Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

What is the "Atheist" basis of morality?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 151-175 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 8 Mar 2013 03:17:25 GMT
Last edited by the author on 8 Mar 2013 03:32:35 GMT
light says:
Hi BC,

"I believe the hardened atheist will have a more severe judgement even than the religious zealot who blew up people in god's name and the priest who commit awful physical acts against other people."

I sincerely hope that you don't really believe that. If you do then you should read this:

Luke 12:47-48

"The servant who knows the master's will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked."

Along with knowledge of God comes added responsibility and accountability.

"I have believed for a long time that to be a hardened atheist is the greatest sin a human being can commit "The fool hath said in his heart there is no God."

There is a bigger sin than that and it is to believe in God and then turn against him by doing heinous things that should not be done, this blasphemes the Spirit and is the biggest offense there is. Jesus talks about this by saying that those who sin and lead others to sin would be better off to have a huge rock tied around their neck and thrown into the lake. Jesus also said:

Matthew 12:32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."

Maybe this will help to clear up your statement about atheists deserving more punishment than believers:

Hebrews 10-26-29

"If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?"

Maybe your'e just stirring things up a bit?

In reply to an earlier post on 8 Mar 2013 07:10:26 GMT
Last edited by the author on 8 Mar 2013 07:14:19 GMT
BC says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 8 Mar 2013 07:48:01 GMT
Last edited by the author on 8 Mar 2013 07:48:30 GMT
TomC says:
Hello BC

"Do you really believe the atheist is sincere when he says he doesn't have enough proof for God's existence? The hardened atheist believes he has committed deicide!"

Why ask questions, when you immediately follow with an assertion which clearly indicates that you are interested only in the answer you wish to hear? This is the equivalent of pretending to ask for information, and then sticking your fingers in your ears. We treat this with indulgence when it is done by a 10 year old; in a grown man who claims to be engaging in discussion, it shows rather less dignity and deserves a lot less toleration.

'As my atheist acquaintance said with much self satisfaction "Darwin killed God."'

Was that the same "atheist acquaintance" with the PhD in denying the existence of God, or a different one? I feel that it is important for us to understand the diversity of the various voices .... sorry .... sources of evidence for your assertions.

In reply to an earlier post on 8 Mar 2013 08:03:37 GMT
Drew Jones says:
"The hardened atheist believes he has committed deicide!"
That a very self-serving take on atheism that assumes there was a god that needed slaying. It creates a feeling that we violated your once valid idea. Deicide is unnessacery, like dragons laying or unicorn culling.

In reply to an earlier post on 8 Mar 2013 08:06:20 GMT
BC says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 8 Mar 2013 08:10:27 GMT
BC says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 8 Mar 2013 08:15:52 GMT
BC says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 8 Mar 2013 08:22:10 GMT
TomC says:
"No, it was a different person. "

OK, so far we have a sample size of two. Are there any more of these acquaintances, or does that constitute the totality of your sources on the "root worldview" of atheism? And, I must say, it is odd how they seem to reiterate the views that you want them to, in order that you may knock them down. Anyone less charitable than myself might suspect that you were making them up.

"the root worldview is ultimately the same within atheistic belief"

But that isn't what you're saying in your previous posts, is it? If the atheist worldview is "ultimately the same", then either atheists are fools - "The fool hath said in his heart there is no God" - or they are deicides - ie they say there IS a God, but they killed him. Which is it? You can't have it both ways, you know.

In reply to an earlier post on 8 Mar 2013 08:25:54 GMT
BC says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 8 Mar 2013 08:42:43 GMT
No for a god to be dead it is to assume that it once had life, the notion of god is completely foreign to me. I do not believe he exists and through no lack of trying have never believed he existed, there is a distinct difference

In reply to an earlier post on 8 Mar 2013 08:53:20 GMT
Pendragon says:
Good morning BC

"The true God has provided many many proofs of His Existence and Power"

I hear what you say. But in quoting from Job are you saying that the proofs are to be found in bible text and nowhere else?

Posted on 8 Mar 2013 09:02:59 GMT
To be fair on the whole deicide front - it would be pretty embarrassing for an omnipotent being to be killed by a puny mortal. Even if it'd just had an ass-whooping by man, in that position I'd skulk off to the far reaches of the universe to hide my shame.

In reply to an earlier post on 8 Mar 2013 09:04:01 GMT
Drew Jones says:
"You must think that our ancestors really were naive to believe in God en masse?"
The fact is they were naive. They didn't have the ability to understand the world around it as it was so anthromophosised it. You're wrong to think they believed in God too, they only believed in gods one of which went by the name God.

"Will you not be satisfied until you have rid society of the historic evidence (still retained in many fine academic establishment libraries) of the sincerely held worldview of millions around the world?"
Is there some other forum where you found this or are we going to have to address your imaginings at every turn? I no more want to see the relics of Christian worship destroyed than I'd like to see the remnants we have of pagan worship destroyed.

"Professing themselves to be wise they became fools and their foolish hearts were darkened." (Rom.1:22.)
Given the biological insights contained in that sentence the author shouldn't be throwing about the word fool.

In reply to an earlier post on 8 Mar 2013 09:10:00 GMT
"You must think that our ancestors really were naive to believe in God en masse"

What's your view of the ancestors who believed in the gods of the time ? You can't really say they weren't believing in the one true God, because he didn't exist to man at the time.
And if not believing in God is the ultimate sin and punishment, how is it just to punish those who had never heard of him ?

In reply to an earlier post on 8 Mar 2013 09:12:22 GMT
Pendragon says:
BC

I agree that there is much "historic evidence (still retained in many fine academic establishment libraries) of the sincerely held worldview of millions around the world".

None of that historic evidence is evidence for the existence of God (or any other god).

In reply to an earlier post on 8 Mar 2013 09:23:36 GMT
Ian says:
70x7 is 490

Your concept of infinity seems rather small?

In reply to an earlier post on 8 Mar 2013 09:31:22 GMT
Dan Fante says:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2000704/Woman-shows-incredible-mercy-sons-killer-moves-door.html
Plenty other examples as well. I'm not sure I could do it but it does demonstrate you're talking rubbish.

In reply to an earlier post on 8 Mar 2013 09:34:24 GMT
Ian says:
"Will you not be satisfied until you have rid society of the historic evidence (still retained in many fine academic establishment libraries) of the sincerely held worldview of millions around the world?"

On the contrary - trying to destroy the evidence of previously held beliefs sounds like a terrible idea. Should we destroy the evidence that slavery ever happened? There are those trying to discredit the evidence that the holocaust ever happened, but it's not those who oppose a repetition that are doing so.

Surely you have more of an interest in destroying the evidence of past belief so you can present your religion as something new, exciting and modern. I'm very keen (as I suspect are most atheists) to preserve the evidence of past belief in all religions and deities precisely so that you cannot pretend your religion is in any way different from the failed religions of the past. That, and that both cathedrals and stonehenge are beautiful in their own right. What kind of person would want to destroy those or other beautiful objects like illuminated manuscripts full of fanciful descriptions?

Most of the destruction of religious artifacts I am aware of has been carried out not by atheists but by those of other religions. Didn't Cromwell destroy rather a lot? More was lost in the reformation, and more recently the Taliban have done terrible damage to the cultural heritage of their country.

In reply to an earlier post on 8 Mar 2013 09:38:10 GMT
BC says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 8 Mar 2013 09:42:46 GMT
Last edited by the author on 8 Mar 2013 09:47:22 GMT
Dan Fante says:
I suppose counting to zero does present certain difficulties. I also didn't realise that the day of judgement was akin to a student night out on Halloween.

In reply to an earlier post on 8 Mar 2013 09:56:52 GMT
C. A. Small says:
BC- unfortunately for you, the bible is just a collection of fairy stories, and unpleasant ones at that. You might be convinced, but on your posts so far, coherant thought is something alien to you.

In reply to an earlier post on 8 Mar 2013 09:57:16 GMT
Norm Deplume says:
BC,

"The bible plainly teaches that it is the devil, taking advantage of our sin nature, who blinds and deceives people to the truth."

The most effective way to do that is to write a book pretending to be an all powerful force for good in order to deceive the credulous into thinking they are not tools of the devil.

The bible is no more reliable as a source than the Eddas or the book of Mormon.

The Principia Discordia clearly states that one should not believe what one reads.

In reply to an earlier post on 8 Mar 2013 09:57:25 GMT
AJ Murray says:
-"The bible plainly teaches that it is the devil, taking advantage of our sin nature, who blinds and deceives people to the truth. I am convinced it would be impossible to count the number of people, atheists, who when they died, first encountered a shrieking demon yelling with glee "Fooled you!""

Why would those people end up in Hell? If there is some malicious devil who is engaged in deceiving people, why wouldn't god punish it instead of the innocent victims?

In reply to an earlier post on 8 Mar 2013 10:13:35 GMT
Dan Fante says:
Good question

In reply to an earlier post on 8 Mar 2013 10:28:51 GMT
Last edited by the author on 8 Mar 2013 10:34:39 GMT
TomC says:
No, you're twisting mine, actually. I wasn't talking about the "end result" - which is not actually a result at all. I was talking about the intention - what lawyers call the "mens rea": "actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea", ie "the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty". And you were talking about the intention, too: what else does "in his heart" mean? The deliberate act of killing someone, and the act of killing them by proclaiming that they never existed in the first place - even if this were possible - are not equivalent and never will be.

I do recognize your assertion regarding end result though. It sounds rather like the Peter Pan defence: "Everytime a child says 'I don't believe in fairies' there is a little fairy somewhere that falls down dead". I was aware of the logical flaw in that argument even as a child. People who believe in fairies find it utterly compelling. Unfortunately, people who don't find it laughable.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the religion discussion forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  71
Total posts:  2227
Initial post:  6 Mar 2013
Latest post:  26 May 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions