Increase of Atheists around the world, increase of crime any coincidence?

  • Thread starter Thread starter englands123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Freddy said:
You are endlessly repeating yourself, upant. You ask some questions and I give the answers and then you ignore said answers and ask the very same questions again. This is like Groundhog Day…
Click to expand...
but you haven’t answered the question, you keep deflecting to seeking agreement. what happens when there is no agreement.

you haven’t addressed the abortion dilemma.
 
upant said:
40.png
Freddy:
You are endlessly repeating yourself, upant. You ask some questions and I give the answers and then you ignore said answers and ask the very same questions again. This is like Groundhog Day…
Click to expand...
but you haven’t answered the question, you keep deflecting to seeking agreement. what happens when there is no agreement.

you haven’t addressed the abortion dilemma.
Click to expand...
I do apologise, upant. There are two threads going on at the moment that are almost identical in what they are discussing. I replied to a question that was identical to yours in the other thread and thought I had answered you. Again my apologies.

This was the answer in the other thread:
Freddy said:
As you say (and as I said) we determine morality by what we consider to be a good or bad outcome (‘evil’ has much stronger connotations). So if you consider something to be bad and I don’t then it’s going to be difficult reaching a consensus.

And morality is NOT a matter of personal taste. Who told you that? It’s based - or should be based, not on our personal preferences but on reasoned arguments. Arguments that lead to what we consider to be good outcomes. And then we are back to trying to decide what is good.

And it’s a simple process. We each state that we should do this or should not do that in these particular circumstances because of A, B and C. And we try to reach agreement. If we can’t then you will have to live your life as best you see fit according to your moral principles and I must do the same according to mine. If there is then a conflict then what generally happens is that it may go to arbitration. Perhaps legal (in the case of ssm for example). Otherwise we simply agree to disagree.
Click to expand...
 
Freddy said:
Otherwise we simply agree to disagree.
Click to expand...
both can’t be correct, one person is right and one person is wrong. this IMHO is where atheists morals based on agreement fails

we will have to agree to disagree.

thanks for the discussion
 
Freddy said:
To use the US of A as an example, only about 3% of the population are atheists and only about 0.2% of the prison population. So that’s 6% of atheists are bad guys. Whereas just about 30% of the rest of y’all have criminal records. PolitiFact | How many U.S. adults have a criminal record? Depends on how you define it

It’s obvious that we’re not pulling our weight so maybe we’re playing catch up. Either that or you just made up a random claim that bears no relationship to reality.
Click to expand...
I already referred you to clergyproject.org once.

Don’t make me cite more links showing that a good number of atheists lie about their religious affiliation. Getting early release on parole is a huge incentive to claim you’ve found God.

Also, I get lectured to a LOT by atheists who claim that their being being ‘good’ doesn’t require any fear of being watched by someone in the sky. And I have to ask then, whether in an atheist utopia there would be any unmarked police cars or undercover cops or CCTV cameras. Certainly atheist dictatorships in China, the USSR etc seem to rely on an enourmous amount of covert surveillance.

Of course, as is well known in Christian theology, atheists don’t need God to be good. But what they DO need is an objective criteria to define what it is good and why. Because two atheists arguing over morality is like this;

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Lion_IRC said:
40.png
Freddy:
To use the US of A as an example, only about 3% of the population are atheists and only about 0.2% of the prison population. So that’s 6% of atheists are bad guys. Whereas just about 30% of the rest of y’all have criminal records. PolitiFact | How many U.S. adults have a criminal record? Depends on how you define it

It’s obvious that we’re not pulling our weight so maybe we’re playing catch up. Either that or you just made up a random claim that bears no relationship to reality.
Click to expand...
Also, I get lectured to a LOT by atheists who claim that their being being ‘good’ doesn’t require any fear of being watched by someone in the sky. And I have to ask then, whether in an atheist utopia there would be any unmarked police cars or undercover cops or CCTV cameras.
Click to expand...
If we all uphold decent moral principles then no surveillance would be required. Cameras and unmarked cars are only used to catch those who break the rules.

And why do you think that atheists don’t have objective criteria? All moral situations are relative to the conditions pertaining but they then become objectively true for the individual.

And any two non believers may well disagree on any specific matter just as two Christians might. That’s a given. It’s somewhat self serving to claim that your objective criteria trumps everyone else’s if only a limited number of people adhere to them.

But if you consider your principles to be more worthy than anyone else’s then I’m always keen to listen to any arguments.
 
Last edited:
Freddy said:
I would say that I would disagree with them in the strongest possible terms.
Click to expand...
But not that they are morally wrong. I think we have shown that atheist morality is an appeal to concensus or value.
 
Last edited:
Elf01 said:
40.png
Freddy:
I would say that I would disagree with them in the strongest possible terms.
Click to expand...
But not that they are morally wrong. I think we have shown that atheist morality is an appeal to concensus or value.
Click to expand...
Not consensus. Where on earth did you get that from? Everyone can agree on a moral problem but that doesn’t mean that the answer that they come up with is correct. Everyone agreeing to slavery doesn’t make slavery morally correct.

But value certainly comes into the question. How could it not? If someone considers their new suit to be worth more than a child’s life is it at all possible that you could not describe that as an immoral position?
 
If I find myself in disagreement with any Christian / biblical theist on this forum, both they and I would accept that God is the ultimate objective Umpire.

By God’s omniscience He can arbitrate what is ultimately the best moral choice. (Moral law)

And by His omnipotence He can and will enforce that moral law always and forever. A law which isn’t enforced - or capable of being enforced - can hardly be consider a law at all, let alone an objectively true moral imperative law. (Even if it relates to something as mundane as Wabbit Season versus Duck Season)

Now tell us. If Bugs and Daffy were atheists, who would they BOTH agree is the objective Higher Authority and arbiter of moral truth in their case? Would they even share a common moral ontology? Unlike the biblical theist, Daffy Duck could simply deny the very existence of an objectively correct answer to their dilemma.
 
Last edited:
Lion_IRC said:
If I find myself in disagreement with any Christian / biblical theist on this forum, both they and I would accept that God is the ultimate objective Umpire.
Click to expand...
If God has a reason for any decision He makes then I reserve the right to question that reason. Otherwise I have to rely on the interpretation of His will by…whoever is doing the interpretation.

As you mentioned hunting season, what’s His views on hunting for trophys? Does He enforce it?
 
Last edited:
That’s an epistemologically circular method of resolving a moral dilemma if you reserve the right to keep questioning why the the right answer to a moral question is right.

That’s like Daffy asking Bugs why he thinks it is duck hunting season AFTER Bugs has shown objective proof that it is. What exactly are you questioning at that point?

No, you’re still arguing with the objective Umpire.
 
Last edited:
Lion_IRC said:
That’s an epistemologically circular method of resolving a moral dilemma if you reserve the right to question why the the right answer to a moral question is right.

That’s like Daffy asking Bugs why he thinks it is duck hunting season AFTER Bugs has shown objective proof that it is.
Click to expand...
I’m not questioning if the answer is right. I’m questioning if the reasons for reaching the interpretation of the answer are valid. Otherwise you are saying that nothing can be questioned. That I will not accept. And neither should you.
 
Freddy said:
But value certainly comes into the question. How could it not? If someone considers their new suit to be worth more than a child’s life is it at all possible that you could not describe that as an immoral position?
Click to expand...
I don’t see an atheistic basis for it.
 
Elf01 said:
40.png
Freddy:
But value certainly comes into the question. How could it not? If someone considers their new suit to be worth more than a child’s life is it at all possible that you could not describe that as an immoral position?
Click to expand...
I don’t see an atheistic basis for it.
Click to expand...
You’re saying there’s no concept such as ‘value’ to an atheist?

Doesn’t an atheist value her child over her own life? So isn’t obvious to you that she would recognise that another mother would value her child as highly? And that both would consider it madness to propose that a suit of clothes might be worth more than either child? Otherwise what is the alternative? One person suggesting that their child has value in excess of material objects and the other doesn’t?

On what basis could any person come to such a conclusion?
 
The way I see it, if God exists, then the atheists have their rights and wrongs from God. They might stray from them or ignore them (as we all do) but that’s where they get them. If He doesn’t, then Christians got their rights and wrongs from nothing, meaning atheists are the same.
 
Last edited:
" 05:50 Another rule along the same lines, can we please have nobody claim
05:53 that the mass murderers of the 20th century, Hitler, Mao, Stalin,
05:55 that their actions prove anything about a disbelief in god,
05:58 because that’s been dealt with adequately before, you know,
06:01 it’s been answered and put down every other time it’s been brought up, hasn’t it?
06:03 There’s not really a logical link
06:05 between atheism and genocidal atrocities any more than there’s a link
06:07 between not accepting the claims of astrologers and genocide,
06:10 or even a link between those who don’t accept the claims of biologists and genocide.
06:13 To assert that there is such a link,
06:15 whilst ignoring the mass murderers’ dogmatic adherence to
06:17 communism, or fascism, or agricultural collectivism, or nationalism, or militarism,
06:22 is obviously to take a very incomprehensive view of history
06:24 and like I said it’s all been answered quite adequately
06:27 by many proponents of secularism and atheism on more than enough occasions, hasn’t it?"
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top