanasia, mercy killing, assisted suicide, abortion, capital punishment, they can never be right or justified.

 

[ralphinal]

When one kills, one not only takes a life, but takes away all the possibilities of the life. I wish it was always possible to avoid killing any living thing. But then, we would end up killing ourselves. So we live with the fact that we kill thousands of small creatures in growing and harvesting crops. Some of us don’t eat meat to avoid being part of the killing of animals. But killing and life are joined. It may not be a “sin” but it is a damn shame and every effort should be made to keep the killing to the minimum.

As for euthanasia, mercy killing, assisted suicide, abortion, capital punishment, they can never be right or justified.

And why can they not be justified? If a being has reached the end of its functional life, why not help it die? If a being cannot function on its own, why let it suffer? If a being is less than its genetic code allows it to be, why make it be unfulfilled?

I do agree that we should limit killing. I agree that we should not let creatures suffer. I have no issue with that.

justin
I think that the true athiest would say that, yes, our legal code and the Declaration of Independance is based on Biblical ideals, or at least Deism. But, and this is a Catholic’s guess, they would say that just because the starting point is wrong, the end my still be right. The may say that their reason will not agree with yours, but they will still agree that life is precious. I think that using Hitler is a bad tactic because very few would admit he was right about anything, if for no other reason than because he is Hitler

 

[notself]

And why can they not be justified? If a being has reached the end of its functional life, why not help it die? If a being cannot function on its own, why let it suffer? If a being is less than its genetic code allows it to be, why make it be unfulfilled?

I do agree that we should limit killing. I agree that we should not let creatures suffer. I have no issue with that.

What do you mean by function? What do you mean by fulfilled?

 

[justinthemartyr]

we have no right to take another humans life, for they have a right to life and we have no right to take their life away. especially by starvation, which is torture in itself. Unless they pose a threat to others lives, and the only way to stop that from happening is to kill them in defense of those who would be killed by them. This would be for the greater good.

assisted suicide is being an accomplice to murder.

suffering is also part of life and we have ways of keeping people virtually painless.

 

[ralphinal]

What do you mean by function? What do you mean by fulfilled?

I was using sanatized terms to avoid the malicious part of the issue. What if someone can no longer care for themselves? What if they have a severe birth defect? What about those left brain damaged from an accedent or drug use? I did not want to make it sound so rough. I want to know why it is bad to kill those who either will die soon enough but suffer more or to kill those whose lives are compramised by some defect or permamnent condition.

 

[notself]

I was using sanatized terms to avoid the malicious part of the issue. What if someone can no longer care for themselves? .

I think it is wrong to kill them for the same reason capital punishment is wrong. Both acts depend upon human decision making. Both acts are irreversable if an error has been made. If a person can no longer care for themselves, we care for them. We don’t kill them for the same reason we would not kill a baby that cannot care for his or herself.

What if they have a severe birth defect? What about those left brain damaged from an accedent or drug use?

What we currently know about the brain and how it functions and repairs itself is laughable. We cannot even define intellegence. I worked with kids who had IQ’s between 55-75 and they were capable of many things. I have visited institutions for people who had IQ that were so low as to be untestable. They just lay on the ground or in a bed. How was I to judge whether they were happy or content? How was anyone to judge?

I want to know why it is bad to kill those who either will die soon enough but suffer more or to kill those whose lives are compramised by some defect or permamnent condition

I assume you are speaking of assisted suicide. If people choose to commit suicide, then they should do it on their own. (bad choice by the way). They can refuse food. Starvation alone does not cause significant pain. The pain which may occur can be controlled by drugs. Doing without hydration is extremely painful. They do not need assistance.

What they do need is help to live. They need both physical and emotional support. They need proper and adequate pain management and they need something to do, to occupy them in some way. Our society is getting better at providing an enriched environment for zoo animals. Perhaps soon we will provide it in more of our rest homes.

 

[ralphinal]

I think it is wrong to kill them for the same reason capital punishment is wrong. Both acts depend upon human decision making. Both acts are irreversable if an error has been made. If a person can no longer care for themselves, we care for them. We don’t kill them for the same reason we would not kill a baby that cannot care for his or herself.

What we currently know about the brain and how it functions and repairs itself is laughable. We cannot even define intellegence. I worked with kids who had IQ’s between 55-75 and they were capable of many things. I have visited institutions for people who had IQ that were so low as to be untestable. They just lay on the ground or in a bed. How was I to judge whether they were happy or content? How was anyone to judge?

I assume you are speaking of assisted suicide. If people choose to commit suicide, then they should do it on their own. (bad choice by the way). They can refuse food. Starvation alone does not cause significant pain. The pain which may occur can be controlled by drugs. Doing without hydration is extremely painful. They do not need assistance.

What they do need is help to live. They need both physical and emotional support. They need proper and adequate pain management and they need something to do, to occupy them in some way. Our society is getting better at providing an enriched environment for zoo animals. Perhaps soon we will provide it in more of our rest homes.

I agree with you. I think that I want a reason. You and I both know that there are people who think that eugenics are a good thing. The problem is that I have an issue talking to them because my moral code is based upon a faith that they consider as disgusting as those they want to kill. How can we talk to them? When I talk to those who have a faith that is not based on the Bible, I try not to quote the Bible. They don;t consider it a good source anyway.

 

[notself]

I agree with you. I think that I want a reason. You and I both know that there are people who think that eugenics are a good thing. The problem is that I have an issue talking to them because my moral code is based upon a faith that they consider as disgusting as those they want to kill. How can we talk to them? When I talk to those who have a faith that is not based on the Bible, I try not to quote the Bible. They don;t consider it a good source anyway.

In my experience there are people who hold positions and beliefs that have been handed to them or are in fashion and there are people who hold beliefs because they have expended time and effort in developing and exploring the consequences of belief. It doesn’t matter what the belief is. It could be belief that a sports team will win a game.

If your friends have expended the effort to explore both their beliefs and the consequences of their beliefs, then there may be some chance that you can convince them to change those beliefs. Because these people put in the intellectual effort, they may be open to changing their beliefs if your arguments are logical and well presented. Really listen to their answers in the mind set that they are teaching you. They are of course doing that very thing. At minimum they are deepening your understanding of the issues and enabling you to explore your own beliefs in a deeper way.

By consequences, I do not mean the consequences that come in life after death. I mean the consequences that come in this life. What are the consequences to society, to the individual, to them of the belief?

Most probably, your friends are repeating beliefs that have been handed them (usually by parents) or are in fashion (beliefs that are part of their culture and set of friends). They have arguments and justifications for their beliefs, but they are more the statements that a parrot would make. They repeat stock phrases and buzz words and when confronted with a good argument for a different point of view, they twist your words or change the subject slightly to deflect the argument. You see a lot of this type of behavior on this board. These people may change their beliefs over time or they may not. But it wont be because of the logic of your arguments. Most likely it will be because some new belief appeals to them on an emotional level.

When talking about social issues such as eugenics, mercy killing, abortion, capital punishment, people in this second catagory often hold conflicting opinions. They may be for mercy killing but against capital punishment. I think you need to find out why they hold each of the conflicting opinions. Do this by asking gentle, probing questions such as the ones you asked here. Your arguments should appeal to their emotion.

I think if you decide which catagory your friends fall into, you will save yourself a lot of trouble.

 

[ralphinal]

Great. Thanks for that point. So, atheists, some of the great bastians of logic and proof, can be as illogical and have poorly developed reasoning as some beleivers!! Actually, I think I knew that already

You know, this thread to me has been refreshing in its lack of conversion attempts. I think we should try this type of conversation more often. How can you get anywhere when it devolves in to a “you are doomed to hell” “no, it doesn;t exist” “you’ll know soon enough” conversation

 

[notself]

Great. Thanks for that point. So, atheists, some of the great bastians of logic and proof, can be as illogical and have poorly developed reasoning as some beleivers!! Actually, I think I knew that already

You know, this thread to me has been refreshing in its lack of conversion attempts. I think we should try this type of conversation more often. How can you get anywhere when it devolves in to a “you are doomed to hell” “no, it doesn;t exist” “you’ll know soon enough” conversation

Those are precisely the statements that make non believers think that believers are shallow thinkers. You see the same thing when atheists demand proof for the unprovable. Then the discussion deteriorates into prove God exists, prove that God doesn’t exist. These discussions go no where.

The issues, serious ethical issues, that we face today need to be discussed in a way that brings agreement to society. If agreement cannot be reached, then the discussions should develop alternatives that will allow progress. The best example of this type of discussion is stem cell research. Because scientists listened, really listened, to the concerns of both sides, effort is being made to develop stem cells without killing embryos. I think this is a triumph of human will and reasoning on an important ethical issue.

One of the ways you can talk to your friends is to use the word ethics instead of the word moral. They mean the same thing except the have different colors. The word moral has the coloring of religious belief. The word ethics has the coloring of secular intellectual belief. When talk to people of faith, the word moral is more clearly understood. When talking to people who are agnostic or atheist, ethics is a more appropriate word.

One of the greatest misconceptions about atheist is they are not moral. In fact most atheist, like most people of faith, are very ethical.