It's Impossible For Humans to Be Moral

[Starwynd]

No it doesn’t.

Period.

The truth is the truth regardless of what some book says.

Can’t believe everything you read.

And the truth is what I’ve stated before. Millions have been killed in the name of religion.

You can bury it in all the rationality you want, but the truth is the truth.

 

[buffalo]

No it doesn’t.

Period.

The truth is the truth regardless of what some book says.

Can’t believe everything you read.

And the truth is what I’ve stated before. Millions have been killed in the name of religion.

You can bury it in all the rationality you want, but the turht is the truth.

Where did you get your info from? Some book?

 

[rpp]

No it doesn’t.

Period.

The truth is the truth regardless of what some book says.

Can’t believe everything you read.

And the truth is what I’ve stated before. Millions have been killed in the name of religion.

You can bury it in all the rationality you want, but the turht is the truth.

This is true, but Islam is certainly the bloodiest one of all, killing tens of millions as it initially spread across North Africa the Arabian Peninsula the Persian empire, Asia Minor and the Iberian Peninsula.

In the case of Christianity, the Protestant reformation lead to terrible wars, and many persecutions. In Europe millions dies in the 30 Years War and the Hundred Years War. However, those wars were not about religion, rather they were about grabbing land and riches, mostly from the Church. More than a thousand in the persecutions of Catholics in England. The Crusades, (which was really a war in defense of Europe and not a war over religion) accounted for only a few tens of thousands of deaths, despite the publicity. The Inquisitions have been greatly exaggerated and the total death toll there is less than the number of people executed in Texas since it got statehood.

But so many more people have been killed in the name of atheism. The average monthly death toll during the years of 1940-1945 exceeded that of nearly every war ever fought, except those of the Islamic conquests in the years 630-1094. The total killed in WWII alone as a consequence of atheistic regimes forcing their view of humanity on the world defies an accurate counting.

Finally, yes, many today are still being killed in the name of religion. In our collective memory, I am sure we all have a clear memory of that terrible day in September just seven years ago. The victims of modern murder in the name of religion are almost entirely Christian.

 

[Starwynd]

But so many more people have been killed in the name of atheism. The average monthly death toll during the years of 1940-1945 exceeded that of nearly every war ever fought, except those of the Islamic conquests in the years 630-1094. The total killed in WWII alone as a consequence of atheistic regimes forcing their view of humanity on the world defies an accurate counting.

Which is in itself a lie.

The only people who have ever done anything in the name of atheism are groups of atheists like Madelin Murry O’Hare.

Secondly, most of those so-called atheists were not true atheists and were doing things in the name of religion too. For example, Hitler stated in Mein kampf “To kill the Jew is God’s work” and often used religion to back his philosphy up, not to mention many of his practices were based on a mix of occultic and mysticism practices, such as the blood flag, the entire aryan superiority, the runic symbols of the SS, and so on.

Stalin was educated as a Georgian Orthodox. Marxism was not founded on atheism but that of collectivism. He initiated poilitical purges killing and imprisoning millions who were ideologically different to him in order to turn Russian into a collectivist society. Including the purges of orthodox Chruches. It was not done in the name of atheism. Nor was he an atheist. Everything he did was in the name of colelctivism and patriotism, not to atheism.

 

[Isambard]

It taught that divorce was wrong for the man as well as for the woman.

And Im sure the millions the women who had to endure domestic abuse because priests wouldn’t divorse them are thankful.

.

Except for the whole gender roles thing that prevented women from having any sort of authoritative power.

One of the Catholic popes was himself a slave. We have had a black pope. Some of the canonized saints, such as St Martin de Pores, was black. There have been several canonized saints that are American Indians. If the Catholic Church was racist, it would not have sent missionaries throughout the world.

The fact that he sent missionaries around the world tell us something about the Churches thoughts on foreign cultures, doesn’t it?

The Catholic settlers in Mexico, South America, and Canada were far more humane in their treatment of the natives than the Protestant settlers were to the natives in the U.S. territory. The pope condemned forced slavery while the slave trade was going on. The slave ownrers in the South were Protestant, not Catholic.

I take it you don’t know exactly what happened to South and Central American natives do you?

As far as political control, when Constantine moved the capital to Constantinople, but the pope stayed in Rome to show that the Church is independent from the Emperor. If the pope wanted political control, he would have joined with Constantine. The emperors in the early Christendom were Arian and Monophysites, and they tried to force their heresies. Many of the popes at that time were imprisoned or exiled for resisting the emperors.

A number of Popes had their private armies and launched them for their private vendettas. And let us not forgot the whole nasty business in th Crusades.

This is the kind of check and balance in the Middle Ages. The pope was the conscience of the leader. If the leader goes too far, the pope can humle him. This is hat we are lacking in modern leaders. They answer to no one. They answer to no God and to no pope. They answer to no one but themselves.

Who guards the guardians?

Guessing you’ve forgotten about the naughty Popes of the Middle Ages? Given the Churches history, I really would feel uncomfortable handing over that kind of political power to one man. I like not being set on fire:thumbsup:

Hitler was notorious for his propaganda. And yet you believe in one of his speeches!

He wrote it in his autobiography.

Indeed, the leading Nazis—Hitler, Himmler, Rosenberg, Goebbels, and Bormann—were all fanatically anti-Christian, though this was partly hidden from the German public. . . . The conviction that Judaism, Christianity and Bolshevism represented one single pathological phenomenon of decadence became a veritable leitmotif for Hitler around the time that the “Final Solution” had been conceived of as an operational plan.

• Robert Wistrich in Hitler and the Holocaust, as cited in the Irrational Atheist

Ive skimmed over the guy’s book. Seems riddled with BS to me. Try reading what Hittler actually wrote. He was very much a believer in God, and considered himself a christian.

There are two documents cited in Vox Day’s book The Irrational Atheist:

1. The first document was from the Nuremburg trials, that was release from the archives in 1945. The document described the Third Reivh’s plan to ursurp the Catholic and Protyestant churches in Germany and replace it with a religion of racial superiority.
2. The second is a document drawn up by Alfred Rosenberg, Hitler’s Reich Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories. This is a plan to establish the Nation Reich Church. It has 30 points to its plan, but here are three of them:

*1. The National Reich Church is determined to exterminate irrevocably and by every means the strange and foreign Christian faiths imported into Germany in the ill-omened year 800.
2. The National Reich Church demands immediate cessation of the publishing and dissemination of the Bible in Germany as well as the publication of Sunday papers, pamphlets, publications, and books of a religious nature.
3. The National Reich Church does not acknowledge forgiveness of sins. It represents the standpoint which it will always proclaim that a sin once committed will be ruthlessly punished by the honorable and indestructible laws of nature and punishment will follow during the sinner’s lifetime. *

How does that make him “anti-Christian”, or even atheist? Or have you created the false dichotomy in your head that non-mainsteam Christianity = atheism? He had his own brand of Christianity. Now cite a passage from Hittler’s numerous documents of him declaring God non-existant, or stop trying to shoe-horn atheism and Nazism

The overwhelming number of leader have been male. So it is not significant at all that they were all male.

But it is very significant that they are atheist. As Vox Day has pointed out, 58% of all atheist leaders have killed at least 20,000 of its citizens.

Again, percentage of dictators that have had mustaches? I smell special pleading on your part.

The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of fifty-two atheists, three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century combined.17 The historical record of collective atheism is thus 182,716 times worse on an annual basis than Christianity’s worst and most infamous misdeed, the Spanish Inquisition.

• Irrational Atheist

As I’ve already mentioned, The Irrational Atheist seems to be built atop misrepresentation and BS, but lets play his game.

Is his statistic measuring deaths caused the allies side? He isnt differentiating between ideology and what they are, so then the deaths caused all the wars in the West by mostly christian countries need to be factored in. Then there is the genocides and subjugation from colonialism, the thousands anonymous deaths of non-believers via lynchings etc. I suspect thr author never thought that far ahead as it would destroy the heart of his little rant .

It does not matter. Not all of the fifty-two leaders were communists. But they were all atheists.

Given that you seemed determined to retro-fit history for your purpose, I really have no reason to believe you. But what the hey, how many of those 52 leaders had funny facial hair?

Here is the breakdown of mass-murdering regimes headed by atheists:

Country Dates Murders
Afghanistan 1978–1992 1,750,000
Albania 1944–1985 100,000
Angola 1975–2002 125,000
Bulgaria 1944–1989 222,000
China/PRC 1923–2007 76,702,000
Cuba 1959–1992 73,000
Czechoslovakia 1948–1968 65,000
Ethiopia 1974–1991 1,343,610
France 1793–1794 40,000
Greece 1946–1949 20,000
Hungary 1948–1989 27,000
Kampuchea/Cambodia 1973–1991 2,627,000
Laos 1975–2007 93,000
Mongolia 1926–2007 100,000
Mozambique 1975–1990 118,000
North Korea 1948–2007 3,163,000
Poland 1945–1948 1,607,000
Romania 1948–1987 438,000
Spain (Republic) 1936–1939 102,000
U.S.S.R. 1917–1987 61,911,000
Vietnam 1945–2007 1,670,000
Yugoslavia 1944–1980 1,072,000

Want to add the deaths the U.S., Britain, Spain (prior to civil war), Austrialia, and Germany have been responsible for?

Suppose a total anarchist became a leader of a country and instituted a law that completely abolished all policemen, all judges, all jail, and all prisons. Then there is a massive rise in looting, mugging and murders. When the anarchist is blamed for the the increase in crime in his country, he says “Hey, don’t blame my law. My law did not command anybody to loot, mug, or murder”. Would he be right? Would his law of abolishing all law enforcement be guiltless of the increase in crimes because his law did not *command *anyone to commit a crime? Of course not! His law , even though it did not command anyone to commit a crime, caused the rise of crime in his country.

Nice strawman. Atheism =/ anarchist, though I guess its a step up from you thinking we’re communists and Nazis. Atheism is mere a statement, not an ideology.

I agree that atheism does not command anyone to kill. And I agree that religion, at it worst, in very rare times, does command to kill. But more times than not religion, especially the Christian religion, tells us NOT to kill.

History says otherwise.

Atheism does not command us to kill, but the implications are that if there is no God, and no jusdgement, then we can do whatever we want. And that is very dangerous for a man of power to think he can do whatever he wants. This is why 58% of all atheist leaders are mass murderers.

Guess I should’ve expected to be linked to immorality and evil directly. Shame your stat is fantasy.

 

[packermann]

And Im sure the millions the women who had to endure domestic abuse because priests wouldn’t divorse them are thankful.

Any Catholic woman can leave a man and still be in communion with the Catholic Church. It is only remarrying without an annullment that the Church prevents. But getting an annullment is not difficult to get. My wife herself received an annullment from a previous marriage. But this is getting off topic. Start a new thread and I will be happy to discuss it with you.

Except for the whole gender roles thing that prevented women from having any sort of authoritative power.

You misunderstand completely the Catholic mentality. Greatness does not come from power but from humlity. The greatest sainst were in the humblest situations.

Also, the reason that priests and bishops can only be men is theological. I would exlain it to you but I am afraid that you as an outsider would not be able to appreciate its theological significance, and it would take us far off topic.

The fact that he sent missionaries around the world tell us something about the Churches thoughts on foreign cultures, doesn’t it?

We are really having difficulty stay on topic. But anyway…

As Touchstone pointed out, and himself is an atheist, Catholics have been very good at meeting the physical needs of people, without forcing them to first listen to the gospel.

Stilll, we believe that we have the fullness of the truth, so we will not shy away from telling them what we believe.

But you are very very hypocritical. Why are YOU on this forum. Is it because you think that Catholicsm is the truth? Are you open to the Catholic faith? Is that why you are hear? I very much doubt it! No you are trying to attack our faith. So how can you accuse Catholic missionaries of not respecting the faith of people in other cultures when you obviously do not respect ours???

I take it you don’t know exactly what happened to South and Central American natives do you?

I suspect I know more than you do.

A number of Popes had their private armies and launched them for their private vendettas.

Care to document?

And let us not forgot the whole nasty business in th Crusades.

The intention of the Crusades was defensive. The Muslims were killing and robbing Christians who did pilgrimages to Jerusalem. So the Pope sent the Crusaders there to protect them. Also, the Muslims were set on conquering the whole world in the name of Allah. All those countries in the Middle East were predominantly Christian, before the Muslims conquered them and forced them to convert by the sword. They then started to invade Europe. They conquered Spain and held it for about 800 years. The Crusaders were necessary in order to protect Europe from the Muslim invaders.

If it was not for the Crusaders, we would all be Muslims. Even you would be Muslim, or dead. Islam is not very tolerant to atheists. If you disagree with me, I challenge you to travel to an Arab country, stand on some corner, and tell them that Allah does not exist and start attacking their faith as do ours. I do not think you will be alive for long.

Who guards the guardians?

God does.

Guessing you’ve forgotten about the naughty Popes of the Middle Ages?

You show a complete ignorance of Catholic thought. Catholics are the first ones to admit that some popes were very naughty in their private lives. But give me one example where a pope’s naughtness extended into pulic policy. Give me an example where a pope was involved in the oppression or masscre of innocent people.

As liberals argue that Bill Clinton or JFK were great presidents even though they did some naughty things in private, so will I argue the same for the popes. Personal naughtiness does not mean the pope was evil to his people.

Given the Churches history, I really would feel uncomfortable handing over that kind of political power to one man. I like not being set on fire:thumbsup:

As I showed before, 58% of the atheist leaders in the 20th century have massacred at least 20,000 of his own people. Give me an example of a pope ever massacring his own people (again, the Crusades does not count, since that was to protect his own people by fighting other people who threatened them).

Ive skimmed over the guy’s book. Seems riddled with BS to me. Try reading what Hittler actually wrote. He was very much a believer in God, and considered himself a christian.

Skimmed? Is that your attention level? By you saying that it was riddled with BS but without giving any specifics, it sounds that that you had difficulty understanding what he wrote. Its very common to think that something over our heads is BS. If it was not over your head, you should be able to p(name removed by moderator)oint exactly where the BS is and why.

Hitler also promised that he would not invade Poland. Do you believe him on that?

How does that make him “anti-Christian”, or even atheist? Or have you created the false dichotomy in your head that non-mainsteam Christianity = atheism? He had his own brand of Christianity. Now cite a passage from Hittler’s numerous documents of him declaring God non-existant, or stop trying to shoe-horn atheism and Nazism

If you had read Vox Day more carfefully, we could then have a discussion on the evidence. I even highlighted Day’s evidence in the previous post.

Again, percentage of dictators that have had mustaches? I smell special pleading on your part.

There is no logical connection with mustaches. Also, many of the leaders on the list did not have mustaches (Pol Pot, Mao). Read the list.

As I’ve already mentioned, The Irrational Atheist seems to be built atop misrepresentation and BS, but lets play his game.

Is his statistic measuring deaths caused the allies side? He isnt differentiating between ideology and what they are, so then the deaths caused all the wars in the West by mostly christian countries need to be factored in.

Then there is the genocides and subjugation from colonialism, the thousands anonymous deaths of non-believers via lynchings etc. I suspect thr author never thought that far ahead as it would destroy the heart of his little rant .

Yes he did think of that. Here is the quote.

*The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately **148 million *dead at the bloody hands of fifty-two atheists, three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century combined. The historical record of collective atheism is thus 182,716 times worse on an annual basis than Christianity’s worst and most infamous misdeed, the Spanish Inquisition.

Given that you seemed determined to retro-fit history for your purpose, I really have no reason to believe you. But what the hey, how many of those 52 leaders had funny facial hair?

How come you do not blame the Crusades or naughty popes on funny facial hair?

Nice strawman. Atheism =/ anarchist, though I guess its a step up from you thinking we’re communists and Nazis.

You missed my point. I was showing that an action or belief can cause a certain action even if that action was never commanded. I could just as easily given an example of a parent giving a child whatever he wants, and because of that the child grows up to spoiled. The parent probably never commanded the child to be spoiled, but by the parent giving him whatever he wants still caused him to be spoiled.

In the same way, even though atheism cause not command its followers to do wrong, that still does not mean it cannot influence them to do wrong. The clear implication of atheism is that there is no eternal consequences for right and wrong. For a man of power, know that he anwers to no one else, this is a very dangerous thing.

Atheism is mere a statement, not an ideology.

The same can be said for Christianity. Christianity is a statement - Christ died for our sins and rose from the dead. Aside from that statement, there is really nothing else that Christians can all agree on. So then Christianity is a statement, not an ideology. Now what? Does that mean we are also completely guiltess for past wrongs? Thanks for the Get-Out-Jail-Free card.

 

[Isambard]

Also, the reason that priests and bishops can only be men is theological. I would exlain it to you but I am afraid that you as an outsider would not be able to appreciate its theological significance, and it would take us far off topic.

I was a devout Catholic for 18 years. So feel free to try me.

We are really having difficulty stay on topic. But anyway…

Im not the one who went on a tangent trying to misrepresent an entire group to make myself feel better about my religions history

As Touchstone pointed out, and himself is an atheist, Catholics have been very good at meeting the physical needs of people, without forcing them to first listen to the gospel.

It may suprise you, but atheists dont agree on anything minus a single negative statement. Ergo, I disagree with Touchstone and am with Nietzsche that christianity is one of the worst evils humanity has suffered. But that discussion is for another time

Stilll, we believe that we have the fullness of the truth, so we will not shy away from telling them what we believe.

Im pretty sure they didn’t appretiate the methods implimented to hear about your beliefs. In most cases, it was only after the local cultures got slapped around,that they were too weak to prevent christian ideological invasion.

But you are very very hypocritical. Why are YOU on this forum. Is it because you think that Catholicsm is the truth? Are you open to the Catholic faith? Is that why you are hear? I very much doubt it! No you are trying to attack our faith. So how can you accuse Catholic missionaries of not respecting the faith of people in other cultures when you obviously do not respect ours???

Ah, another person who seeks to misrepresent my criticism of their inadequate points with their religion.

I suspect I know more than you do.

Being a catholic who lived there for a decent portion of his life…but hey, maybe you do. Again, try me.

Care to document?

Boniface VIII put forward some of the strongest claims to temporal, as well as spiritual, supremacy of any Pope and constantly involved himself with foreign affairs. In his Bull of 1302, Unam Sanctam, Boniface VIII proclaimed that it “is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman pontiff”, pushing papal supremacy to its historical extreme. These views and his intervention in “temporal” affairs led to many bitter quarrels with the Emperor Albert I of Habsburg (1291-1298), the powerful family of the Colonnas, with Philip IV of France (1285–1314) and with Dante Alighieri (who wrote De Monarchia to argue against it).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Boniface_VIII

The intention of the Crusades was defensive. The Muslims were killing and robbing Christians who did pilgrimages to Jerusalem. So the Pope sent the Crusaders there to protect them. Also, the Muslims were set on conquering the whole world in the name of Allah. All those countries in the Middle East were predominantly Christian, before the Muslims conquered them and forced them to convert by the sword. They then started to invade Europe. They conquered Spain and held it for about 800 years. The Crusaders were necessary in order to protect Europe from the Muslim invaders.

My revisionist sense are tingling. I take it you never learned about the subsequent Crusades?

What did the Crusaders do to the women and children when once they conquered Antioch?

Then there was the fun they had in subsequent crusades
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Crusade

If it was not for the Crusaders, we would all be Muslims. Even you would be Muslim, or dead. Islam is not very tolerant to atheists. If you disagree with me, I challenge you to travel to an Arab country, stand on some corner, and tell them that Allah does not exist and start attacking their faith as do ours. I do not think you will be alive for long.

Well, my grandfather was almost hanged in his “loving” catholic village for being non-christian. So the different is almost non-existant lol

God does.

Not very encouraging given God’s MO in the OT.

You show a complete ignorance of Catholic thought. Catholics are the first ones to admit that some popes were very naughty in their private lives. But give me one example where a pope’s naughtness extended into pulic policy. Give me an example where a pope was involved in the oppression or masscre of innocent people.

Crusades once again, or were them naughty jews, civilians, and political enemies really such a threat?

As I showed before, 58% of the atheist leaders in the 20th century have massacred at least 20,000 of his own people. Give me an example of a pope ever massacring his own people (again, the Crusades does not count, since that was to protect his own people by fighting other people who threatened them).

Yep, those pesky minorities and civilians, so dangerous o00o0o

QUOTE=packermann;4018941]Skimmed? Is that your attention level? By you saying that it was riddled with BS but without giving any specifics, it sounds that that you had difficulty understanding what he wrote. Its very common to think that something over our heads is BS. If it was not over your head, you should be able to p(name removed by moderator)oint exactly where the BS is and why.

Yes, how awful of me to not read a 300+ pg book online for the sole purpose of debating you . But hey, Ive read the source material (Mein Kampf) which is why I get to authoritatively say what Hitler believed. Now, have you read it, or are playing the hypocrite?

Hitler also promised that he would not invade Poland. Do you believe him on that?

Nice non-sequiter. Care to try again?

If you had read Vox Day more carfefully, we could then have a discussion on the evidence. I even highlighted Day’s evidence in the previous post.

And I tore it apart.

Yes he did think of that. Here is the quote.

*The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately **148 million ***dead at the bloody hands of fifty-two atheists, three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century combined. The historical record of collective atheism is thus 182,716 times worse on an annual basis than Christianity’s worst and most infamous misdeed, the Spanish Inquisition.

Again, he believes the Spanish Inquisition is the most infamous misdeed of the Church. He’s not being honest with his calculations.

How come you do not blame the Crusades or naughty popes on funny facial hair?

Easy, they specifically claimed they were doing it for God.

You missed my point. I was showing that an action or belief can cause a certain action even if that action was never commanded. I could just as easily given an example of a parent giving a child whatever he wants, and because of that the child grows up to spoiled. The parent probably never commanded the child to be spoiled, but by the parent giving him whatever he wants still caused him to be spoiled.

Yep, and non-stamp collecting leads to homosexuality .

In the same way, even though atheism cause not command its followers to do wrong, that still does not mean it cannot influence them to do wrong. The clear implication of atheism is that there is no eternal consequences for right and wrong. For a man of power, know that he anwers to no one else, this is a very dangerous thing.

Er no. Monastic thinking is demonstrably bad. Whereas you have millions of irreligious people living in far more peaceful societies today than any close to it in the golden age of theocracies.

The same can be said for Christianity. Christianity is a statement - Christ died for our sins and rose from the dead. Aside from that statement, there is really nothing else that Christians can all agree on. So then Christianity is a statement, not an ideology. Now what? Does that mean we are also completely guiltess for past wrongs? Thanks for the Get-Out-Jail-Free card.

You need to work on your concepts champ.

To be an a-theist, is merely to hold a disbelieve in a God, or gods. Ergo, its a negative statement similar to not-stamp collecting.

Christianity asserts Christ died for your sins, which has the idea of God, good, evil, Satan, angels, sin etc etc. embedded in it. This is a ideology. Christianity holds beliefs, atheism does not.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread is straying from the topic. Please take side discussions to new or existing threads in the appropriate fora. Thank you all.

 

[Sideline]

I guess the answer to the OP is… it depends on whether you believe in a god. If you do, and believe that morality is serving that god, then morality couldn’t exist without that god.

But that also means that you are faced with the question of whether the choice in our moral code was arbitrary. Could this god have decided we could murder people of a different skin colour? If there was no other reason for our moral code than his decision, then yes he could have. Morality becomes nothing more than following the whims of a divine dictator. If there is no outside standard of good or evil than the phrase, “God is good”, simply means, “God’s pleased with himself.”

Most people like to think there is more to morality than just being the lackey of an omnipotent being. If there is more too it, then you really can just lift god out of the equation. Morality either becomes an ultimate standard, removed from the whims of any being, including those of God, or it becomes a tool for social connectivity and harmony between people.

I’m more of a fan of the last view.

 

[Isambard]

I guess the answer to the OP is… it depends on whether you believe in a god. If you do, and believe that morality is serving that god, then morality couldn’t exist without that god.

But that also means that you are faced with the question of whether the choice in our moral code was arbitrary. Could this god have decided we could murder people of a different skin colour? If there was no other reason for our moral code than his decision, then yes he could have. Morality becomes nothing more than following the whims of a divine dictator. If there is no outside standard of good or evil than the phrase, “God is good”, simply means, “God’s pleased with himself.”

Most people like to think there is more to morality than just being the lackey of an omnipotent being. If there is more too it, then you really can just lift god out of the equation. Morality either becomes an ultimate standard, removed from the whims of any being, including those of God, or it becomes a tool for social connectivity and harmony between people.

I’m more of a fan of the last view.

Well put.

Abrahamic-styled religions always seemed odd ones to speak of morality to me. Simply, their ethical system was literally “rule of the strongest”, and not really any sort of philosophical reasoning. This can be reflected in the OT with God commiting monstrous atrocities, yet I don’t know of anyone in these traditions who would say God is immoral (following his own later code as spoken by Jesus, or Muhammed).

 

[rpp]

Which is in itself a lie.

You clearly do not know what meaning of “lie” is. A lie is a knowingly false statement.

A person can make an incorrect statement without lying.

Calling those who are obviously better educated and informaed than you are liars because they posses knowledge and experience you do not have and thus make statements you believe to be incorrect is both insulting and prevents anyone from engaging you in a serious discussion.

So, get a clue and stop the insults.

Also, the rest of your post contained factual errors, especially regarding the development and basis of Communism. However, I think you made those statements without realizing they are false. Thus, I have no reason to presume you are lying.

But then, that is way off topic.

 

[packermann]

Isambard,

Since responding to you would take us off-topic again, and the moderator already warned us to stay on-topic, I am afraid I cannot respond to your post. But I find this one thing curious.

I find you very intertesting. You are an atheist, very adamant about it. Why are then are you on this Catholic forum? From your replies, it is obvious that you are not here because you are searching. So why are you here? Why does it bother you so much that there are people who believe? Why are you wasting so much time on this forum to convince us we are wrong? I am sure you, being an atheist, realize that life is short and, since there is no after-life, that we should live it with all the gusto here and now. So why are your on this forum wasting so much time attacking our faith when you could spend this time with your wife, or kids, or girlfriend?

I understand Protestant fundementalists being in this forum. They think we Catholics are going to hell. They are trying to pursuade us because they have a concern for our souls. But you don’t believe that. You believe that we all just end up as dust. So why do you bother? You actually talk more about God and religion than most believers do! Why is that?

I think I have the answer. Like you, I left the Catholic Chuurch when I was 18. But instead of being an anti-Catholic atheist, I was
an anti-Catholic Protestant. Now that I came back to the Catholic Church, I realize why was so anti-Catholic. It was because I felt threatened. I was afraid that it was right.

That is what I think you are going through. That is why you see religion, especially the Catholic religion, so dangerous. Yes, I can see how you feel threatened when you see people who believe. As Hamlet said, “Me thinkest thou protesteth too loudly”. That is you.