The communist torturers often said, 'There is no God, no Hereafter, no punishment for evil. We can do what we wish.' I have heard one torturer even say, 'I thank God, in whom I don't believe, that I have lived to this hour when I can express all the evil in my heart.'
Should we've evolved in a society where rape is permitted and normal, would you do it?
"Since you say the proof God existed is b/c of the Bible, would you say Spiderman also exists b/c he's in a comic?"I countered: "Nope, as far as I know, nobody worshipped Spiderman for more than 5000 years and died for him. Out of the 12 apostles, 11 were brutally killed. If they knew that Christianity was false, they would repudiate it & profess paganism."
He also said: "If the Moral Lawgiver is true, then why should it be your God? Shouldn't it be the Muslim Allah too?"I said: "My God never told me to kill an unbeliever to go to heaven."
I'm confused as to why atheists are very keen to recruit others in their cause. I know hobbits don't exist, but I never spend my whole time convincing others they don't exist.
Also, I'll never go into debates again, as Proverbs 29:9 says: If a wise man goes to court with a foolish man,the fool rages or scoffs, and there is no peace.
Last night, I had a heated discussion over the Net about the nature of God in society. As I'm fond of using the Moral Lawgiver argument (probably one of the most effective around there) I've argued that it is impossible for society to define "good", and that if God doesn't exist, every thing is permitted, and in that cases of communism & nazism, if atheism is true, we should be morally indifferent to it and shouldn't show disgust against it.
The cruelty of atheism is hard to believe when man has no faith in the reward of good or the punishment of evil. There is no reason to be human. There is no restraint from the depths of evil which is in man.
Isn't it a very disturbing implication that humans can only do good through the carrot and the stick?
That's NOT what motivates a Christian.
Your misconceptions is why I rarely ever have "conversations" with activist atheists.
Your "morality" is the byproduct of the Christian culture you've grown up in, imperfect though it may be.
As the Christian God is rooted out of our culture, the culture will continue its slide into depravity and you won't even see it coming (they are generational changes as morality is forgotten and a secular morality fills the vacuum).
We're already the most advanced time period in human history, largely because religion has at least partially taken the backseat to science and reason. God told Moses to rape girls and slaughter children in the bible. Fact. I can show you the passages if you deny it.
If you are referring to "advanced" in the sense that morality is more advanced I have to take issue with this. Science by virtue of what it is cannot serve to lead us to value judgements, science is concerned with facts,
I believe atheists can certainly live by a code of ethics. The ethics of Aristotle for example make no appeal to the divine and operate under the golden mean.
But to say that somehow science and reason alone are going to be the basis of ethics for a society is nonsensical.
Any ethics system worth a damn is based primarily on facts.
Aristotle supported slavery and was a misogynist; I don't think he's the best example.
You are correct. But what claim to legitimacy does religion have? It's not enough to offer an explanation or code not provided by other methods of human thought; you need to actually have a reason as to why it is worth using.
Care to expand on this?The statement: "rape is wrong" is not a statement that can be said to be factual, strictly speaking. It is a value judgement that is not provable in any sense. Yet, in spite of this we would all agree that rape is wrong.
This appears to be an Ad hominem attack on Aristotle.
But who are you to judge what is legitimate and what is not?
All morality must be based on certain premises, but these should be as self evident, universal and simple as possible. Everything there should be logical.
So why is this distinction important? Well, some moral systems have ridiculous rules such as "pre-marital sex is wrong" that have no explanation. They're wrong simply because they're wrong. They're premises, but hardly self evident or universal ones. They're not sensible.
Yes, but that's only because you used an Appeal to Authority on Aristotle. If Aristotle's beliefs were outdated as you seem to suggest, then he isn't really relevant from a moralistic standpoint today.
Rape is wrong because it causes suffering. Suffering being bad is relatively unprovable. But rape is not bad because it is rape; it's bad because it has negative consequences. This logic is fine, because the premise ("suffering is bad") is hardly one anyone would disagree with.