I Believe Jesus is God. Ask Me Anything! - Page 8 | General No…
I Believe Jesus is God. Ask Me Anything!
    • Strand [2821241]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 62
    • Posts: 377
    • Karma: 243
    • Last Action: 1 hour
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 18:17:05 - 30/11/23 (2 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    broleaf [3140943]

    I'm going to quote Steppenwolf and his explanation of how atheists can't conceptualize spirit and therefore cant rationalize morality

    "atheist, or a person of another religion, say Baalism, can in fact be moral and do what is right and good. In fact Christians believe this to be true, if they know their Bible very well.

    "However the problem that atheism has with morality is that it cannot acknowledge morality as an existential reality. This is because atheism acknowledges no arbiter of truth; thus atheism can make no appeal to such an arbiter, or 'higher power'. In the atheist world-view, people may have opinions about morality, but they are only opinions. Nobody's opinion can be held ultimately in higher regard than anyone else's. An atheist society may debate ethics for millennia, but ultimately no moral code can ever be formulated because a moral code as such carries the authority of the "supernatural". An atheistic society may, by consensus or by unanimous support, hold that killing another person is wrong, but would only have it'self to ascribe the power to make such a distinction.

    Now, the typical atheist retort to this goes something like "You're saying that without religion to guide us, people would all go around murdering people, but I'm an atheist and I don't want to murder people." But that misses the point. The point in saying that there is no rational basis for morality without a god to uphold it, has nothing to do with whether people would "want" to do anything. The individual atheist's desire to kill a person or not to kill a person has much more to do with the physical characteristics of ones body and brain than it has to do with a moral code. The moral code comes into play when someone does want to kill a person for some reason. Now, the atheist can certainly hold the mistaken belief that they know right from wrong, and perhaps this belief would dissuade such an one. But one would still have no rational justification for holding that set of morals to be true."

    Now, I'm going to add my own expanded premise to what he wrote earlier this week.

    There is another thing to consider: an atheist isn't capable of conceptualizing free will ether due to similar reasons. They can't conceptualize spirit. They often build arguments based on the illogical contemporary context that is constantly shifting, thus forcing them to shift. Their free will is based on external forces outside their control.

    Most individuals deemed 'normies' struggle to rationalize independently, often relying heavily on communal arguments, which limits their capacity for exercising free will or developments of critical thinking skills.


    Now, lastly, with everything provided previously I'm going to bring forth a question: What separates an atheist from an animal?

    ElHeffe [2564022]

    Would you like some more straw for the man you're fighting?

    broleaf [3140943]

    I fail to see the extreme distortion; I think you are just in denial. Feel free to poke a hole in the theorem I posted however.

    ElHeffe [2564022]

    Simple. Atheists are more moral than Christians.

    Looking to a book of obvious fiction and claiming "this is where I derive my morals from is a horrible thing to do. It abandons any personal responsibility for critical thinking or governing behaviour.

    A Christian can go to the Bible and simply say "I am beating my slave, but not to death. I am a good person following the teaching of the Bible". Or they might say "I know someone who has a different religion than me. I am going to stone them to death in according with the teachings of God. I am a good person". Or they might be caught committing a sexual assault on a woman so they would pay the woman's father off and then marry her thinking "I am doing the right thing".

    Whereas an atheist would usually (I can't speak for all atheists) come to the conclusion that enslaving people, stoning them to death, etc are bad things because they can critically appraise those actions and realise they are bad. Not good, like you think.
    I've seen several atheists claim that Christians are bad people because they only do good because of hope of reward. I'm sure there are no atheists out there who do good out of anything less than purely intrinsic righteousness of the act itself. I'm sure that atheists never do anything good to purely to increase their image in the eyes of others, or do good deeds to get promoted at work, or to impress a girl.
    • broleaf [3140943]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 16
    • Posts: 490
    • Karma: 67
    • Last Action: 2 months
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 18:28:52 - 30/11/23 (2 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    broleaf [3140943]

    I'm going to quote Steppenwolf and his explanation of how atheists can't conceptualize spirit and therefore cant rationalize morality

    "atheist, or a person of another religion, say Baalism, can in fact be moral and do what is right and good. In fact Christians believe this to be true, if they know their Bible very well.

    "However the problem that atheism has with morality is that it cannot acknowledge morality as an existential reality. This is because atheism acknowledges no arbiter of truth; thus atheism can make no appeal to such an arbiter, or 'higher power'. In the atheist world-view, people may have opinions about morality, but they are only opinions. Nobody's opinion can be held ultimately in higher regard than anyone else's. An atheist society may debate ethics for millennia, but ultimately no moral code can ever be formulated because a moral code as such carries the authority of the "supernatural". An atheistic society may, by consensus or by unanimous support, hold that killing another person is wrong, but would only have it'self to ascribe the power to make such a distinction.

    Now, the typical atheist retort to this goes something like "You're saying that without religion to guide us, people would all go around murdering people, but I'm an atheist and I don't want to murder people." But that misses the point. The point in saying that there is no rational basis for morality without a god to uphold it, has nothing to do with whether people would "want" to do anything. The individual atheist's desire to kill a person or not to kill a person has much more to do with the physical characteristics of ones body and brain than it has to do with a moral code. The moral code comes into play when someone does want to kill a person for some reason. Now, the atheist can certainly hold the mistaken belief that they know right from wrong, and perhaps this belief would dissuade such an one. But one would still have no rational justification for holding that set of morals to be true."

    Now, I'm going to add my own expanded premise to what he wrote earlier this week.

    There is another thing to consider: an atheist isn't capable of conceptualizing free will ether due to similar reasons. They can't conceptualize spirit. They often build arguments based on the illogical contemporary context that is constantly shifting, thus forcing them to shift. Their free will is based on external forces outside their control.

    Most individuals deemed 'normies' struggle to rationalize independently, often relying heavily on communal arguments, which limits their capacity for exercising free will or developments of critical thinking skills.


    Now, lastly, with everything provided previously I'm going to bring forth a question: What separates an atheist from an animal?

    ElHeffe [2564022]

    Would you like some more straw for the man you're fighting?

    broleaf [3140943]

    I fail to see the extreme distortion; I think you are just in denial. Feel free to poke a hole in the theorem I posted however.

    ElHeffe [2564022]

    Simple. Atheists are more moral than Christians.

    Looking to a book of obvious fiction and claiming "this is where I derive my morals from is a horrible thing to do. It abandons any personal responsibility for critical thinking or governing behaviour.

    A Christian can go to the Bible and simply say "I am beating my slave, but not to death. I am a good person following the teaching of the Bible". Or they might say "I know someone who has a different religion than me. I am going to stone them to death in according with the teachings of God. I am a good person". Or they might be caught committing a sexual assault on a woman so they would pay the woman's father off and then marry her thinking "I am doing the right thing".

    Whereas an atheist would usually (I can't speak for all atheists) come to the conclusion that enslaving people, stoning them to death, etc are bad things because they can critically appraise those actions and realise they are bad. Not good, like you think.
    Whereas an atheist would usually (I can't speak for all atheists) come to the conclusion that enslaving people, stoning them to death, etc are bad things because they can critically appraise those actions and realise they are bad. Not good, like you think.
    For an atheist, this is irrational. How can you rationalize why it's unequivocally wrong?

    NRx. Reject Modernity return to: Tradition, Monarchy, Spirit.

    GENERAL-HUX-STARKILLER-BASE-SAR-WARS-THE-FORCE-AWAKENS-1.jpg

    • Latinobull14 [2881384]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 54
    • Posts: 347
    • Karma: 128
    • Last Action: 27 minutes
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 18:32:03 - 30/11/23 (2 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    broleaf [3140943]

    I'm going to quote Steppenwolf and his explanation of how atheists can't conceptualize spirit and therefore cant rationalize morality

    "atheist, or a person of another religion, say Baalism, can in fact be moral and do what is right and good. In fact Christians believe this to be true, if they know their Bible very well.

    "However the problem that atheism has with morality is that it cannot acknowledge morality as an existential reality. This is because atheism acknowledges no arbiter of truth; thus atheism can make no appeal to such an arbiter, or 'higher power'. In the atheist world-view, people may have opinions about morality, but they are only opinions. Nobody's opinion can be held ultimately in higher regard than anyone else's. An atheist society may debate ethics for millennia, but ultimately no moral code can ever be formulated because a moral code as such carries the authority of the "supernatural". An atheistic society may, by consensus or by unanimous support, hold that killing another person is wrong, but would only have it'self to ascribe the power to make such a distinction.

    Now, the typical atheist retort to this goes something like "You're saying that without religion to guide us, people would all go around murdering people, but I'm an atheist and I don't want to murder people." But that misses the point. The point in saying that there is no rational basis for morality without a god to uphold it, has nothing to do with whether people would "want" to do anything. The individual atheist's desire to kill a person or not to kill a person has much more to do with the physical characteristics of ones body and brain than it has to do with a moral code. The moral code comes into play when someone does want to kill a person for some reason. Now, the atheist can certainly hold the mistaken belief that they know right from wrong, and perhaps this belief would dissuade such an one. But one would still have no rational justification for holding that set of morals to be true."

    Now, I'm going to add my own expanded premise to what he wrote earlier this week.

    There is another thing to consider: an atheist isn't capable of conceptualizing free will ether due to similar reasons. They can't conceptualize spirit. They often build arguments based on the illogical contemporary context that is constantly shifting, thus forcing them to shift. Their free will is based on external forces outside their control.

    Most individuals deemed 'normies' struggle to rationalize independently, often relying heavily on communal arguments, which limits their capacity for exercising free will or developments of critical thinking skills.


    Now, lastly, with everything provided previously I'm going to bring forth a question: What separates an atheist from an animal?

    ElHeffe [2564022]

    Would you like some more straw for the man you're fighting?

    broleaf [3140943]

    I fail to see the extreme distortion; I think you are just in denial. Feel free to poke a hole in the theorem I posted however.

    ElHeffe [2564022]

    Simple. Atheists are more moral than Christians.

    Looking to a book of obvious fiction and claiming "this is where I derive my morals from is a horrible thing to do. It abandons any personal responsibility for critical thinking or governing behaviour.

    A Christian can go to the Bible and simply say "I am beating my slave, but not to death. I am a good person following the teaching of the Bible". Or they might say "I know someone who has a different religion than me. I am going to stone them to death in according with the teachings of God. I am a good person". Or they might be caught committing a sexual assault on a woman so they would pay the woman's father off and then marry her thinking "I am doing the right thing".

    Whereas an atheist would usually (I can't speak for all atheists) come to the conclusion that enslaving people, stoning them to death, etc are bad things because they can critically appraise those actions and realise they are bad. Not good, like you think.
    So how is the bible fiction? What proof do you have that it is total fiction? Almost all scholars and non-religious historians agree that there was a man named Jesus who did exist in the 1st century. 

    Also, how does the bible not allow critical thinking? If anything it greatly encourages this. Jesus in many scenarios spoke in parables. He spoke in these ways to help us think and understand the issue at hand and to analyze it and get an answer from that analysis.... which is critical thinking.

    Also, the bible doesn't answer everything in life. The Bible speaks about clothing the poor and feeding the hungry. That is what the bible says. But who do I help? Do I help those struggling in Mexico, India, Canada, the Philippines, the USA, or the Remote Islands? The Bible doesn't say which one gets priority. So I have to use my judgment and my analysis of the situation to see where I should help. This is just one example of how the teachings of the bible still require analysis and judgment.
    • Latinobull14 [2881384]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 54
    • Posts: 347
    • Karma: 128
    • Last Action: 27 minutes
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 18:41:06 - 30/11/23 (2 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    JusticeDragon [2641318]

    I absolutely agree! Christ is my lord and savior and am really glad to see someone take the courage and open this thread.


    Just a few questions to another brother:

    what denomination would you classify yourself as (sorry if you already mentioned it in this thread)?

    what are your thoughts on Catholicism?

    How do you think we as Christian’s should act to best glorify the Lord?
    So I am Pentecostal. 

    I have very little knowledge of Catholicism and its practices outside mainstream knowledge. So I don't think I have a good foundation to speak positively or negatively about them. But their foundations are built on the Bible and Jesus so that is a good start for me.

    The best way is to try your best to live a life like Jesus. Jesus is the model Christian and we should all strive to love people the way he loves, to pray and worship God the way he did, to help those who need it, and to correct those who are straying down the wrong path. But also, your lifestyle in church and in front of church members should be the same lifestyle you have in front of non-Christians and co-workers. Christianity isn't something you do on Sunday 10 - 12, it's a lifestyle that you live and everybody should see the fruits of it.
    • EverleighRaven [2949890]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 12
    • Posts: 583
    • Karma: 169
    • Last Action: 22 minutes
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 20:35:29 - 30/11/23 (2 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    broleaf [3140943]

    I'm going to quote Steppenwolf and his explanation of how atheists can't conceptualize spirit and therefore cant rationalize morality

    "atheist, or a person of another religion, say Baalism, can in fact be moral and do what is right and good. In fact Christians believe this to be true, if they know their Bible very well.

    "However the problem that atheism has with morality is that it cannot acknowledge morality as an existential reality. This is because atheism acknowledges no arbiter of truth; thus atheism can make no appeal to such an arbiter, or 'higher power'. In the atheist world-view, people may have opinions about morality, but they are only opinions. Nobody's opinion can be held ultimately in higher regard than anyone else's. An atheist society may debate ethics for millennia, but ultimately no moral code can ever be formulated because a moral code as such carries the authority of the "supernatural". An atheistic society may, by consensus or by unanimous support, hold that killing another person is wrong, but would only have it'self to ascribe the power to make such a distinction.

    Now, the typical atheist retort to this goes something like "You're saying that without religion to guide us, people would all go around murdering people, but I'm an atheist and I don't want to murder people." But that misses the point. The point in saying that there is no rational basis for morality without a god to uphold it, has nothing to do with whether people would "want" to do anything. The individual atheist's desire to kill a person or not to kill a person has much more to do with the physical characteristics of ones body and brain than it has to do with a moral code. The moral code comes into play when someone does want to kill a person for some reason. Now, the atheist can certainly hold the mistaken belief that they know right from wrong, and perhaps this belief would dissuade such an one. But one would still have no rational justification for holding that set of morals to be true."

    Now, I'm going to add my own expanded premise to what he wrote earlier this week.

    There is another thing to consider: an atheist isn't capable of conceptualizing free will ether due to similar reasons. They can't conceptualize spirit. They often build arguments based on the illogical contemporary context that is constantly shifting, thus forcing them to shift. Their free will is based on external forces outside their control.

    Most individuals deemed 'normies' struggle to rationalize independently, often relying heavily on communal arguments, which limits their capacity for exercising free will or developments of critical thinking skills.


    Now, lastly, with everything provided previously I'm going to bring forth a question: What separates an atheist from an animal?

    ElHeffe [2564022]

    Would you like some more straw for the man you're fighting?

    broleaf [3140943]

    I fail to see the extreme distortion; I think you are just in denial. Feel free to poke a hole in the theorem I posted however.

    ElHeffe [2564022]

    Simple. Atheists are more moral than Christians.

    Looking to a book of obvious fiction and claiming "this is where I derive my morals from is a horrible thing to do. It abandons any personal responsibility for critical thinking or governing behaviour.

    A Christian can go to the Bible and simply say "I am beating my slave, but not to death. I am a good person following the teaching of the Bible". Or they might say "I know someone who has a different religion than me. I am going to stone them to death in according with the teachings of God. I am a good person". Or they might be caught committing a sexual assault on a woman so they would pay the woman's father off and then marry her thinking "I am doing the right thing".

    Whereas an atheist would usually (I can't speak for all atheists) come to the conclusion that enslaving people, stoning them to death, etc are bad things because they can critically appraise those actions and realise they are bad. Not good, like you think.

    Strand [2821241]

    I've seen several atheists claim that Christians are bad people because they only do good because of hope of reward. I'm sure there are no atheists out there who do good out of anything less than purely intrinsic righteousness of the act itself. I'm sure that atheists never do anything good to purely to increase their image in the eyes of others, or do good deeds to get promoted at work, or to impress a girl.
    You bring up some very interesting points.  I see morality as doing things and avoiding doing other things that is supposed to protect people and their interests within a community.  Killing people is wrong because for the most part, people have this natural and instinctual drive to survive, so they can pass down their genes, so the species can continue to survive.  This is why people are genetically programmed to be very reluctant to kill another person for no good reason, because this is not good for the survival of their species, and this is not an opinion, this is a biological fact that applies to all living organisms.  After all, people want to go to heaven because they do not want to die, and they do not want pain and suffering because pain is a signal for body damage, which could lead to death in normal situations, so people are programmed to want to avoid pain.  Other commonly-bad things are bad for similar reasons, such as beating someone up is bad because getting injured would impede a person from doing things that need to do, if they didn't die from their injuries, and doing things such as threatening people and making them fear for their safety is also morally wrong because we need to survive.

    Other things, such as no stealing, also has a similar logical justification, because in the ancient times before technology makes life much easier, it took work and effort and possibly danger to acquire the things, such as food, water, shelter, to survive, and possibly money to get things that they need, and it would be much easier for a person to not have to go through all this effort to get it by stealing these things from the person who worked hard to get it, which decreases that person's chances of survival, since they would have to go through that same process again but with less energy and time, instead of doing other important things, since they would need more resources. This is why stealing is bad, because resources that help with survival are ultimately limited and hard to get, so people need to put in effort and energy to get them, and also defend what resources they do have. I know that nowadays, not everything that we have is something that is essential for us to keep living, but having this moral standard of no stealing still helps us protect people's things that do matter in life.

    Adultery is bad because not just humans, living organisms which reproduce sexually have the biological goal of perpetuating their own genes before they die, which means for humans, raising children (most of the time that person's biological children) with another person, and adultery can threaten this objective by either one parent raising a child that's not biologically their's, and the cheating partner not investing as much energy and resources into this relationship as they could've, which in turn, impacts the children, or future children that they might have later, and it also can increase the risk of them leaving the relationship altogether, and a single parent would have a much harder time procuring resources for themselves and for the child than if multiple people can pool resources together and team up to help each other out in raising the kid(s). Raising kids in a safe, stable environment with people who can work to provide resources is important so the kids can grow up and keep perpetuating their parent's genes, which in turn, keeps humanity alive.

    Racism and other forms of discrimination is born out of our natural inclination to favor the people who are like us and in our in-group, and even though it does benefit you, and the people in our in-group, it does it at the expense of the people in the out-group, which might have been beneficial when we lived in small groups, but not good for society as a whole because it reduces the chances of certain groups of people from surviving and passing on their genes. I know that what I said here might not directly implicate a person's survival and be life-or-death, but root causes of all these things in our society still directly link to our desire to survive and reproduce. In a lot of cases, morality can be seen as subjective, and as a matter of good for who, and bad for who else, but I think the purpose of morality, a lot of the times, is supposed to benefit everybody by protecting people from being harmed by other people.

    These are just a few examples of morality that develop not from people's opinions, but from a biological perspective, and to answer your question: yes, we are all animals in this same system, playing the same game of survival and competition for limited resources as any other living thing, and morality is a tool people developed to help them survive in this unforgiving world, and it does work to some extent.
    Last edited by EverleighRaven on 20:50:37 - 30/11/23
    • broleaf [3140943]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 16
    • Posts: 490
    • Karma: 67
    • Last Action: 2 months
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 20:59:15 - 30/11/23 (2 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    broleaf [3140943]

    I'm going to quote Steppenwolf and his explanation of how atheists can't conceptualize spirit and therefore cant rationalize morality

    "atheist, or a person of another religion, say Baalism, can in fact be moral and do what is right and good. In fact Christians believe this to be true, if they know their Bible very well.

    "However the problem that atheism has with morality is that it cannot acknowledge morality as an existential reality. This is because atheism acknowledges no arbiter of truth; thus atheism can make no appeal to such an arbiter, or 'higher power'. In the atheist world-view, people may have opinions about morality, but they are only opinions. Nobody's opinion can be held ultimately in higher regard than anyone else's. An atheist society may debate ethics for millennia, but ultimately no moral code can ever be formulated because a moral code as such carries the authority of the "supernatural". An atheistic society may, by consensus or by unanimous support, hold that killing another person is wrong, but would only have it'self to ascribe the power to make such a distinction.

    Now, the typical atheist retort to this goes something like "You're saying that without religion to guide us, people would all go around murdering people, but I'm an atheist and I don't want to murder people." But that misses the point. The point in saying that there is no rational basis for morality without a god to uphold it, has nothing to do with whether people would "want" to do anything. The individual atheist's desire to kill a person or not to kill a person has much more to do with the physical characteristics of ones body and brain than it has to do with a moral code. The moral code comes into play when someone does want to kill a person for some reason. Now, the atheist can certainly hold the mistaken belief that they know right from wrong, and perhaps this belief would dissuade such an one. But one would still have no rational justification for holding that set of morals to be true."

    Now, I'm going to add my own expanded premise to what he wrote earlier this week.

    There is another thing to consider: an atheist isn't capable of conceptualizing free will ether due to similar reasons. They can't conceptualize spirit. They often build arguments based on the illogical contemporary context that is constantly shifting, thus forcing them to shift. Their free will is based on external forces outside their control.

    Most individuals deemed 'normies' struggle to rationalize independently, often relying heavily on communal arguments, which limits their capacity for exercising free will or developments of critical thinking skills.


    Now, lastly, with everything provided previously I'm going to bring forth a question: What separates an atheist from an animal?

    ElHeffe [2564022]

    Would you like some more straw for the man you're fighting?

    broleaf [3140943]

    I fail to see the extreme distortion; I think you are just in denial. Feel free to poke a hole in the theorem I posted however.

    ElHeffe [2564022]

    Simple. Atheists are more moral than Christians.

    Looking to a book of obvious fiction and claiming "this is where I derive my morals from is a horrible thing to do. It abandons any personal responsibility for critical thinking or governing behaviour.

    A Christian can go to the Bible and simply say "I am beating my slave, but not to death. I am a good person following the teaching of the Bible". Or they might say "I know someone who has a different religion than me. I am going to stone them to death in according with the teachings of God. I am a good person". Or they might be caught committing a sexual assault on a woman so they would pay the woman's father off and then marry her thinking "I am doing the right thing".

    Whereas an atheist would usually (I can't speak for all atheists) come to the conclusion that enslaving people, stoning them to death, etc are bad things because they can critically appraise those actions and realise they are bad. Not good, like you think.

    Strand [2821241]

    I've seen several atheists claim that Christians are bad people because they only do good because of hope of reward. I'm sure there are no atheists out there who do good out of anything less than purely intrinsic righteousness of the act itself. I'm sure that atheists never do anything good to purely to increase their image in the eyes of others, or do good deeds to get promoted at work, or to impress a girl.

    EverleighRaven [2949890]

    You bring up some very interesting points. I see morality as doing things and avoiding doing other things that is supposed to protect people and their interests within a community. Killing people is wrong because for the most part, people have this natural and instinctual drive to survive, so they can pass down their genes, so the species can continue to survive. This is why people are genetically programmed to be very reluctant to kill another person for no good reason, because this is not good for the survival of their species, and this is not an opinion, this is a biological fact that applies to all living organisms. After all, people want to go to heaven because they do not want to die, and they do not want pain and suffering because pain is a signal for body damage, which could lead to death in normal situations, so people are programmed to want to avoid pain. Other commonly-bad things are bad for similar reasons, such as beating someone up is bad because getting injured would impede a person from doing things that need to do, if they didn't die from their injuries, and doing things such as threatening people and making them fear for their safety is also morally wrong because we need to survive.

    Other things, such as no stealing, also has a similar logical justification, because in the ancient times before technology makes life much easier, it took work and effort and possibly danger to acquire the things, such as food, water, shelter, to survive, and possibly money to get things that they need, and it would be much easier for a person to not have to go through all this effort to get it by stealing these things from the person who worked hard to get it, which decreases that person's chances of survival, since they would have to go through that same process again but with less energy and time, instead of doing other important things, since they would need more resources. This is why stealing is bad, because resources that help with survival are ultimately limited and hard to get, so people need to put in effort and energy to get them, and also defend what resources they do have. I know that nowadays, not everything that we have is something that is essential for us to keep living, but having this moral standard of no stealing still helps us protect people's things that do matter in life.

    Adultery is bad because not just humans, living organisms which reproduce sexually have the biological goal of perpetuating their own genes before they die, which means for humans, raising children (most of the time that person's biological children) with another person, and adultery can threaten this objective by either one parent raising a child that's not biologically their's, and the cheating partner not investing as much energy and resources into this relationship as they could've, which in turn, impacts the children, or future children that they might have later, and it also can increase the risk of them leaving the relationship altogether, and a single parent would have a much harder time procuring resources for themselves and for the child than if multiple people can pool resources together and team up to help each other out in raising the kid(s). Raising kids in a safe, stable environment with people who can work to provide resources is important so the kids can grow up and keep perpetuating their parent's genes, which in turn, keeps humanity alive.

    Racism and other forms of discrimination is born out of our natural inclination to favor the people who are like us and in our in-group, and even though it does benefit you, and the people in our in-group, it does it at the expense of the people in the out-group, which might have been beneficial when we lived in small groups, but not good for society as a whole because it reduces the chances of certain groups of people from surviving and passing on their genes. I know that what I said here might not directly implicate a person's survival and be life-or-death, but root causes of all these things in our society still directly link to our desire to survive and reproduce. In a lot of cases, morality can be seen as subjective, and as a matter of good for who, and bad for who else, but I think the purpose of morality, a lot of the times, is supposed to benefit everybody by protecting people from being harmed by other people.

    These are just a few examples of morality that develop not from people's opinions, but from a biological perspective, and to answer your question: yes, we are all animals in this same system, playing the same game of survival and competition for limited resources as any other living thing, and morality is a tool people developed to help them survive in this unforgiving world, and it does work to some extent.
    "Killing people is wrong because for the most part, people have this natural and instinctual drive to survive, so they can pass down their genes, so the species can continue to survive. This is why people are genetically programmed to be very reluctant to kill another person for no good reason."

    science states otherwise
    Humans Are Genetically Predisposed to Kill Each Other

    "Other commonly-bad things are bad for similar reasons, such as beating someone up is bad because getting injured would impede a person from doing things that need to do, if they didn't die from their injuries, and doing things such as threatening people and making them fear for their safety is also morally wrong because we need to survive."

    You will have to address the chain of theorem I broke in the first response.


    "Adultery is bad because not just humans, living organisms which reproduce sexually have the biological goal of perpetuating their own genes before they die, which means for humans, raising children (most of the time that person's biological children) with another person, and adultery can threaten this objective by either one parent raising a child that's not biologically their's, and the cheating partner not investing as much energy and resources into this relationship as they could've, which in turn, impacts the children, or future children that they might have later, and it also can increase the risk of them leaving the relationship altogether, and a single parent would have a much harder time procuring resources for themselves and for the child than if multiple people can pool resources together and team up to help each other out in raising the kid(s). Raising kids in a safe, stable environment with people who can work to provide resources is important so the kids can grow up and keep perpetuating their parent's genes, which in turn, keeps humanity alive."

    But an atheist could argue that his needs matter only so he can pass off his genetics. how can you rationalize unequivocally against why he should adhere to your suggested moral standard over another, Thus forth, logically it would make sense he would engage in said behavior regardless like having an affair with John's doe wife, passing on his genetics. Thus, it aligns more with your Darwinism narrative ironically. Notably, I as well do argue that atheists are akin to animals and our spirituality is what sets us apart.

    "Racism and other forms of discrimination is born out of our natural inclination to favor the people who are like us and in our in-group, and even though it does benefit you, and the people in our in-group, it does it at the expense of the people in the out-group, which might have been beneficial when we lived in small groups, but not good for society as a whole because it reduces the chances of certain groups of people from surviving and passing on their genes. I know that what I said here might not directly implicate a person's survival and be life-or-death, but root causes of all these things in our society still directly link to our desire to survive and reproduce. In a lot of cases, morality can be seen as subjective, and as a matter of good for who, and bad for who else, but I think the purpose of morality, a lot of the times, is supposed to benefit everybody by protecting people from being harmed by other people."

    Diversity for the sake of diversity isn't even a positive; it's illogical from an atheist perspective if we reduce them to animals. Why should the white human animal support some moral argument of competing with the black human animal in the shared society? Sounds illogical, especially trying to enforce such a conceptual ideal. Did you not argue that tribalism is a thing seems like you're conflicted; there's some illogical inconsistency?

    The contrast in this realm, I might add, is the concept of Christian brotherhood and sisterhood, transcending race, as opposed to the lack there of a moral founding for such a notion in the atheist side of the debate.

    The Downside of Diversity
    Last edited by broleaf on 02:09:53 - 01/12/23

    NRx. Reject Modernity return to: Tradition, Monarchy, Spirit.

    GENERAL-HUX-STARKILLER-BASE-SAR-WARS-THE-FORCE-AWAKENS-1.jpg

    • EverleighRaven [2949890]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 12
    • Posts: 583
    • Karma: 169
    • Last Action: 22 minutes
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 21:03:29 - 30/11/23 (2 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    ElHeffe [2564022]

    Would you like some more straw for the man you're fighting?

    broleaf [3140943]

    I fail to see the extreme distortion; I think you are just in denial. Feel free to poke a hole in the theorem I posted however.

    ElHeffe [2564022]

    Simple. Atheists are more moral than Christians.

    Looking to a book of obvious fiction and claiming "this is where I derive my morals from is a horrible thing to do. It abandons any personal responsibility for critical thinking or governing behaviour.

    A Christian can go to the Bible and simply say "I am beating my slave, but not to death. I am a good person following the teaching of the Bible". Or they might say "I know someone who has a different religion than me. I am going to stone them to death in according with the teachings of God. I am a good person". Or they might be caught committing a sexual assault on a woman so they would pay the woman's father off and then marry her thinking "I am doing the right thing".

    Whereas an atheist would usually (I can't speak for all atheists) come to the conclusion that enslaving people, stoning them to death, etc are bad things because they can critically appraise those actions and realise they are bad. Not good, like you think.

    Strand [2821241]

    I've seen several atheists claim that Christians are bad people because they only do good because of hope of reward. I'm sure there are no atheists out there who do good out of anything less than purely intrinsic righteousness of the act itself. I'm sure that atheists never do anything good to purely to increase their image in the eyes of others, or do good deeds to get promoted at work, or to impress a girl.

    EverleighRaven [2949890]

    You bring up some very interesting points. I see morality as doing things and avoiding doing other things that is supposed to protect people and their interests within a community. Killing people is wrong because for the most part, people have this natural and instinctual drive to survive, so they can pass down their genes, so the species can continue to survive. This is why people are genetically programmed to be very reluctant to kill another person for no good reason, because this is not good for the survival of their species, and this is not an opinion, this is a biological fact that applies to all living organisms. After all, people want to go to heaven because they do not want to die, and they do not want pain and suffering because pain is a signal for body damage, which could lead to death in normal situations, so people are programmed to want to avoid pain. Other commonly-bad things are bad for similar reasons, such as beating someone up is bad because getting injured would impede a person from doing things that need to do, if they didn't die from their injuries, and doing things such as threatening people and making them fear for their safety is also morally wrong because we need to survive.

    Other things, such as no stealing, also has a similar logical justification, because in the ancient times before technology makes life much easier, it took work and effort and possibly danger to acquire the things, such as food, water, shelter, to survive, and possibly money to get things that they need, and it would be much easier for a person to not have to go through all this effort to get it by stealing these things from the person who worked hard to get it, which decreases that person's chances of survival, since they would have to go through that same process again but with less energy and time, instead of doing other important things, since they would need more resources. This is why stealing is bad, because resources that help with survival are ultimately limited and hard to get, so people need to put in effort and energy to get them, and also defend what resources they do have. I know that nowadays, not everything that we have is something that is essential for us to keep living, but having this moral standard of no stealing still helps us protect people's things that do matter in life.

    Adultery is bad because not just humans, living organisms which reproduce sexually have the biological goal of perpetuating their own genes before they die, which means for humans, raising children (most of the time that person's biological children) with another person, and adultery can threaten this objective by either one parent raising a child that's not biologically their's, and the cheating partner not investing as much energy and resources into this relationship as they could've, which in turn, impacts the children, or future children that they might have later, and it also can increase the risk of them leaving the relationship altogether, and a single parent would have a much harder time procuring resources for themselves and for the child than if multiple people can pool resources together and team up to help each other out in raising the kid(s). Raising kids in a safe, stable environment with people who can work to provide resources is important so the kids can grow up and keep perpetuating their parent's genes, which in turn, keeps humanity alive.

    Racism and other forms of discrimination is born out of our natural inclination to favor the people who are like us and in our in-group, and even though it does benefit you, and the people in our in-group, it does it at the expense of the people in the out-group, which might have been beneficial when we lived in small groups, but not good for society as a whole because it reduces the chances of certain groups of people from surviving and passing on their genes. I know that what I said here might not directly implicate a person's survival and be life-or-death, but root causes of all these things in our society still directly link to our desire to survive and reproduce. In a lot of cases, morality can be seen as subjective, and as a matter of good for who, and bad for who else, but I think the purpose of morality, a lot of the times, is supposed to benefit everybody by protecting people from being harmed by other people.

    These are just a few examples of morality that develop not from people's opinions, but from a biological perspective, and to answer your question: yes, we are all animals in this same system, playing the same game of survival and competition for limited resources as any other living thing, and morality is a tool people developed to help them survive in this unforgiving world, and it does work to some extent.

    broleaf [3140943]

    "Killing people is wrong because for the most part, people have this natural and instinctual drive to survive, so they can pass down their genes, so the species can continue to survive. This is why people are genetically programmed to be very reluctant to kill another person for no good reason."

    science states otherwise
    Humans Are Genetically Predisposed to Kill Each Other

    "Other commonly-bad things are bad for similar reasons, such as beating someone up is bad because getting injured would impede a person from doing things that need to do, if they didn't die from their injuries, and doing things such as threatening people and making them fear for their safety is also morally wrong because we need to survive."

    You will have to address the chain of theorem I broke in the first response.


    "Adultery is bad because not just humans, living organisms which reproduce sexually have the biological goal of perpetuating their own genes before they die, which means for humans, raising children (most of the time that person's biological children) with another person, and adultery can threaten this objective by either one parent raising a child that's not biologically their's, and the cheating partner not investing as much energy and resources into this relationship as they could've, which in turn, impacts the children, or future children that they might have later, and it also can increase the risk of them leaving the relationship altogether, and a single parent would have a much harder time procuring resources for themselves and for the child than if multiple people can pool resources together and team up to help each other out in raising the kid(s). Raising kids in a safe, stable environment with people who can work to provide resources is important so the kids can grow up and keep perpetuating their parent's genes, which in turn, keeps humanity alive."

    But an atheist could argue that his needs matter only so he can pass off his genetics. how can you rationalize unequivocally against why he should adhere to your suggested moral standard over another, Thus forth, logically it would make sense he would engage in said behavior regardless like having an affair with John's doe wife, passing on his genetics. Thus, it aligns more with your Darwinism narrative ironically. Notably, I as well do argue that atheists are akin to animals and our spirituality is what sets us apart.

    "Racism and other forms of discrimination is born out of our natural inclination to favor the people who are like us and in our in-group, and even though it does benefit you, and the people in our in-group, it does it at the expense of the people in the out-group, which might have been beneficial when we lived in small groups, but not good for society as a whole because it reduces the chances of certain groups of people from surviving and passing on their genes. I know that what I said here might not directly implicate a person's survival and be life-or-death, but root causes of all these things in our society still directly link to our desire to survive and reproduce. In a lot of cases, morality can be seen as subjective, and as a matter of good for who, and bad for who else, but I think the purpose of morality, a lot of the times, is supposed to benefit everybody by protecting people from being harmed by other people."

    Diversity for the sake of diversity isn't even a positive; it's illogical from an atheist perspective if we reduce them to animals. Why should the white human animal support some moral argument of competing with the black human animal in the shared society? Sounds illogical, especially trying to enforce such a conceptual ideal. Did you not argue that tribalism is a thing seems like you're conflicted; there's some illogical inconsistency?

    The contrast in this realm, I might add, is the concept of Christian brotherhood and sisterhood, transcending race, as opposed to the lack there of a moral founding for such a notion in the atheist side of the debate.

    The Downside of Diversity
    Oh this is going to be good...
    • broleaf [3140943]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 16
    • Posts: 490
    • Karma: 67
    • Last Action: 2 months
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 22:40:28 - 30/11/23 (2 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    broleaf [3140943]

    I fail to see the extreme distortion; I think you are just in denial. Feel free to poke a hole in the theorem I posted however.

    ElHeffe [2564022]

    Simple. Atheists are more moral than Christians.

    Looking to a book of obvious fiction and claiming "this is where I derive my morals from is a horrible thing to do. It abandons any personal responsibility for critical thinking or governing behaviour.

    A Christian can go to the Bible and simply say "I am beating my slave, but not to death. I am a good person following the teaching of the Bible". Or they might say "I know someone who has a different religion than me. I am going to stone them to death in according with the teachings of God. I am a good person". Or they might be caught committing a sexual assault on a woman so they would pay the woman's father off and then marry her thinking "I am doing the right thing".

    Whereas an atheist would usually (I can't speak for all atheists) come to the conclusion that enslaving people, stoning them to death, etc are bad things because they can critically appraise those actions and realise they are bad. Not good, like you think.

    Strand [2821241]

    I've seen several atheists claim that Christians are bad people because they only do good because of hope of reward. I'm sure there are no atheists out there who do good out of anything less than purely intrinsic righteousness of the act itself. I'm sure that atheists never do anything good to purely to increase their image in the eyes of others, or do good deeds to get promoted at work, or to impress a girl.

    EverleighRaven [2949890]

    You bring up some very interesting points. I see morality as doing things and avoiding doing other things that is supposed to protect people and their interests within a community. Killing people is wrong because for the most part, people have this natural and instinctual drive to survive, so they can pass down their genes, so the species can continue to survive. This is why people are genetically programmed to be very reluctant to kill another person for no good reason, because this is not good for the survival of their species, and this is not an opinion, this is a biological fact that applies to all living organisms. After all, people want to go to heaven because they do not want to die, and they do not want pain and suffering because pain is a signal for body damage, which could lead to death in normal situations, so people are programmed to want to avoid pain. Other commonly-bad things are bad for similar reasons, such as beating someone up is bad because getting injured would impede a person from doing things that need to do, if they didn't die from their injuries, and doing things such as threatening people and making them fear for their safety is also morally wrong because we need to survive.

    Other things, such as no stealing, also has a similar logical justification, because in the ancient times before technology makes life much easier, it took work and effort and possibly danger to acquire the things, such as food, water, shelter, to survive, and possibly money to get things that they need, and it would be much easier for a person to not have to go through all this effort to get it by stealing these things from the person who worked hard to get it, which decreases that person's chances of survival, since they would have to go through that same process again but with less energy and time, instead of doing other important things, since they would need more resources. This is why stealing is bad, because resources that help with survival are ultimately limited and hard to get, so people need to put in effort and energy to get them, and also defend what resources they do have. I know that nowadays, not everything that we have is something that is essential for us to keep living, but having this moral standard of no stealing still helps us protect people's things that do matter in life.

    Adultery is bad because not just humans, living organisms which reproduce sexually have the biological goal of perpetuating their own genes before they die, which means for humans, raising children (most of the time that person's biological children) with another person, and adultery can threaten this objective by either one parent raising a child that's not biologically their's, and the cheating partner not investing as much energy and resources into this relationship as they could've, which in turn, impacts the children, or future children that they might have later, and it also can increase the risk of them leaving the relationship altogether, and a single parent would have a much harder time procuring resources for themselves and for the child than if multiple people can pool resources together and team up to help each other out in raising the kid(s). Raising kids in a safe, stable environment with people who can work to provide resources is important so the kids can grow up and keep perpetuating their parent's genes, which in turn, keeps humanity alive.

    Racism and other forms of discrimination is born out of our natural inclination to favor the people who are like us and in our in-group, and even though it does benefit you, and the people in our in-group, it does it at the expense of the people in the out-group, which might have been beneficial when we lived in small groups, but not good for society as a whole because it reduces the chances of certain groups of people from surviving and passing on their genes. I know that what I said here might not directly implicate a person's survival and be life-or-death, but root causes of all these things in our society still directly link to our desire to survive and reproduce. In a lot of cases, morality can be seen as subjective, and as a matter of good for who, and bad for who else, but I think the purpose of morality, a lot of the times, is supposed to benefit everybody by protecting people from being harmed by other people.

    These are just a few examples of morality that develop not from people's opinions, but from a biological perspective, and to answer your question: yes, we are all animals in this same system, playing the same game of survival and competition for limited resources as any other living thing, and morality is a tool people developed to help them survive in this unforgiving world, and it does work to some extent.

    broleaf [3140943]

    "Killing people is wrong because for the most part, people have this natural and instinctual drive to survive, so they can pass down their genes, so the species can continue to survive. This is why people are genetically programmed to be very reluctant to kill another person for no good reason."

    science states otherwise
    Humans Are Genetically Predisposed to Kill Each Other

    "Other commonly-bad things are bad for similar reasons, such as beating someone up is bad because getting injured would impede a person from doing things that need to do, if they didn't die from their injuries, and doing things such as threatening people and making them fear for their safety is also morally wrong because we need to survive."

    You will have to address the chain of theorem I broke in the first response.


    "Adultery is bad because not just humans, living organisms which reproduce sexually have the biological goal of perpetuating their own genes before they die, which means for humans, raising children (most of the time that person's biological children) with another person, and adultery can threaten this objective by either one parent raising a child that's not biologically their's, and the cheating partner not investing as much energy and resources into this relationship as they could've, which in turn, impacts the children, or future children that they might have later, and it also can increase the risk of them leaving the relationship altogether, and a single parent would have a much harder time procuring resources for themselves and for the child than if multiple people can pool resources together and team up to help each other out in raising the kid(s). Raising kids in a safe, stable environment with people who can work to provide resources is important so the kids can grow up and keep perpetuating their parent's genes, which in turn, keeps humanity alive."

    But an atheist could argue that his needs matter only so he can pass off his genetics. how can you rationalize unequivocally against why he should adhere to your suggested moral standard over another, Thus forth, logically it would make sense he would engage in said behavior regardless like having an affair with John's doe wife, passing on his genetics. Thus, it aligns more with your Darwinism narrative ironically. Notably, I as well do argue that atheists are akin to animals and our spirituality is what sets us apart.

    "Racism and other forms of discrimination is born out of our natural inclination to favor the people who are like us and in our in-group, and even though it does benefit you, and the people in our in-group, it does it at the expense of the people in the out-group, which might have been beneficial when we lived in small groups, but not good for society as a whole because it reduces the chances of certain groups of people from surviving and passing on their genes. I know that what I said here might not directly implicate a person's survival and be life-or-death, but root causes of all these things in our society still directly link to our desire to survive and reproduce. In a lot of cases, morality can be seen as subjective, and as a matter of good for who, and bad for who else, but I think the purpose of morality, a lot of the times, is supposed to benefit everybody by protecting people from being harmed by other people."

    Diversity for the sake of diversity isn't even a positive; it's illogical from an atheist perspective if we reduce them to animals. Why should the white human animal support some moral argument of competing with the black human animal in the shared society? Sounds illogical, especially trying to enforce such a conceptual ideal. Did you not argue that tribalism is a thing seems like you're conflicted; there's some illogical inconsistency?

    The contrast in this realm, I might add, is the concept of Christian brotherhood and sisterhood, transcending race, as opposed to the lack there of a moral founding for such a notion in the atheist side of the debate.

    The Downside of Diversity

    EverleighRaven [2949890]

    Oh this is going to be good...
    after the counter is provided ill contrast atheism vs Christianity in the areas above
    Last edited by broleaf on 00:30:00 - 01/12/23

    NRx. Reject Modernity return to: Tradition, Monarchy, Spirit.

    GENERAL-HUX-STARKILLER-BASE-SAR-WARS-THE-FORCE-AWAKENS-1.jpg

    • EverleighRaven [2949890]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 12
    • Posts: 583
    • Karma: 169
    • Last Action: 22 minutes
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 01:52:07 - 01/12/23 (2 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    ElHeffe [2564022]

    Simple. Atheists are more moral than Christians.

    Looking to a book of obvious fiction and claiming "this is where I derive my morals from is a horrible thing to do. It abandons any personal responsibility for critical thinking or governing behaviour.

    A Christian can go to the Bible and simply say "I am beating my slave, but not to death. I am a good person following the teaching of the Bible". Or they might say "I know someone who has a different religion than me. I am going to stone them to death in according with the teachings of God. I am a good person". Or they might be caught committing a sexual assault on a woman so they would pay the woman's father off and then marry her thinking "I am doing the right thing".

    Whereas an atheist would usually (I can't speak for all atheists) come to the conclusion that enslaving people, stoning them to death, etc are bad things because they can critically appraise those actions and realise they are bad. Not good, like you think.

    Strand [2821241]

    I've seen several atheists claim that Christians are bad people because they only do good because of hope of reward. I'm sure there are no atheists out there who do good out of anything less than purely intrinsic righteousness of the act itself. I'm sure that atheists never do anything good to purely to increase their image in the eyes of others, or do good deeds to get promoted at work, or to impress a girl.

    EverleighRaven [2949890]

    You bring up some very interesting points. I see morality as doing things and avoiding doing other things that is supposed to protect people and their interests within a community. Killing people is wrong because for the most part, people have this natural and instinctual drive to survive, so they can pass down their genes, so the species can continue to survive. This is why people are genetically programmed to be very reluctant to kill another person for no good reason, because this is not good for the survival of their species, and this is not an opinion, this is a biological fact that applies to all living organisms. After all, people want to go to heaven because they do not want to die, and they do not want pain and suffering because pain is a signal for body damage, which could lead to death in normal situations, so people are programmed to want to avoid pain. Other commonly-bad things are bad for similar reasons, such as beating someone up is bad because getting injured would impede a person from doing things that need to do, if they didn't die from their injuries, and doing things such as threatening people and making them fear for their safety is also morally wrong because we need to survive.

    Other things, such as no stealing, also has a similar logical justification, because in the ancient times before technology makes life much easier, it took work and effort and possibly danger to acquire the things, such as food, water, shelter, to survive, and possibly money to get things that they need, and it would be much easier for a person to not have to go through all this effort to get it by stealing these things from the person who worked hard to get it, which decreases that person's chances of survival, since they would have to go through that same process again but with less energy and time, instead of doing other important things, since they would need more resources. This is why stealing is bad, because resources that help with survival are ultimately limited and hard to get, so people need to put in effort and energy to get them, and also defend what resources they do have. I know that nowadays, not everything that we have is something that is essential for us to keep living, but having this moral standard of no stealing still helps us protect people's things that do matter in life.

    Adultery is bad because not just humans, living organisms which reproduce sexually have the biological goal of perpetuating their own genes before they die, which means for humans, raising children (most of the time that person's biological children) with another person, and adultery can threaten this objective by either one parent raising a child that's not biologically their's, and the cheating partner not investing as much energy and resources into this relationship as they could've, which in turn, impacts the children, or future children that they might have later, and it also can increase the risk of them leaving the relationship altogether, and a single parent would have a much harder time procuring resources for themselves and for the child than if multiple people can pool resources together and team up to help each other out in raising the kid(s). Raising kids in a safe, stable environment with people who can work to provide resources is important so the kids can grow up and keep perpetuating their parent's genes, which in turn, keeps humanity alive.

    Racism and other forms of discrimination is born out of our natural inclination to favor the people who are like us and in our in-group, and even though it does benefit you, and the people in our in-group, it does it at the expense of the people in the out-group, which might have been beneficial when we lived in small groups, but not good for society as a whole because it reduces the chances of certain groups of people from surviving and passing on their genes. I know that what I said here might not directly implicate a person's survival and be life-or-death, but root causes of all these things in our society still directly link to our desire to survive and reproduce. In a lot of cases, morality can be seen as subjective, and as a matter of good for who, and bad for who else, but I think the purpose of morality, a lot of the times, is supposed to benefit everybody by protecting people from being harmed by other people.

    These are just a few examples of morality that develop not from people's opinions, but from a biological perspective, and to answer your question: yes, we are all animals in this same system, playing the same game of survival and competition for limited resources as any other living thing, and morality is a tool people developed to help them survive in this unforgiving world, and it does work to some extent.

    broleaf [3140943]

    "Killing people is wrong because for the most part, people have this natural and instinctual drive to survive, so they can pass down their genes, so the species can continue to survive. This is why people are genetically programmed to be very reluctant to kill another person for no good reason."

    science states otherwise
    Humans Are Genetically Predisposed to Kill Each Other

    "Other commonly-bad things are bad for similar reasons, such as beating someone up is bad because getting injured would impede a person from doing things that need to do, if they didn't die from their injuries, and doing things such as threatening people and making them fear for their safety is also morally wrong because we need to survive."

    You will have to address the chain of theorem I broke in the first response.


    "Adultery is bad because not just humans, living organisms which reproduce sexually have the biological goal of perpetuating their own genes before they die, which means for humans, raising children (most of the time that person's biological children) with another person, and adultery can threaten this objective by either one parent raising a child that's not biologically their's, and the cheating partner not investing as much energy and resources into this relationship as they could've, which in turn, impacts the children, or future children that they might have later, and it also can increase the risk of them leaving the relationship altogether, and a single parent would have a much harder time procuring resources for themselves and for the child than if multiple people can pool resources together and team up to help each other out in raising the kid(s). Raising kids in a safe, stable environment with people who can work to provide resources is important so the kids can grow up and keep perpetuating their parent's genes, which in turn, keeps humanity alive."

    But an atheist could argue that his needs matter only so he can pass off his genetics. how can you rationalize unequivocally against why he should adhere to your suggested moral standard over another, Thus forth, logically it would make sense he would engage in said behavior regardless like having an affair with John's doe wife, passing on his genetics. Thus, it aligns more with your Darwinism narrative ironically. Notably, I as well do argue that atheists are akin to animals and our spirituality is what sets us apart.

    "Racism and other forms of discrimination is born out of our natural inclination to favor the people who are like us and in our in-group, and even though it does benefit you, and the people in our in-group, it does it at the expense of the people in the out-group, which might have been beneficial when we lived in small groups, but not good for society as a whole because it reduces the chances of certain groups of people from surviving and passing on their genes. I know that what I said here might not directly implicate a person's survival and be life-or-death, but root causes of all these things in our society still directly link to our desire to survive and reproduce. In a lot of cases, morality can be seen as subjective, and as a matter of good for who, and bad for who else, but I think the purpose of morality, a lot of the times, is supposed to benefit everybody by protecting people from being harmed by other people."

    Diversity for the sake of diversity isn't even a positive; it's illogical from an atheist perspective if we reduce them to animals. Why should the white human animal support some moral argument of competing with the black human animal in the shared society? Sounds illogical, especially trying to enforce such a conceptual ideal. Did you not argue that tribalism is a thing seems like you're conflicted; there's some illogical inconsistency?

    The contrast in this realm, I might add, is the concept of Christian brotherhood and sisterhood, transcending race, as opposed to the lack there of a moral founding for such a notion in the atheist side of the debate.

    The Downside of Diversity

    EverleighRaven [2949890]

    Oh this is going to be good...

    broleaf [3140943]

    after the counter is provided ill contrast atheism vs Christianity in the areas above
    Okay I acknowledge that people have a great capacity to carry out horrible acts of violence, but there is always an important reason that drives them to do so that overrides their natural urge to avoid dangerous situations and possibly dying.  I have to concede that there are just some things I don't understand, like why would people go to war if they can die from it or get really traumatized and messed up by war, because I have luckily never been put in that situation.  This conversation is really opening up my eyes about my own biases and the gaps in my knowledge.  I should have done more research and not have projected my own experiences and feelings on things onto the whole human population, because a lot of people have different experiences and I need to respect that.  Also I have never been in a fight, so i don't know why people would risk it and fight each other, so all I know is how to avoid fights, and I mistakenly thought that everyone else would feel the same way.  I guess having such morals like don't do violence on somebody else is just to keep people from getting hurt, or killed, because that;s not good for your survival, but I guess that might not be the most important thing in some cases, that I luckily haven't found myself in.  I still have a lot to learn in this world, and what I've said earlier was a bit misguided, and I definitely need to do more research on this subject.

    I do not really understand relationships either (again, lack of experience) but I'll try my best. So let me establish that a person having an affair would likely lead to, if the other person finds out, they would probably feel pretty upset and betrayed that their partner has cheated on them. This would lead to their relationship not doing as well, or possibly them breaking up or divorcing. And if the affair leads to a kid (which is hard to hide), then everything that is going on with the parents would also affect the kid as they are growing up, possibly with only a single parent, which means less time and resources can be given to the kid, or, if their parents are still together, not growing up in a very healthy or stable home environment. All of these would affect the kid, and possibly kids they actually had together before this, and these kids would likely not fare as well as kids who grew up in a home where the parents didn't have these sorts of problems to deal with. So morals would be put into place to try to keep married couples from cheating and damaging their relationship, and by extension, any kids they might have had in the relationship. Like again, I take back what I said: that the kids are probably not going to die from being born from an affair, but it would still likely put them at a disadvantage.

    Also, I have to say that morals are not absolute, and they change based on the circumstances that people find themselves in, and doing what makes the most sense for them at that time. The world is not set in stone, and we humans adapt to the changes.

    Also whether a person is spiritual or not, they are still animals. I don't mean this in a bad way, it's just the truth, and it;s not reduction to say that.

    Okay, so I read the Harvard article, so basically what they are saying that diversity leads people to trust and help out their neighbors less and leads to less social connection between people than people who are in environments where they are more similar, but it could also lead to more new and creative ideas coming from people of different backgrounds, compared to people of more similar backgrounds. Like even in the article, they acknowledge that the negative impacts happen over the short term, as people try to adjust to their new surroundings and to new people, and I think it;s natural for when new people come into your neighborhood, to trust them less than people who you have known for a long time, but that is also subject to change with time as you get to know each other better, and the scariness that comes from not knowing who that other person is who seems to be so different from you, slowly goes away. Tribalism is natural, but humans adapt and change, and so do their tribes, and they won't always see the other side as a threat or as an enemy, especially after being presented with evidence to the contrary.

    Also, I like the idea of a brotherhood and sisterhood that includes everyone and does not discriminate based on race, but I don't think it has to be a Christian one, because a lot of people are not Christians, and you don't need to be a Christian to not be racist.

    Also sidenote: this is not really a counter, and it was actually quite hard for me to think through all this, because I realized that I didn't know as much about these topics as I thought I did, and this is definitely a stretch for me and out of my comfort zone, and I think I am gaining a lot from talking to you about this, and evaluating my own thinking process.
    • broleaf [3140943]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 16
    • Posts: 490
    • Karma: 67
    • Last Action: 2 months
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 02:28:34 - 01/12/23 (2 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Strand [2821241]

    I've seen several atheists claim that Christians are bad people because they only do good because of hope of reward. I'm sure there are no atheists out there who do good out of anything less than purely intrinsic righteousness of the act itself. I'm sure that atheists never do anything good to purely to increase their image in the eyes of others, or do good deeds to get promoted at work, or to impress a girl.

    EverleighRaven [2949890]

    You bring up some very interesting points. I see morality as doing things and avoiding doing other things that is supposed to protect people and their interests within a community. Killing people is wrong because for the most part, people have this natural and instinctual drive to survive, so they can pass down their genes, so the species can continue to survive. This is why people are genetically programmed to be very reluctant to kill another person for no good reason, because this is not good for the survival of their species, and this is not an opinion, this is a biological fact that applies to all living organisms. After all, people want to go to heaven because they do not want to die, and they do not want pain and suffering because pain is a signal for body damage, which could lead to death in normal situations, so people are programmed to want to avoid pain. Other commonly-bad things are bad for similar reasons, such as beating someone up is bad because getting injured would impede a person from doing things that need to do, if they didn't die from their injuries, and doing things such as threatening people and making them fear for their safety is also morally wrong because we need to survive.

    Other things, such as no stealing, also has a similar logical justification, because in the ancient times before technology makes life much easier, it took work and effort and possibly danger to acquire the things, such as food, water, shelter, to survive, and possibly money to get things that they need, and it would be much easier for a person to not have to go through all this effort to get it by stealing these things from the person who worked hard to get it, which decreases that person's chances of survival, since they would have to go through that same process again but with less energy and time, instead of doing other important things, since they would need more resources. This is why stealing is bad, because resources that help with survival are ultimately limited and hard to get, so people need to put in effort and energy to get them, and also defend what resources they do have. I know that nowadays, not everything that we have is something that is essential for us to keep living, but having this moral standard of no stealing still helps us protect people's things that do matter in life.

    Adultery is bad because not just humans, living organisms which reproduce sexually have the biological goal of perpetuating their own genes before they die, which means for humans, raising children (most of the time that person's biological children) with another person, and adultery can threaten this objective by either one parent raising a child that's not biologically their's, and the cheating partner not investing as much energy and resources into this relationship as they could've, which in turn, impacts the children, or future children that they might have later, and it also can increase the risk of them leaving the relationship altogether, and a single parent would have a much harder time procuring resources for themselves and for the child than if multiple people can pool resources together and team up to help each other out in raising the kid(s). Raising kids in a safe, stable environment with people who can work to provide resources is important so the kids can grow up and keep perpetuating their parent's genes, which in turn, keeps humanity alive.

    Racism and other forms of discrimination is born out of our natural inclination to favor the people who are like us and in our in-group, and even though it does benefit you, and the people in our in-group, it does it at the expense of the people in the out-group, which might have been beneficial when we lived in small groups, but not good for society as a whole because it reduces the chances of certain groups of people from surviving and passing on their genes. I know that what I said here might not directly implicate a person's survival and be life-or-death, but root causes of all these things in our society still directly link to our desire to survive and reproduce. In a lot of cases, morality can be seen as subjective, and as a matter of good for who, and bad for who else, but I think the purpose of morality, a lot of the times, is supposed to benefit everybody by protecting people from being harmed by other people.

    These are just a few examples of morality that develop not from people's opinions, but from a biological perspective, and to answer your question: yes, we are all animals in this same system, playing the same game of survival and competition for limited resources as any other living thing, and morality is a tool people developed to help them survive in this unforgiving world, and it does work to some extent.

    broleaf [3140943]

    "Killing people is wrong because for the most part, people have this natural and instinctual drive to survive, so they can pass down their genes, so the species can continue to survive. This is why people are genetically programmed to be very reluctant to kill another person for no good reason."

    science states otherwise
    Humans Are Genetically Predisposed to Kill Each Other

    "Other commonly-bad things are bad for similar reasons, such as beating someone up is bad because getting injured would impede a person from doing things that need to do, if they didn't die from their injuries, and doing things such as threatening people and making them fear for their safety is also morally wrong because we need to survive."

    You will have to address the chain of theorem I broke in the first response.


    "Adultery is bad because not just humans, living organisms which reproduce sexually have the biological goal of perpetuating their own genes before they die, which means for humans, raising children (most of the time that person's biological children) with another person, and adultery can threaten this objective by either one parent raising a child that's not biologically their's, and the cheating partner not investing as much energy and resources into this relationship as they could've, which in turn, impacts the children, or future children that they might have later, and it also can increase the risk of them leaving the relationship altogether, and a single parent would have a much harder time procuring resources for themselves and for the child than if multiple people can pool resources together and team up to help each other out in raising the kid(s). Raising kids in a safe, stable environment with people who can work to provide resources is important so the kids can grow up and keep perpetuating their parent's genes, which in turn, keeps humanity alive."

    But an atheist could argue that his needs matter only so he can pass off his genetics. how can you rationalize unequivocally against why he should adhere to your suggested moral standard over another, Thus forth, logically it would make sense he would engage in said behavior regardless like having an affair with John's doe wife, passing on his genetics. Thus, it aligns more with your Darwinism narrative ironically. Notably, I as well do argue that atheists are akin to animals and our spirituality is what sets us apart.

    "Racism and other forms of discrimination is born out of our natural inclination to favor the people who are like us and in our in-group, and even though it does benefit you, and the people in our in-group, it does it at the expense of the people in the out-group, which might have been beneficial when we lived in small groups, but not good for society as a whole because it reduces the chances of certain groups of people from surviving and passing on their genes. I know that what I said here might not directly implicate a person's survival and be life-or-death, but root causes of all these things in our society still directly link to our desire to survive and reproduce. In a lot of cases, morality can be seen as subjective, and as a matter of good for who, and bad for who else, but I think the purpose of morality, a lot of the times, is supposed to benefit everybody by protecting people from being harmed by other people."

    Diversity for the sake of diversity isn't even a positive; it's illogical from an atheist perspective if we reduce them to animals. Why should the white human animal support some moral argument of competing with the black human animal in the shared society? Sounds illogical, especially trying to enforce such a conceptual ideal. Did you not argue that tribalism is a thing seems like you're conflicted; there's some illogical inconsistency?

    The contrast in this realm, I might add, is the concept of Christian brotherhood and sisterhood, transcending race, as opposed to the lack there of a moral founding for such a notion in the atheist side of the debate.

    The Downside of Diversity

    EverleighRaven [2949890]

    Oh this is going to be good...

    broleaf [3140943]

    after the counter is provided ill contrast atheism vs Christianity in the areas above

    EverleighRaven [2949890]

    Okay I acknowledge that people have a great capacity to carry out horrible acts of violence, but there is always an important reason that drives them to do so that overrides their natural urge to avoid dangerous situations and possibly dying. I have to concede that there are just some things I don't understand, like why would people go to war if they can die from it or get really traumatized and messed up by war, because I have luckily never been put in that situation. This conversation is really opening up my eyes about my own biases and the gaps in my knowledge. I should have done more research and not have projected my own experiences and feelings on things onto the whole human population, because a lot of people have different experiences and I need to respect that. Also I have never been in a fight, so i don't know why people would risk it and fight each other, so all I know is how to avoid fights, and I mistakenly thought that everyone else would feel the same way. I guess having such morals like don't do violence on somebody else is just to keep people from getting hurt, or killed, because that;s not good for your survival, but I guess that might not be the most important thing in some cases, that I luckily haven't found myself in. I still have a lot to learn in this world, and what I've said earlier was a bit misguided, and I definitely need to do more research on this subject.

    I do not really understand relationships either (again, lack of experience) but I'll try my best. So let me establish that a person having an affair would likely lead to, if the other person finds out, they would probably feel pretty upset and betrayed that their partner has cheated on them. This would lead to their relationship not doing as well, or possibly them breaking up or divorcing. And if the affair leads to a kid (which is hard to hide), then everything that is going on with the parents would also affect the kid as they are growing up, possibly with only a single parent, which means less time and resources can be given to the kid, or, if their parents are still together, not growing up in a very healthy or stable home environment. All of these would affect the kid, and possibly kids they actually had together before this, and these kids would likely not fare as well as kids who grew up in a home where the parents didn't have these sorts of problems to deal with. So morals would be put into place to try to keep married couples from cheating and damaging their relationship, and by extension, any kids they might have had in the relationship. Like again, I take back what I said: that the kids are probably not going to die from being born from an affair, but it would still likely put them at a disadvantage.

    Also, I have to say that morals are not absolute, and they change based on the circumstances that people find themselves in, and doing what makes the most sense for them at that time. The world is not set in stone, and we humans adapt to the changes.

    Also whether a person is spiritual or not, they are still animals. I don't mean this in a bad way, it's just the truth, and it;s not reduction to say that.

    Okay, so I read the Harvard article, so basically what they are saying that diversity leads people to trust and help out their neighbors less and leads to less social connection between people than people who are in environments where they are more similar, but it could also lead to more new and creative ideas coming from people of different backgrounds, compared to people of more similar backgrounds. Like even in the article, they acknowledge that the negative impacts happen over the short term, as people try to adjust to their new surroundings and to new people, and I think it;s natural for when new people come into your neighborhood, to trust them less than people who you have known for a long time, but that is also subject to change with time as you get to know each other better, and the scariness that comes from not knowing who that other person is who seems to be so different from you, slowly goes away. Tribalism is natural, but humans adapt and change, and so do their tribes, and they won't always see the other side as a threat or as an enemy, especially after being presented with evidence to the contrary.

    Also, I like the idea of a brotherhood and sisterhood that includes everyone and does not discriminate based on race, but I don't think it has to be a Christian one, because a lot of people are not Christians, and you don't need to be a Christian to not be racist.

    Also sidenote: this is not really a counter, and it was actually quite hard for me to think through all this, because I realized that I didn't know as much about these topics as I thought I did, and this is definitely a stretch for me and out of my comfort zone, and I think I am gaining a lot from talking to you about this, and evaluating my own thinking process.
    I'm going to summarize so you can understand the idea being presented: Atheists base their morals on current societal norms, while Christians don't. We base our morals on our Bible and the word of God, grounding ourselves. any attempt at Atheists morality is irrational its not logical, whereas our morality is a objective truth derived from our faith.

    the original post of my idea being presented
    Last edited by broleaf on 02:32:00 - 01/12/23

    NRx. Reject Modernity return to: Tradition, Monarchy, Spirit.

    GENERAL-HUX-STARKILLER-BASE-SAR-WARS-THE-FORCE-AWAKENS-1.jpg

    • EverleighRaven [2949890]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 12
    • Posts: 583
    • Karma: 169
    • Last Action: 22 minutes
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 02:44:09 - 01/12/23 (2 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    EverleighRaven [2949890]

    You bring up some very interesting points. I see morality as doing things and avoiding doing other things that is supposed to protect people and their interests within a community. Killing people is wrong because for the most part, people have this natural and instinctual drive to survive, so they can pass down their genes, so the species can continue to survive. This is why people are genetically programmed to be very reluctant to kill another person for no good reason, because this is not good for the survival of their species, and this is not an opinion, this is a biological fact that applies to all living organisms. After all, people want to go to heaven because they do not want to die, and they do not want pain and suffering because pain is a signal for body damage, which could lead to death in normal situations, so people are programmed to want to avoid pain. Other commonly-bad things are bad for similar reasons, such as beating someone up is bad because getting injured would impede a person from doing things that need to do, if they didn't die from their injuries, and doing things such as threatening people and making them fear for their safety is also morally wrong because we need to survive.

    Other things, such as no stealing, also has a similar logical justification, because in the ancient times before technology makes life much easier, it took work and effort and possibly danger to acquire the things, such as food, water, shelter, to survive, and possibly money to get things that they need, and it would be much easier for a person to not have to go through all this effort to get it by stealing these things from the person who worked hard to get it, which decreases that person's chances of survival, since they would have to go through that same process again but with less energy and time, instead of doing other important things, since they would need more resources. This is why stealing is bad, because resources that help with survival are ultimately limited and hard to get, so people need to put in effort and energy to get them, and also defend what resources they do have. I know that nowadays, not everything that we have is something that is essential for us to keep living, but having this moral standard of no stealing still helps us protect people's things that do matter in life.

    Adultery is bad because not just humans, living organisms which reproduce sexually have the biological goal of perpetuating their own genes before they die, which means for humans, raising children (most of the time that person's biological children) with another person, and adultery can threaten this objective by either one parent raising a child that's not biologically their's, and the cheating partner not investing as much energy and resources into this relationship as they could've, which in turn, impacts the children, or future children that they might have later, and it also can increase the risk of them leaving the relationship altogether, and a single parent would have a much harder time procuring resources for themselves and for the child than if multiple people can pool resources together and team up to help each other out in raising the kid(s). Raising kids in a safe, stable environment with people who can work to provide resources is important so the kids can grow up and keep perpetuating their parent's genes, which in turn, keeps humanity alive.

    Racism and other forms of discrimination is born out of our natural inclination to favor the people who are like us and in our in-group, and even though it does benefit you, and the people in our in-group, it does it at the expense of the people in the out-group, which might have been beneficial when we lived in small groups, but not good for society as a whole because it reduces the chances of certain groups of people from surviving and passing on their genes. I know that what I said here might not directly implicate a person's survival and be life-or-death, but root causes of all these things in our society still directly link to our desire to survive and reproduce. In a lot of cases, morality can be seen as subjective, and as a matter of good for who, and bad for who else, but I think the purpose of morality, a lot of the times, is supposed to benefit everybody by protecting people from being harmed by other people.

    These are just a few examples of morality that develop not from people's opinions, but from a biological perspective, and to answer your question: yes, we are all animals in this same system, playing the same game of survival and competition for limited resources as any other living thing, and morality is a tool people developed to help them survive in this unforgiving world, and it does work to some extent.

    broleaf [3140943]

    "Killing people is wrong because for the most part, people have this natural and instinctual drive to survive, so they can pass down their genes, so the species can continue to survive. This is why people are genetically programmed to be very reluctant to kill another person for no good reason."

    science states otherwise
    Humans Are Genetically Predisposed to Kill Each Other

    "Other commonly-bad things are bad for similar reasons, such as beating someone up is bad because getting injured would impede a person from doing things that need to do, if they didn't die from their injuries, and doing things such as threatening people and making them fear for their safety is also morally wrong because we need to survive."

    You will have to address the chain of theorem I broke in the first response.


    "Adultery is bad because not just humans, living organisms which reproduce sexually have the biological goal of perpetuating their own genes before they die, which means for humans, raising children (most of the time that person's biological children) with another person, and adultery can threaten this objective by either one parent raising a child that's not biologically their's, and the cheating partner not investing as much energy and resources into this relationship as they could've, which in turn, impacts the children, or future children that they might have later, and it also can increase the risk of them leaving the relationship altogether, and a single parent would have a much harder time procuring resources for themselves and for the child than if multiple people can pool resources together and team up to help each other out in raising the kid(s). Raising kids in a safe, stable environment with people who can work to provide resources is important so the kids can grow up and keep perpetuating their parent's genes, which in turn, keeps humanity alive."

    But an atheist could argue that his needs matter only so he can pass off his genetics. how can you rationalize unequivocally against why he should adhere to your suggested moral standard over another, Thus forth, logically it would make sense he would engage in said behavior regardless like having an affair with John's doe wife, passing on his genetics. Thus, it aligns more with your Darwinism narrative ironically. Notably, I as well do argue that atheists are akin to animals and our spirituality is what sets us apart.

    "Racism and other forms of discrimination is born out of our natural inclination to favor the people who are like us and in our in-group, and even though it does benefit you, and the people in our in-group, it does it at the expense of the people in the out-group, which might have been beneficial when we lived in small groups, but not good for society as a whole because it reduces the chances of certain groups of people from surviving and passing on their genes. I know that what I said here might not directly implicate a person's survival and be life-or-death, but root causes of all these things in our society still directly link to our desire to survive and reproduce. In a lot of cases, morality can be seen as subjective, and as a matter of good for who, and bad for who else, but I think the purpose of morality, a lot of the times, is supposed to benefit everybody by protecting people from being harmed by other people."

    Diversity for the sake of diversity isn't even a positive; it's illogical from an atheist perspective if we reduce them to animals. Why should the white human animal support some moral argument of competing with the black human animal in the shared society? Sounds illogical, especially trying to enforce such a conceptual ideal. Did you not argue that tribalism is a thing seems like you're conflicted; there's some illogical inconsistency?

    The contrast in this realm, I might add, is the concept of Christian brotherhood and sisterhood, transcending race, as opposed to the lack there of a moral founding for such a notion in the atheist side of the debate.

    The Downside of Diversity

    EverleighRaven [2949890]

    Oh this is going to be good...

    broleaf [3140943]

    after the counter is provided ill contrast atheism vs Christianity in the areas above

    EverleighRaven [2949890]

    Okay I acknowledge that people have a great capacity to carry out horrible acts of violence, but there is always an important reason that drives them to do so that overrides their natural urge to avoid dangerous situations and possibly dying. I have to concede that there are just some things I don't understand, like why would people go to war if they can die from it or get really traumatized and messed up by war, because I have luckily never been put in that situation. This conversation is really opening up my eyes about my own biases and the gaps in my knowledge. I should have done more research and not have projected my own experiences and feelings on things onto the whole human population, because a lot of people have different experiences and I need to respect that. Also I have never been in a fight, so i don't know why people would risk it and fight each other, so all I know is how to avoid fights, and I mistakenly thought that everyone else would feel the same way. I guess having such morals like don't do violence on somebody else is just to keep people from getting hurt, or killed, because that;s not good for your survival, but I guess that might not be the most important thing in some cases, that I luckily haven't found myself in. I still have a lot to learn in this world, and what I've said earlier was a bit misguided, and I definitely need to do more research on this subject.

    I do not really understand relationships either (again, lack of experience) but I'll try my best. So let me establish that a person having an affair would likely lead to, if the other person finds out, they would probably feel pretty upset and betrayed that their partner has cheated on them. This would lead to their relationship not doing as well, or possibly them breaking up or divorcing. And if the affair leads to a kid (which is hard to hide), then everything that is going on with the parents would also affect the kid as they are growing up, possibly with only a single parent, which means less time and resources can be given to the kid, or, if their parents are still together, not growing up in a very healthy or stable home environment. All of these would affect the kid, and possibly kids they actually had together before this, and these kids would likely not fare as well as kids who grew up in a home where the parents didn't have these sorts of problems to deal with. So morals would be put into place to try to keep married couples from cheating and damaging their relationship, and by extension, any kids they might have had in the relationship. Like again, I take back what I said: that the kids are probably not going to die from being born from an affair, but it would still likely put them at a disadvantage.

    Also, I have to say that morals are not absolute, and they change based on the circumstances that people find themselves in, and doing what makes the most sense for them at that time. The world is not set in stone, and we humans adapt to the changes.

    Also whether a person is spiritual or not, they are still animals. I don't mean this in a bad way, it's just the truth, and it;s not reduction to say that.

    Okay, so I read the Harvard article, so basically what they are saying that diversity leads people to trust and help out their neighbors less and leads to less social connection between people than people who are in environments where they are more similar, but it could also lead to more new and creative ideas coming from people of different backgrounds, compared to people of more similar backgrounds. Like even in the article, they acknowledge that the negative impacts happen over the short term, as people try to adjust to their new surroundings and to new people, and I think it;s natural for when new people come into your neighborhood, to trust them less than people who you have known for a long time, but that is also subject to change with time as you get to know each other better, and the scariness that comes from not knowing who that other person is who seems to be so different from you, slowly goes away. Tribalism is natural, but humans adapt and change, and so do their tribes, and they won't always see the other side as a threat or as an enemy, especially after being presented with evidence to the contrary.

    Also, I like the idea of a brotherhood and sisterhood that includes everyone and does not discriminate based on race, but I don't think it has to be a Christian one, because a lot of people are not Christians, and you don't need to be a Christian to not be racist.

    Also sidenote: this is not really a counter, and it was actually quite hard for me to think through all this, because I realized that I didn't know as much about these topics as I thought I did, and this is definitely a stretch for me and out of my comfort zone, and I think I am gaining a lot from talking to you about this, and evaluating my own thinking process.

    broleaf [3140943]

    I'm going to summarize so you can understand the idea being presented: Atheists base their morals on current societal norms, while Christians don't. We base our morals on our Bible and the word of God, grounding ourselves. any attempt at Atheists morality is irrational its not logical, whereas our morality is a objective truth derived from our faith.

    the original post of my idea being presented
    Atheist morality can also be based on logic, and is based on what is good for the people in general, and that changes depending on the situation.  I would say that both types of morality have their benefits and their drawbacks, with atheist morality being more adaptive to the people's needs, for better or for worse, being flexible, but also not always reliable in protecting people from harm, but Christian morality being more stable and definitely can work as a system, but it might not be the best for every situation or for every person, or for every type of lifestyle.
    • ElHeffe [2564022]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 42
    • Posts: 1275
    • Karma: 1365
    • Last Action: 9 minutes
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 08:52:18 - 01/12/23 (2 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    broleaf [3140943]

    I'm going to quote Steppenwolf and his explanation of how atheists can't conceptualize spirit and therefore cant rationalize morality

    "atheist, or a person of another religion, say Baalism, can in fact be moral and do what is right and good. In fact Christians believe this to be true, if they know their Bible very well.

    "However the problem that atheism has with morality is that it cannot acknowledge morality as an existential reality. This is because atheism acknowledges no arbiter of truth; thus atheism can make no appeal to such an arbiter, or 'higher power'. In the atheist world-view, people may have opinions about morality, but they are only opinions. Nobody's opinion can be held ultimately in higher regard than anyone else's. An atheist society may debate ethics for millennia, but ultimately no moral code can ever be formulated because a moral code as such carries the authority of the "supernatural". An atheistic society may, by consensus or by unanimous support, hold that killing another person is wrong, but would only have it'self to ascribe the power to make such a distinction.

    Now, the typical atheist retort to this goes something like "You're saying that without religion to guide us, people would all go around murdering people, but I'm an atheist and I don't want to murder people." But that misses the point. The point in saying that there is no rational basis for morality without a god to uphold it, has nothing to do with whether people would "want" to do anything. The individual atheist's desire to kill a person or not to kill a person has much more to do with the physical characteristics of ones body and brain than it has to do with a moral code. The moral code comes into play when someone does want to kill a person for some reason. Now, the atheist can certainly hold the mistaken belief that they know right from wrong, and perhaps this belief would dissuade such an one. But one would still have no rational justification for holding that set of morals to be true."

    Now, I'm going to add my own expanded premise to what he wrote earlier this week.

    There is another thing to consider: an atheist isn't capable of conceptualizing free will ether due to similar reasons. They can't conceptualize spirit. They often build arguments based on the illogical contemporary context that is constantly shifting, thus forcing them to shift. Their free will is based on external forces outside their control.

    Most individuals deemed 'normies' struggle to rationalize independently, often relying heavily on communal arguments, which limits their capacity for exercising free will or developments of critical thinking skills.


    Now, lastly, with everything provided previously I'm going to bring forth a question: What separates an atheist from an animal?

    ElHeffe [2564022]

    Would you like some more straw for the man you're fighting?

    broleaf [3140943]

    I fail to see the extreme distortion; I think you are just in denial. Feel free to poke a hole in the theorem I posted however.

    ElHeffe [2564022]

    Simple. Atheists are more moral than Christians.

    Looking to a book of obvious fiction and claiming "this is where I derive my morals from is a horrible thing to do. It abandons any personal responsibility for critical thinking or governing behaviour.

    A Christian can go to the Bible and simply say "I am beating my slave, but not to death. I am a good person following the teaching of the Bible". Or they might say "I know someone who has a different religion than me. I am going to stone them to death in according with the teachings of God. I am a good person". Or they might be caught committing a sexual assault on a woman so they would pay the woman's father off and then marry her thinking "I am doing the right thing".

    Whereas an atheist would usually (I can't speak for all atheists) come to the conclusion that enslaving people, stoning them to death, etc are bad things because they can critically appraise those actions and realise they are bad. Not good, like you think.

    broleaf [3140943]

    Whereas an atheist would usually (I can't speak for all atheists) come to the conclusion that enslaving people, stoning them to death, etc are bad things because they can critically appraise those actions and realise they are bad. Not good, like you think.
    For an atheist, this is irrational. How can you rationalize why it's unequivocally wrong?
    Would you like to be a slave?
    Would you like to be stoned to death?

    I suspect not. Yet as they are instructions in the Bible, you think they are good things to do.
    • ElHeffe [2564022]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 42
    • Posts: 1275
    • Karma: 1365
    • Last Action: 9 minutes
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 09:00:50 - 01/12/23 (2 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    broleaf [3140943]

    I'm going to quote Steppenwolf and his explanation of how atheists can't conceptualize spirit and therefore cant rationalize morality

    "atheist, or a person of another religion, say Baalism, can in fact be moral and do what is right and good. In fact Christians believe this to be true, if they know their Bible very well.

    "However the problem that atheism has with morality is that it cannot acknowledge morality as an existential reality. This is because atheism acknowledges no arbiter of truth; thus atheism can make no appeal to such an arbiter, or 'higher power'. In the atheist world-view, people may have opinions about morality, but they are only opinions. Nobody's opinion can be held ultimately in higher regard than anyone else's. An atheist society may debate ethics for millennia, but ultimately no moral code can ever be formulated because a moral code as such carries the authority of the "supernatural". An atheistic society may, by consensus or by unanimous support, hold that killing another person is wrong, but would only have it'self to ascribe the power to make such a distinction.

    Now, the typical atheist retort to this goes something like "You're saying that without religion to guide us, people would all go around murdering people, but I'm an atheist and I don't want to murder people." But that misses the point. The point in saying that there is no rational basis for morality without a god to uphold it, has nothing to do with whether people would "want" to do anything. The individual atheist's desire to kill a person or not to kill a person has much more to do with the physical characteristics of ones body and brain than it has to do with a moral code. The moral code comes into play when someone does want to kill a person for some reason. Now, the atheist can certainly hold the mistaken belief that they know right from wrong, and perhaps this belief would dissuade such an one. But one would still have no rational justification for holding that set of morals to be true."

    Now, I'm going to add my own expanded premise to what he wrote earlier this week.

    There is another thing to consider: an atheist isn't capable of conceptualizing free will ether due to similar reasons. They can't conceptualize spirit. They often build arguments based on the illogical contemporary context that is constantly shifting, thus forcing them to shift. Their free will is based on external forces outside their control.

    Most individuals deemed 'normies' struggle to rationalize independently, often relying heavily on communal arguments, which limits their capacity for exercising free will or developments of critical thinking skills.


    Now, lastly, with everything provided previously I'm going to bring forth a question: What separates an atheist from an animal?

    ElHeffe [2564022]

    Would you like some more straw for the man you're fighting?

    broleaf [3140943]

    I fail to see the extreme distortion; I think you are just in denial. Feel free to poke a hole in the theorem I posted however.

    ElHeffe [2564022]

    Simple. Atheists are more moral than Christians.

    Looking to a book of obvious fiction and claiming "this is where I derive my morals from is a horrible thing to do. It abandons any personal responsibility for critical thinking or governing behaviour.

    A Christian can go to the Bible and simply say "I am beating my slave, but not to death. I am a good person following the teaching of the Bible". Or they might say "I know someone who has a different religion than me. I am going to stone them to death in according with the teachings of God. I am a good person". Or they might be caught committing a sexual assault on a woman so they would pay the woman's father off and then marry her thinking "I am doing the right thing".

    Whereas an atheist would usually (I can't speak for all atheists) come to the conclusion that enslaving people, stoning them to death, etc are bad things because they can critically appraise those actions and realise they are bad. Not good, like you think.

    Latinobull14 [2881384]

    So how is the bible fiction? What proof do you have that it is total fiction? Almost all scholars and non-religious historians agree that there was a man named Jesus who did exist in the 1st century.

    Also, how does the bible not allow critical thinking? If anything it greatly encourages this. Jesus in many scenarios spoke in parables. He spoke in these ways to help us think and understand the issue at hand and to analyze it and get an answer from that analysis.... which is critical thinking.

    Also, the bible doesn't answer everything in life. The Bible speaks about clothing the poor and feeding the hungry. That is what the bible says. But who do I help? Do I help those struggling in Mexico, India, Canada, the Philippines, the USA, or the Remote Islands? The Bible doesn't say which one gets priority. So I have to use my judgment and my analysis of the situation to see where I should help. This is just one example of how the teachings of the bible still require analysis and judgment.
    I am impressed, are you a professional contortionist by any chance?

    Let me simplify my point.

    The Bible quite clearly teaches that people of other religions should be stoned to death.

    Now there are two issues that can be derived.

    1. You think that this is the moral way to behave (Christians are instructed in morality by the Bible). So if you are not actively doing that, you're going against the teachings if God. You're a sinner and will burn in hell.

    2. You don't think this is a moral way to behave. In which case you haven't derived morality from the Bible. That means it's quite possible for other people (such as atheists) to derive a moral code outside the Bible. Soz being no better than an atheist, it's the Big Fire for you.

    So... should people of other religions be stoned to death?
    • broleaf [3140943]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 16
    • Posts: 490
    • Karma: 67
    • Last Action: 2 months
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 09:31:17 - 01/12/23 (2 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    broleaf [3140943]

    I'm going to quote Steppenwolf and his explanation of how atheists can't conceptualize spirit and therefore cant rationalize morality

    "atheist, or a person of another religion, say Baalism, can in fact be moral and do what is right and good. In fact Christians believe this to be true, if they know their Bible very well.

    "However the problem that atheism has with morality is that it cannot acknowledge morality as an existential reality. This is because atheism acknowledges no arbiter of truth; thus atheism can make no appeal to such an arbiter, or 'higher power'. In the atheist world-view, people may have opinions about morality, but they are only opinions. Nobody's opinion can be held ultimately in higher regard than anyone else's. An atheist society may debate ethics for millennia, but ultimately no moral code can ever be formulated because a moral code as such carries the authority of the "supernatural". An atheistic society may, by consensus or by unanimous support, hold that killing another person is wrong, but would only have it'self to ascribe the power to make such a distinction.

    Now, the typical atheist retort to this goes something like "You're saying that without religion to guide us, people would all go around murdering people, but I'm an atheist and I don't want to murder people." But that misses the point. The point in saying that there is no rational basis for morality without a god to uphold it, has nothing to do with whether people would "want" to do anything. The individual atheist's desire to kill a person or not to kill a person has much more to do with the physical characteristics of ones body and brain than it has to do with a moral code. The moral code comes into play when someone does want to kill a person for some reason. Now, the atheist can certainly hold the mistaken belief that they know right from wrong, and perhaps this belief would dissuade such an one. But one would still have no rational justification for holding that set of morals to be true."

    Now, I'm going to add my own expanded premise to what he wrote earlier this week.

    There is another thing to consider: an atheist isn't capable of conceptualizing free will ether due to similar reasons. They can't conceptualize spirit. They often build arguments based on the illogical contemporary context that is constantly shifting, thus forcing them to shift. Their free will is based on external forces outside their control.

    Most individuals deemed 'normies' struggle to rationalize independently, often relying heavily on communal arguments, which limits their capacity for exercising free will or developments of critical thinking skills.


    Now, lastly, with everything provided previously I'm going to bring forth a question: What separates an atheist from an animal?

    ElHeffe [2564022]

    Would you like some more straw for the man you're fighting?

    broleaf [3140943]

    I fail to see the extreme distortion; I think you are just in denial. Feel free to poke a hole in the theorem I posted however.

    ElHeffe [2564022]

    Simple. Atheists are more moral than Christians.

    Looking to a book of obvious fiction and claiming "this is where I derive my morals from is a horrible thing to do. It abandons any personal responsibility for critical thinking or governing behaviour.

    A Christian can go to the Bible and simply say "I am beating my slave, but not to death. I am a good person following the teaching of the Bible". Or they might say "I know someone who has a different religion than me. I am going to stone them to death in according with the teachings of God. I am a good person". Or they might be caught committing a sexual assault on a woman so they would pay the woman's father off and then marry her thinking "I am doing the right thing".

    Whereas an atheist would usually (I can't speak for all atheists) come to the conclusion that enslaving people, stoning them to death, etc are bad things because they can critically appraise those actions and realise they are bad. Not good, like you think.

    Latinobull14 [2881384]

    So how is the bible fiction? What proof do you have that it is total fiction? Almost all scholars and non-religious historians agree that there was a man named Jesus who did exist in the 1st century.

    Also, how does the bible not allow critical thinking? If anything it greatly encourages this. Jesus in many scenarios spoke in parables. He spoke in these ways to help us think and understand the issue at hand and to analyze it and get an answer from that analysis.... which is critical thinking.

    Also, the bible doesn't answer everything in life. The Bible speaks about clothing the poor and feeding the hungry. That is what the bible says. But who do I help? Do I help those struggling in Mexico, India, Canada, the Philippines, the USA, or the Remote Islands? The Bible doesn't say which one gets priority. So I have to use my judgment and my analysis of the situation to see where I should help. This is just one example of how the teachings of the bible still require analysis and judgment.

    ElHeffe [2564022]

    I am impressed, are you a professional contortionist by any chance?

    Let me simplify my point.

    The Bible quite clearly teaches that people of other religions should be stoned to death.

    Now there are two issues that can be derived.

    1. You think that this is the moral way to behave (Christians are instructed in morality by the Bible). So if you are not actively doing that, you're going against the teachings if God. You're a sinner and will burn in hell.

    2. You don't think this is a moral way to behave. In which case you haven't derived morality from the Bible. That means it's quite possible for other people (such as atheists) to derive a moral code outside the Bible. Soz being no better than an atheist, it's the Big Fire for you.

    So... should people of other religions be stoned to death?
    1. You think that this is the moral way to behave (Christians are instructed in morality by the Bible). So if you are not actively doing that, you're going against the teachings if God. You're a sinner and will burn in hell.

    Not a single man or woman alive is untouched or uncorrupted in one way or another by sin. Hence, the importance of rebirth and communion. You bring up a valid point, although however I'd respond with 'render unto Caesar' and such, dismissing your entire argument.

    2. You don't think this is a moral way to behave. In which case you haven't derived morality from the Bible. That means it's quite possible for other people (such as atheists) to derive a moral code outside the Bible. Soz being no better than an atheist, it's the Big Fire for you.

    Don't forget, our Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for their wickedness.

    So... should people of other religions be stoned to death?

    Muh Render unto Caesar.

    Man, did I just speak like a politician?








    Lastly, my previous statements about atheists lacking moral grounding still stand.
    Last edited by broleaf on 09:46:46 - 01/12/23

    NRx. Reject Modernity return to: Tradition, Monarchy, Spirit.

    GENERAL-HUX-STARKILLER-BASE-SAR-WARS-THE-FORCE-AWAKENS-1.jpg

    • broleaf [3140943]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 16
    • Posts: 490
    • Karma: 67
    • Last Action: 2 months
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 09:53:36 - 01/12/23 (2 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    broleaf [3140943]

    I'm going to quote Steppenwolf and his explanation of how atheists can't conceptualize spirit and therefore cant rationalize morality

    "atheist, or a person of another religion, say Baalism, can in fact be moral and do what is right and good. In fact Christians believe this to be true, if they know their Bible very well.

    "However the problem that atheism has with morality is that it cannot acknowledge morality as an existential reality. This is because atheism acknowledges no arbiter of truth; thus atheism can make no appeal to such an arbiter, or 'higher power'. In the atheist world-view, people may have opinions about morality, but they are only opinions. Nobody's opinion can be held ultimately in higher regard than anyone else's. An atheist society may debate ethics for millennia, but ultimately no moral code can ever be formulated because a moral code as such carries the authority of the "supernatural". An atheistic society may, by consensus or by unanimous support, hold that killing another person is wrong, but would only have it'self to ascribe the power to make such a distinction.

    Now, the typical atheist retort to this goes something like "You're saying that without religion to guide us, people would all go around murdering people, but I'm an atheist and I don't want to murder people." But that misses the point. The point in saying that there is no rational basis for morality without a god to uphold it, has nothing to do with whether people would "want" to do anything. The individual atheist's desire to kill a person or not to kill a person has much more to do with the physical characteristics of ones body and brain than it has to do with a moral code. The moral code comes into play when someone does want to kill a person for some reason. Now, the atheist can certainly hold the mistaken belief that they know right from wrong, and perhaps this belief would dissuade such an one. But one would still have no rational justification for holding that set of morals to be true."

    Now, I'm going to add my own expanded premise to what he wrote earlier this week.

    There is another thing to consider: an atheist isn't capable of conceptualizing free will ether due to similar reasons. They can't conceptualize spirit. They often build arguments based on the illogical contemporary context that is constantly shifting, thus forcing them to shift. Their free will is based on external forces outside their control.

    Most individuals deemed 'normies' struggle to rationalize independently, often relying heavily on communal arguments, which limits their capacity for exercising free will or developments of critical thinking skills.


    Now, lastly, with everything provided previously I'm going to bring forth a question: What separates an atheist from an animal?

    ElHeffe [2564022]

    Would you like some more straw for the man you're fighting?

    broleaf [3140943]

    I fail to see the extreme distortion; I think you are just in denial. Feel free to poke a hole in the theorem I posted however.

    ElHeffe [2564022]

    Simple. Atheists are more moral than Christians.

    Looking to a book of obvious fiction and claiming "this is where I derive my morals from is a horrible thing to do. It abandons any personal responsibility for critical thinking or governing behaviour.

    A Christian can go to the Bible and simply say "I am beating my slave, but not to death. I am a good person following the teaching of the Bible". Or they might say "I know someone who has a different religion than me. I am going to stone them to death in according with the teachings of God. I am a good person". Or they might be caught committing a sexual assault on a woman so they would pay the woman's father off and then marry her thinking "I am doing the right thing".

    Whereas an atheist would usually (I can't speak for all atheists) come to the conclusion that enslaving people, stoning them to death, etc are bad things because they can critically appraise those actions and realise they are bad. Not good, like you think.

    broleaf [3140943]

    Whereas an atheist would usually (I can't speak for all atheists) come to the conclusion that enslaving people, stoning them to death, etc are bad things because they can critically appraise those actions and realise they are bad. Not good, like you think.
    For an atheist, this is irrational. How can you rationalize why it's unequivocally wrong?

    ElHeffe [2564022]

    Would you like to be a slave?
    Would you like to be stoned to death?

    I suspect not. Yet as they are instructions in the Bible, you think they are good things to do.
    Regarding slavery, we only have rules on how to treat them and how they should behave. There is nothing, to my knowledge, regarding creating slaves, so one is either born a slave or is simply not a slave. 

    With us, if one finds themselves in slavery, i suppose at least there are established guidelines on how to treat and be treated. In atheism, there's a lack of logical or rational principle in this regard. kek

    By the way, if you're truly curious about spiritual matters, I'd suggest contacting an expert like a priest. They can help you navigate these waters.

    Last edited by broleaf on 10:12:14 - 01/12/23

    NRx. Reject Modernity return to: Tradition, Monarchy, Spirit.

    GENERAL-HUX-STARKILLER-BASE-SAR-WARS-THE-FORCE-AWAKENS-1.jpg

    • ElHeffe [2564022]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 42
    • Posts: 1275
    • Karma: 1365
    • Last Action: 9 minutes
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 11:31:28 - 01/12/23 (2 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    ElHeffe [2564022]

    Would you like some more straw for the man you're fighting?

    broleaf [3140943]

    I fail to see the extreme distortion; I think you are just in denial. Feel free to poke a hole in the theorem I posted however.

    ElHeffe [2564022]

    Simple. Atheists are more moral than Christians.

    Looking to a book of obvious fiction and claiming "this is where I derive my morals from is a horrible thing to do. It abandons any personal responsibility for critical thinking or governing behaviour.

    A Christian can go to the Bible and simply say "I am beating my slave, but not to death. I am a good person following the teaching of the Bible". Or they might say "I know someone who has a different religion than me. I am going to stone them to death in according with the teachings of God. I am a good person". Or they might be caught committing a sexual assault on a woman so they would pay the woman's father off and then marry her thinking "I am doing the right thing".

    Whereas an atheist would usually (I can't speak for all atheists) come to the conclusion that enslaving people, stoning them to death, etc are bad things because they can critically appraise those actions and realise they are bad. Not good, like you think.

    Latinobull14 [2881384]

    So how is the bible fiction? What proof do you have that it is total fiction? Almost all scholars and non-religious historians agree that there was a man named Jesus who did exist in the 1st century.

    Also, how does the bible not allow critical thinking? If anything it greatly encourages this. Jesus in many scenarios spoke in parables. He spoke in these ways to help us think and understand the issue at hand and to analyze it and get an answer from that analysis.... which is critical thinking.

    Also, the bible doesn't answer everything in life. The Bible speaks about clothing the poor and feeding the hungry. That is what the bible says. But who do I help? Do I help those struggling in Mexico, India, Canada, the Philippines, the USA, or the Remote Islands? The Bible doesn't say which one gets priority. So I have to use my judgment and my analysis of the situation to see where I should help. This is just one example of how the teachings of the bible still require analysis and judgment.

    ElHeffe [2564022]

    I am impressed, are you a professional contortionist by any chance?

    Let me simplify my point.

    The Bible quite clearly teaches that people of other religions should be stoned to death.

    Now there are two issues that can be derived.

    1. You think that this is the moral way to behave (Christians are instructed in morality by the Bible). So if you are not actively doing that, you're going against the teachings if God. You're a sinner and will burn in hell.

    2. You don't think this is a moral way to behave. In which case you haven't derived morality from the Bible. That means it's quite possible for other people (such as atheists) to derive a moral code outside the Bible. Soz being no better than an atheist, it's the Big Fire for you.

    So... should people of other religions be stoned to death?

    broleaf [3140943]

    1. You think that this is the moral way to behave (Christians are instructed in morality by the Bible). So if you are not actively doing that, you're going against the teachings if God. You're a sinner and will burn in hell.

    Not a single man or woman alive is untouched or uncorrupted in one way or another by sin. Hence, the importance of rebirth and communion. You bring up a valid point, although however I'd respond with 'render unto Caesar' and such, dismissing your entire argument.

    2. You don't think this is a moral way to behave. In which case you haven't derived morality from the Bible. That means it's quite possible for other people (such as atheists) to derive a moral code outside the Bible. Soz being no better than an atheist, it's the Big Fire for you.

    Don't forget, our Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for their wickedness.

    So... should people of other religions be stoned to death?

    Muh Render unto Caesar.

    Man, did I just speak like a politician?








    Lastly, my previous statements about atheists lacking moral grounding still stand.
    Ah, so you are simply a moral coward, hitting the eject button when you've been demonstrated as a fool.

    This has nothing to do with Caesar. This is to do with the Bible and morality. If you claim the Bible is the source of morality, then it's clear the teachings of the Bible are the moral thing to do.

    I understand you might be prevented from carrying these actions out. But if you hear that someone else has stoned:

    A blasphemer
    An adulterer
    An occultist
    People who have sex before they are married

    Then are you pleased that a moral action has been carried out? Either way you lose. Either you're a lunatic who thinks people should be stoned to death. Or you know people should be stoned to death because the Bible makes many, many deeply immoral pronoucements.

    So you can f**k off with the "you should talk to a priest". Because it's YOU who are making these pronouncements.
    And you can f**k off with your "atheists have no morals" bullshit. Because buddy, don't pretend your shit don't stink.
    • Strand [2821241]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 62
    • Posts: 377
    • Karma: 243
    • Last Action: 1 hour
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 14:17:01 - 01/12/23 (2 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    broleaf [3140943]

    I fail to see the extreme distortion; I think you are just in denial. Feel free to poke a hole in the theorem I posted however.

    ElHeffe [2564022]

    Simple. Atheists are more moral than Christians.

    Looking to a book of obvious fiction and claiming "this is where I derive my morals from is a horrible thing to do. It abandons any personal responsibility for critical thinking or governing behaviour.

    A Christian can go to the Bible and simply say "I am beating my slave, but not to death. I am a good person following the teaching of the Bible". Or they might say "I know someone who has a different religion than me. I am going to stone them to death in according with the teachings of God. I am a good person". Or they might be caught committing a sexual assault on a woman so they would pay the woman's father off and then marry her thinking "I am doing the right thing".

    Whereas an atheist would usually (I can't speak for all atheists) come to the conclusion that enslaving people, stoning them to death, etc are bad things because they can critically appraise those actions and realise they are bad. Not good, like you think.

    Latinobull14 [2881384]

    So how is the bible fiction? What proof do you have that it is total fiction? Almost all scholars and non-religious historians agree that there was a man named Jesus who did exist in the 1st century.

    Also, how does the bible not allow critical thinking? If anything it greatly encourages this. Jesus in many scenarios spoke in parables. He spoke in these ways to help us think and understand the issue at hand and to analyze it and get an answer from that analysis.... which is critical thinking.

    Also, the bible doesn't answer everything in life. The Bible speaks about clothing the poor and feeding the hungry. That is what the bible says. But who do I help? Do I help those struggling in Mexico, India, Canada, the Philippines, the USA, or the Remote Islands? The Bible doesn't say which one gets priority. So I have to use my judgment and my analysis of the situation to see where I should help. This is just one example of how the teachings of the bible still require analysis and judgment.

    ElHeffe [2564022]

    I am impressed, are you a professional contortionist by any chance?

    Let me simplify my point.

    The Bible quite clearly teaches that people of other religions should be stoned to death.

    Now there are two issues that can be derived.

    1. You think that this is the moral way to behave (Christians are instructed in morality by the Bible). So if you are not actively doing that, you're going against the teachings if God. You're a sinner and will burn in hell.

    2. You don't think this is a moral way to behave. In which case you haven't derived morality from the Bible. That means it's quite possible for other people (such as atheists) to derive a moral code outside the Bible. Soz being no better than an atheist, it's the Big Fire for you.

    So... should people of other religions be stoned to death?

    broleaf [3140943]

    1. You think that this is the moral way to behave (Christians are instructed in morality by the Bible). So if you are not actively doing that, you're going against the teachings if God. You're a sinner and will burn in hell.

    Not a single man or woman alive is untouched or uncorrupted in one way or another by sin. Hence, the importance of rebirth and communion. You bring up a valid point, although however I'd respond with 'render unto Caesar' and such, dismissing your entire argument.

    2. You don't think this is a moral way to behave. In which case you haven't derived morality from the Bible. That means it's quite possible for other people (such as atheists) to derive a moral code outside the Bible. Soz being no better than an atheist, it's the Big Fire for you.

    Don't forget, our Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for their wickedness.

    So... should people of other religions be stoned to death?

    Muh Render unto Caesar.

    Man, did I just speak like a politician?








    Lastly, my previous statements about atheists lacking moral grounding still stand.

    ElHeffe [2564022]

    Ah, so you are simply a moral coward, hitting the eject button when you've been demonstrated as a fool.

    This has nothing to do with Caesar. This is to do with the Bible and morality. If you claim the Bible is the source of morality, then it's clear the teachings of the Bible are the moral thing to do.

    I understand you might be prevented from carrying these actions out. But if you hear that someone else has stoned:

    A blasphemer
    An adulterer
    An occultist
    People who have sex before they are married

    Then are you pleased that a moral action has been carried out? Either way you lose. Either you're a lunatic who thinks people should be stoned to death. Or you know people should be stoned to death because the Bible makes many, many deeply immoral pronoucements.

    So you can f**k off with the "you should talk to a priest". Because it's YOU who are making these pronouncements.
    And you can f**k off with your "atheists have no morals" bullshit. Because buddy, don't pretend your shit don't stink.
    Interesting that you won't respond to my post about taking the words of scripture in their historical context. Makes it seem like you're pursuing an agenda rather than here for a debate that could end up teaching you something.

    If you read more of Exodus and Leviticus beyond just the laws you've cherry-picked, you'll find mention of offerings and sacrifices one could make in order to be reconciled and avoid further punishment. Perhaps the looming threat of harsh penalties was designed to ensure that people would be motivated to make amends for their sins rather than go on living in their unclean state. I'm willing to bet that most people would rather buy and sacrifice a bull than be stoned.

    Anyway, your point is moot because of the New Testament, which fulfills the Old. Jesus' sacrifice negated the need for any further offering of purification, for no sacrifice could surpass his own. Through his teachings and his sacrifice he also nullified the need for anyone to die for their sins. So don't pretend there's some Biblical mandate on Christians to stone anyone.
    • ElHeffe [2564022]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 42
    • Posts: 1275
    • Karma: 1365
    • Last Action: 9 minutes
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 15:41:15 - 01/12/23 (2 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Strand [2821241]

    Interesting that you won't respond to my post about taking the words of scripture in their historical context. Makes it seem like you're pursuing an agenda rather than here for a debate that could end up teaching you something.

    If you read more of Exodus and Leviticus beyond just the laws you've cherry-picked, you'll find mention of offerings and sacrifices one could make in order to be reconciled and avoid further punishment. Perhaps the looming threat of harsh penalties was designed to ensure that people would be motivated to make amends for their sins rather than go on living in their unclean state. I'm willing to bet that most people would rather buy and sacrifice a bull than be stoned.

    Anyway, your point is moot because of the New Testament, which fulfills the Old. Jesus' sacrifice negated the need for any further offering of purification, for no sacrifice could surpass his own. Through his teachings and his sacrifice he also nullified the need for anyone to die for their sins. So don't pretend there's some Biblical mandate on Christians to stone anyone.
    Liar.

    Just be honest instead of digging your hole deeper. There's no historical content. Either it's the Word of God or it's not. There's no footnotes that say "oh, this is just a metaphor".

    "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled." Matthew 5:18

    Not one jot of law has changed. Not one tittle of the law has changed.

    “A man or a woman who is a medium or a necromancer shall surely be put to death. They shall be stoned with stones; their blood shall be upon them.” Exodus 22:19.

    That's not a suggestion, it's not an idea. It IS a mandate. That's the morality of the Bible. Oh yeah - feed and clothe the poor by all means. But also stone mediums to death.

    The fact is that the Bible is just a buffet to people. They pick the bits they like and they ignore the bits they don't. People make up their own moral mode and then they look for justification for it.
    Same with the point I made earlier about people inheriting their parents religion. There's no one in the world who believes in God because of the cosmological argument. You believed because you're softheaded and then went looking for a bunch of logical hoops to jump though to justify the thing you already believed.

    We ALL make up our own moral codes.
    • Violence [2603171]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 95
    • Posts: 1248
    • Karma: 658
    • Last Action: 3 minutes
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 17:17:38 - 01/12/23 (2 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link
    This threads been resurrected again?? 



    Why bother? You have your beliefs, you want to bang on about how super wonderful they are and how much of the book you can use in lieu of actual debating skills.

    Splendid. Let me save the casuals the time with a surmised version of the last 8 pages.


    OP : I love me some jesus, he the main man .


    Everyone else. Bully for you, it's not for me tho and the church actually causes a great deal of misery but you do you.


    OP well in corinthians job lot banana it says "thine misery is inflicted upon you as part of his great plan to bring you closer to the divine light" Ergo I'm right and you're wrong but I'll dress this up in a wall of text so big no sane person will bother to read it properly.

    I'm off to polish my halo. (BTW you're all wrong but jusus will save you after you die because that's an argument I find ultimately conclusive because I'm so squishy for the lord)


    Everyone else. Mmmm hmmm. So explain again why the clergy like wearing children's sphincters as cock rings?

    OP. That's not MY church......




    BORING.

     

     

     

     

    CHINGADERA [2270005]

    Meh, you're just a buzzword foreigner with zero real experience that doesn't involve a news channel...Mind your business scrub, 
     
    18:04:29 - 13/02/24 You used 15 energy attacking Madgod and mugged them for $28,230 (chain #2037) 
    • Latinobull14 [2881384]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 54
    • Posts: 347
    • Karma: 128
    • Last Action: 27 minutes
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 17:21:54 - 01/12/23 (2 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    broleaf [3140943]

    I'm going to quote Steppenwolf and his explanation of how atheists can't conceptualize spirit and therefore cant rationalize morality

    "atheist, or a person of another religion, say Baalism, can in fact be moral and do what is right and good. In fact Christians believe this to be true, if they know their Bible very well.

    "However the problem that atheism has with morality is that it cannot acknowledge morality as an existential reality. This is because atheism acknowledges no arbiter of truth; thus atheism can make no appeal to such an arbiter, or 'higher power'. In the atheist world-view, people may have opinions about morality, but they are only opinions. Nobody's opinion can be held ultimately in higher regard than anyone else's. An atheist society may debate ethics for millennia, but ultimately no moral code can ever be formulated because a moral code as such carries the authority of the "supernatural". An atheistic society may, by consensus or by unanimous support, hold that killing another person is wrong, but would only have it'self to ascribe the power to make such a distinction.

    Now, the typical atheist retort to this goes something like "You're saying that without religion to guide us, people would all go around murdering people, but I'm an atheist and I don't want to murder people." But that misses the point. The point in saying that there is no rational basis for morality without a god to uphold it, has nothing to do with whether people would "want" to do anything. The individual atheist's desire to kill a person or not to kill a person has much more to do with the physical characteristics of ones body and brain than it has to do with a moral code. The moral code comes into play when someone does want to kill a person for some reason. Now, the atheist can certainly hold the mistaken belief that they know right from wrong, and perhaps this belief would dissuade such an one. But one would still have no rational justification for holding that set of morals to be true."

    Now, I'm going to add my own expanded premise to what he wrote earlier this week.

    There is another thing to consider: an atheist isn't capable of conceptualizing free will ether due to similar reasons. They can't conceptualize spirit. They often build arguments based on the illogical contemporary context that is constantly shifting, thus forcing them to shift. Their free will is based on external forces outside their control.

    Most individuals deemed 'normies' struggle to rationalize independently, often relying heavily on communal arguments, which limits their capacity for exercising free will or developments of critical thinking skills.


    Now, lastly, with everything provided previously I'm going to bring forth a question: What separates an atheist from an animal?

    ElHeffe [2564022]

    Would you like some more straw for the man you're fighting?

    broleaf [3140943]

    I fail to see the extreme distortion; I think you are just in denial. Feel free to poke a hole in the theorem I posted however.

    ElHeffe [2564022]

    Simple. Atheists are more moral than Christians.

    Looking to a book of obvious fiction and claiming "this is where I derive my morals from is a horrible thing to do. It abandons any personal responsibility for critical thinking or governing behaviour.

    A Christian can go to the Bible and simply say "I am beating my slave, but not to death. I am a good person following the teaching of the Bible". Or they might say "I know someone who has a different religion than me. I am going to stone them to death in according with the teachings of God. I am a good person". Or they might be caught committing a sexual assault on a woman so they would pay the woman's father off and then marry her thinking "I am doing the right thing".

    Whereas an atheist would usually (I can't speak for all atheists) come to the conclusion that enslaving people, stoning them to death, etc are bad things because they can critically appraise those actions and realise they are bad. Not good, like you think.

    Latinobull14 [2881384]

    So how is the bible fiction? What proof do you have that it is total fiction? Almost all scholars and non-religious historians agree that there was a man named Jesus who did exist in the 1st century.

    Also, how does the bible not allow critical thinking? If anything it greatly encourages this. Jesus in many scenarios spoke in parables. He spoke in these ways to help us think and understand the issue at hand and to analyze it and get an answer from that analysis.... which is critical thinking.

    Also, the bible doesn't answer everything in life. The Bible speaks about clothing the poor and feeding the hungry. That is what the bible says. But who do I help? Do I help those struggling in Mexico, India, Canada, the Philippines, the USA, or the Remote Islands? The Bible doesn't say which one gets priority. So I have to use my judgment and my analysis of the situation to see where I should help. This is just one example of how the teachings of the bible still require analysis and judgment.

    ElHeffe [2564022]

    I am impressed, are you a professional contortionist by any chance?

    Let me simplify my point.

    The Bible quite clearly teaches that people of other religions should be stoned to death.

    Now there are two issues that can be derived.

    1. You think that this is the moral way to behave (Christians are instructed in morality by the Bible). So if you are not actively doing that, you're going against the teachings if God. You're a sinner and will burn in hell.

    2. You don't think this is a moral way to behave. In which case you haven't derived morality from the Bible. That means it's quite possible for other people (such as atheists) to derive a moral code outside the Bible. Soz being no better than an atheist, it's the Big Fire for you.

    So... should people of other religions be stoned to death?
    So I understand your point, but you are missing a huge part chunk which would change the narrative of your thinking and that would be Jesus. So yes you are right that in the times of Moses and the early Jewish religion, the law stated that if you were an adulterer, or worshipped one of the false Gods, or practiced homosexuality, you were to be stoned to death. I agree with you as that was the moral standard at that time and the law that was placed. I will need a Jewish person to verify this statement but I believe that some Orthodox Jews still believe in the Mosaic Laws and practice them. Again don't quote me but this is what I heard but I could be 100% wrong. 

    Christianity isn't built on Mosaic Law but rather built on Jesus. What does Jesus say about stoning an adulteress woman?
    3 As he was speaking, the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in the act of adultery. They put her in front of the crowd.
    4 “Teacher,” they said to Jesus, “this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 The law of Moses says to stone her. What do you say?”
    6 They were trying to trap him into saying something they could use against him, but Jesus stooped down and wrote in the dust with his finger. 7 They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said, “All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!” 8 Then he stooped down again and wrote in the dust.
    9 When the accusers heard this, they slipped away one by one, beginning with the oldest, until only Jesus was left in the middle of the crowd with the woman. 10 Then Jesus stood up again and said to the woman, “Where are your accusers? Didn’t even one of them condemn you?”
    11 “No, Lord,” she said.
    And Jesus said, “Neither do I. Go and sin no more.”
    JOHN 8:3-11 NLT

    TLDR - The leaders told Jesus we should stone this girl according to the law. Jesus said whoever hasn't sinned throw the first stone. Everyone left and no one threw a stone. Jesus told the woman to go on and don't sin anymore.

    But how is Jesus in the Jewish tradition, going against the laws of the Jewish religion?

    Jesus came to fulfill the law not to abolish it. He was the ultimate sacrifice or the one to get stoned or die for our sins. He took up all the pain and suffering from the law so we don't have to.

    13 You were dead because of your sins and because your sinful nature was not yet cut away. Then God made you alive with Christ, for he forgave all our sins. 14 He canceled the record of the charges against us and took it away by nailing it to the cross.
    Colossians 2:13-14 NLT

    So now instead of living by the law of Moses' time, we live by the grace of Jesus. So your statement that Christians follow the morality of stoning sinners is incorrect because Jesus took our place for death and gave us the ability to have a second chance.

    This topic goes a bit deeper but I think this will satisfy your points and hopefully change your narrative. Remember, the Bible is both a morality and a historical book :)
Reply
Thread Title: