Question from an athiest

[freesoulhope]

I explained this in that very post. If you don’t hold life precious, then perhaps that shows why you need religion.

With out God, the word precious is an empty subjective opinion about reality. It is your opinion. Whether life is precious or not, is dependent upon other factors other then your opinion. Opinions change; a fact of life does not. True meaning and value is present in the source of all reality, not in your subjective opinion. If reality and everything in it is a product of nothing, then your life has no meaning other then what you make of it. So to call God evil, is meaningless (If God is evil, then he would have to the source of all evil in the world) because there is no such thing; there is only nature, and things of nature act accordingly to nature. If God does exist, then you have to ask your self while judging him: " who was it that gave you your moral capacity to understand and act upon an objective moral value system, so that you can have the audacity to call God, the source of all the joy, biological pleasures and happiness, evil?!! You claim to be upright? Who do you think has given you the capacity to make that possible? Nature? Considering survival of the fittest evolution, I think not!

Human beings are ungrateful brats!!!

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
I’m just saying that there is no possibility of you proving to Pred that your argument is even remotely sensible, because he won’t accept your basic assertions.

I know what your “just saying” because you said the same thing in your last post. I’m “just saying” (again) that you don’t have any idea what you’re talking about.

Perhaps I don’t. Prove me wrong.

Quote:
I love futile but expressive conversation,…
That is becoming apparent.

Thank you…!

Quote:
…unless you DO convince him. In which case, GOOD JOB…!!
Your comments about what others can or cannot prove or what others will or will not accept in advance of any discussion are entirely unhelpful. More importantly, they are entirely off topic. I’m asking you nicely - please stop.

How nice of you.

I’m sure you’re CAPABLE of simply ignoring people who irritate you, though apparently you’d rather subtly “threaten” them.

That’s cool too…! I don’t mind being threatened. In fact I rather enjoy being threatened, in venues such as these, where the consequences are for the threatener (is that a word?) to look a bit silly.

I like having bullies and those who would rather stiffle free speech by threats look silly, personally.

So,… carry on. Do what you’re going to do. Which hopefully is to get into a good meaty conversation with Pred.

Looking forward to it…!

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by NPS forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Why should we hold life precious, predator?

And what does it mean to hold life precious?



I explained this in that very post. If you don’t hold life precious, then perhaps that shows why you need religion.

Most “non-evil” atheists I’ve met are quite ethical, but their ethics are supported by a foundation in “natural law”, whether they know or agree with that in the least.

Since they place no credence in anything “religious”, they are forced to base their ethics on physical/psychological principles, which if done in a “sensitive” and “non-evil” way, are quite capable of figuring out that ethics should in fact be based on the “2 Commandments” of Jesus, expressed in “secular language”:

1. Don’t muck up the “environment” (physical & “human”).
2. Treat your neighbor as you’d like to be treated.

The PROBLEM with basing their “code” on observation, and not revelation, is that they can, and do, reinterpret all terms in their “code” to suit whatever need (want) that they whimsically decide on promoting.

In other words, the entire “code” is free floating and “whimsical”.

A proper code needs to be based on an absolute, and it needs to be interpreted by a single “infallible” authority.

Since absolutes don’t exist to the secularist, there’s a problem there.

Since the idea of a single authority is UTTERLY “un-democratic”, there’s a problem with that too.

And the very THOUGHT of “infallibility” is so totally laughable, to the secularist, there’s certainly (or as certain as they will admit to) no chance of THAT ever being accepted,… so that’s right out as well.

So,… where does that leave us…?

It looks like a “proper” code, as defined by the “religious” (or more accurately the “properly religious”, ie Catholic) is a complete impossibility for the secularist to accept.

Oh well,… so much for that idea.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.