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]

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]

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.

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?

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.

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?

Show post

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.

ElHeffe [2564022]

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

Show post

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

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.

Show post

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...

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.

Show post

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

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.

Show post

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.

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.

Show post

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

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?

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.

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?

Show post

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]

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?

Show post

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.

ElHeffe [2564022]

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

Show post

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.

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.

Show post

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.

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.