It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)A Message to Atheists and Agnostics - I get you(2370 posts)(2370 posts)
(2370 posts)
Pages:
1
25
45
46
47
48
49
75
100
125
150
158
This is my favourite topic
Posted January 30, 2014
avatar
tinyE: So what you are saying is that we should get a pass on genocide because we are more capable of good than the other species whom don't commit genocide? XD Try that one out at the Holocaust Museum and see how it flies.
Not at all. I'm just saying that greater moral good is only possible if greater moral evil is possible and that all of the moral good that has been done in history should not be overlooked.
Besides there are too many ambiguities regarding moral good ie the Heinz Deilemma among many others and what many may consider morally good from one aspect may see it as just the opposite from another aspect. Obviously this is NOT a blanket statement; I don't think there are a lot of people going around screaming, "Fucking Mother Theresa! That bitch!" However, you can find a lot of people who found the actions of people like Gandhi just as ugly as folks like myself found them beautiful. Vlad Dracula is seen as a hero and Saint to some, William Wallace as a two faced land baron to many. Good or evil can be a simple matter of which side of a border you are standing on.
I'll agree that there are morally grey areas, but I also think there are moral areas that are black and white. I don't think there is any side of the boarder that torturing babies for fun is seen as a moral virtue. The problem is if there is no objective moral standard, then we need to allow for the possibility of scenario where there is the case.
avatar
Soyeong: I was not talking about how Christianity survived hundreds of years later after it became established as the official religion of the Roman Empire; I'm talking about how it survived its inception.
avatar
pimpmonkey2382: Wasn't just roman empire that pushed it on threats with death.
Again, that didn't happen during its inception, which is what I'm talking about.
avatar
Soyeong: I'm talking about how it survived its inception.
avatar
Fenixp: Belief that aliens own 50 000 invisible ships in our orbit survived its inception, and became a relatively wide-spread cult in Czech Republic. What you just said? Not very convincing.
Huh?
Post edited January 30, 2014 by Soyeong
Posted January 30, 2014
avatar
tinyE: So what you are saying is that we should get a pass on genocide because we are more capable of good than the other species whom don't commit genocide? XD Try that one out at the Holocaust Museum and see how it flies.
avatar
Soyeong: Not at all. I'm just saying that greater moral good is only possible if greater moral evil is possible and that all of the moral good that has been done in history should not be overlooked.

Besides there are too many ambiguities regarding moral good ie the Heinz Deilemma among many others and what many may consider morally good from one aspect may see it as just the opposite from another aspect. Obviously this is NOT a blanket statement; I don't think there are a lot of people going around screaming, "Fucking Mother Theresa! That bitch!" However, you can find a lot of people who found the actions of people like Gandhi just as ugly as folks like myself found them beautiful. Vlad Dracula is seen as a hero and Saint to some, William Wallace as a two faced land baron to many. Good or evil can be a simple matter of which side of a border you are standing on.
avatar
Soyeong: I'll agree that there are morally grey areas, but I also think there are moral areas that are black and white. I don't think there is any side of the boarder that torturing babies for fun is seen as a moral virtue. The problem is if there is no objective moral standard, then we need to allow for the possibility of scenario where there is the case.
avatar
pimpmonkey2382: Wasn't just roman empire that pushed it on threats with death.
avatar
Soyeong: Again, that didn't happen during its inception, which is what I'm talking about.
avatar
Fenixp: Belief that aliens own 50 000 invisible ships in our orbit survived its inception, and became a relatively wide-spread cult in Czech Republic. What you just said? Not very convincing.
avatar
Soyeong: Huh?
Other than judaism, neither of the other major abrahamic religions would have ever taken hold if it wasn't for a threat of violence. Inception or not.
Posted January 30, 2014
avatar
Soyeong: If the Gospels have correctly got the detail that’s the hardest thing to remember, isn't there every reason to think they could get the other things right?
avatar
JMich: Actually, that is reason to suspect that they weren't remembering, but were copying. You said yourself that it's hard trying to recall the names, yet 4 (or more, depending on which you count as official) people did manage to (independently) recall the same names.
If this was an alibi, the police officer investigating would ask to dig deeper, not exonerate the suspects.
I'll assume that you mean copying from each other. The problem is that they all use names differently. It seems to me that people want to criticize the Gospels for getting some details different and then they want to turn around and say that they copied from each other. These criticisms are fundamentally opposed to each other.
Post edited January 30, 2014 by Soyeong
Posted January 30, 2014
avatar
tinyE: Hey, I'm owned by a cat.
Don't worry, house cats own their humans. You are just part of the people realizing it.

Sidenote : they made us the internet so I don't hold a grudge.
Posted January 30, 2014
According to Stephen Hawking there is no god because there was no time for god to exist prior the big bang, couse time itself did't exist. It's a very good documentary called "Curiosity" Did God Create the Universe? it's a interesting watch and interesting theory.

To people who are on one or the other end of the spectrum. Saying - "i don't care, am atheist..." or "oh, that's too bad you'll be punished by god for saying that!" - in both cases you both bury yourself in your own "truth comfort zone" but you have no evidence to prove any of it. This is why it is important to ask questions and seek the TRUE answer and If you search for that answer you must examine all possibilities. So excluding one or the other as possibilities is wrong as is totally accepting it. That's why it's better to be neutral, a "truthseeker", so you don't burden yourself with "labels" such as atheist or christian that have no value whatsoever except to divide people over unfounded ground, and we will never find the answer if we do that...

This guy explains is best way - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzSMC5rWvos
Posted January 30, 2014
avatar
Soyeong: I'll assume that you mean copying for each other.
Sorry, should have been clearer. I meant that they were copying a story told by another source. More or less that someone else was dictating what they should be writing.
That doesn't mean that they may not have actually been remembering, but claiming that their unique feat of memory shows that the rest of the account must be true is less probable than them taking dictation.
But I wouldn't know how easy or hard it is to recall names, so I'll take your word that it's not something the average man could easily do.
Posted January 30, 2014
avatar
pimpmonkey2382: Other than judaism, neither of the other major abrahamic religions would have ever taken hold if it wasn't for a threat of violence. Inception or not.
Honestly, you need a history lesson if you can't tell the difference between how Islam and Christianity were generally spread. Early Christians had no power to spread their religion by threat of violence, and in fact were persecuted by Romans because they taught against worshiping the Emperor, which was seen as a act of sedition.
Posted January 30, 2014
avatar
pimpmonkey2382: Other than judaism, neither of the other major abrahamic religions would have ever taken hold if it wasn't for a threat of violence. Inception or not.
avatar
Soyeong: Honestly, you need a history lesson if you can't tell the difference between how Islam and Christianity were generally spread. Early Christians had no power to spread their religion by threat of violence, and in fact were persecuted by Romans because they taught against worshiping the Emperor, which was seen as a act of sedition.
Obviously it's you who needs the history lesson.
Posted January 30, 2014
Okay I fucked up the quote there so let me just address this to Soyeong. :D

This is my last deep post for the night and then I have to go back to being a smartass, I'm tired. :P Before that let me say that I really seriously appreciate how you are handling things in here and while we are obviously polar opposites in opinion, it's always nice to have a debate with someone not constantly screaming at, threatening, or name callling. :D

Anyway, and it's a stretch, the Aztecs saw sacrifice (including that of children) as not only a moral virtue but as a moral necessity. I'll leave it to you whether sacrifice constitutes 'torture'.

That being said I'm not logging off but if anyone wants to talk to me the rest of the night please try to keep in juvenile.
Thank you. :D
Post edited January 30, 2014 by tinyE
Posted January 30, 2014
avatar
tinyE: Okay I fucked up the quote there so let me just address this to Soyeong. :D

This is my last deep post for the night and then I have to go back to being a smartass, I'm tired. :P Before that let me say that I really seriously appreciate how you are handling things in here and while we are obviously polar opposites in opinion, it's always nice to have a debate with someone not constantly screaming at, threatening, or name callling. :D

Anyway, and it's a stretch, the Aztecs saw sacrifice (including that of children) as not only a moral virtue but as a moral necessity. I'll leave it to you whether sacrifice constitutes 'torture'.

That being said I'm not logging off but if anyone wants to talk to me the rest of the night please try to keep in juvenile.
Thank you. :D
Not to mention little meek and mild jesus had to come in and save them with slavery.
Posted January 30, 2014
avatar
tinyE: Okay I fucked up the quote there so let me just address this to Soyeong. :D

This is my last deep post for the night and then I have to go back to being a smartass, I'm tired. :P Before that let me say that I really seriously appreciate how you are handling things in here and while we are obviously polar opposites in opinion, it's always nice to have a debate with someone not constantly screaming at, threatening, or name callling. :D

Anyway, and it's a stretch, the Aztecs saw sacrifice (including that of children) as not only a moral virtue but as a moral necessity. I'll leave it to you whether sacrifice constitutes 'torture'.

That being said I'm not logging off but if anyone wants to talk to me the rest of the night please try to keep in juvenile.
Thank you. :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9mYGf52UJY

You might love this doc, i know i did! It's about the aztec of course :P (if you didn't watch it already)
Post edited January 30, 2014 by nadenitza
Posted January 30, 2014
avatar
Brasas: Summary:
Christianity is believed by millions. Yes.
There is evidence supporting Christianity. Sure, follows your premise that belief requires evidence.
Christianity is true. Non sequitur.
avatar
Soyeong: I never claimed that Christianity is necessarily true because there exists evidence that it is true. Rather, it is necessary for there to be evidence that Christianity is true in order to form the belief that it is true, just as it is necessary for there to be evidence that Christianity to be false in order to form the belief that it is false. The one that should be believed is the one that has the strongest evidence. My point was to counter the claim that there is no evidence for religious beliefs.
Yeah. :)

Anyway, I disagree that belief implies evidence. It can be based on faith, or on fabricated evidence, circumstancial evidence, imaginary evidence... you're kind of saying belief exists, and there must be some reason for it to exist. But this is a non sequitur and it kind of begs the question. It (belief, life, the universe) may be accidental.

What I can agree with you is that those who have any belief, often reference that belief to what they consider to be valid evidence. But then, we humans are very good at justifying ourselves, often post facto, and on very shaky foundations. Wired to believe, so to speak. Look no farther than a lot of folks in the thread who clearly believe god does not exist yet refuse to admit how every single logical argument they use against believers can be turned around on their own belief.
Posted January 30, 2014
avatar
tinyE: I don't think there are a lot of people going around screaming, "Fucking Mother Theresa! That bitch!"
Because they only know about here from hearsay. In reality she was pretty evil. She was in bed with the worst dictators like Pinochet, then used the blood money to fund expansion of her death cult, all while her own poor people died without medical care in her deathmotels.

avatar
Soyeong: It's illogical to claim a non-contingent being is contingent on something.
Yeah! So by your definition your guy is not a god because he is contingent on team jamotide? Wow, usually christians are more stubborn than this!

avatar
Soyeong: "Something whose essence is its existence would depend on nothing else for its existence, since it would just be existence or being.
Maybe, who really knows.
avatar
Soyeong: But there can only possibly be one such being, for there would be no way in principle to distinguish more than one.
Why? This is a baseless assumption.
avatar
Soyeong: We could not coherently appeal to some unique form one such thing has to distinguish it from others of its kind, because then it would not be simply an act of existing, but an act of existing plus this certain form; nor could we associate it with some particular parcel of matter, because then it would not be subsistent existence, but material existence, that is dependent of matter for its being." - Edward Feser
So what, what does this have to do with anything? And what horrible sentence structure, I hope some school kid wrote this?
Posted January 30, 2014
Christopher Hitcfhens did the world a favor for exposing what a despicable hag Mother Teresa really was. I miss that man.
Post edited January 30, 2014 by scampywiak
Posted January 30, 2014
avatar
scampywiak: Christopher Hitcfhens did the world a favor for exposing what a despicable hag Mother Teresa really was. I miss that man.
Me too very much.
Pages:
1
25
45
46
47
48
49
75
100
125
150
158
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)A Message to Atheists and Agnostics - I get you(2370 posts)(2370 posts)
(2370 posts)