[quote]Michael570 wrote:
harris447 wrote:
You try to come across as intellgent, but you can’t tell he difference between “their” and “there” and have to “look up” existential theories which don’t exist.
No need to look it up. It’s called Solipsism.
[/quote]
Thanks. Good call, Harris.
[quote]Michael570 wrote:
Hope this isn’t too much off topic but I have a question for the atheists. Assuming God (or any version of a non-physical “higher power”) does not exist, explain to me if it would be wrong to murder an entire classroom full of children? If so, then why?[/quote]
I really hope that belief in God isn’t the only thing keeping you from murdering classrooms full of children. Is that the first thing you would do if you stopped believing?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Michael570 wrote:
This is an explanation for human behavior. You have explained why most people will behave as if killing children is wrong but haven’t explained why it is wrong.
It was an explanation for how human behavior gives rise to ethical systems, which in turn attempt to influence human behavior. Call it circular logic if you like; it works for me.
I would argue that even in the total absence of religious commandments, societal taboos, moral proscriptions, or legal prohibitions against murder, a great majority of people would not kill a child, one because of fear of retribution by the child’s parents, and two because they would not wish the same fate to befall their own children.[/quote]
There’s no money in murdering schoolchildren.
A bit off topic. An comment to the current entry in the Dilbert Blog (the blog is even better than the comic) had a link to:
http://whydoesgodhateamputees.com/god5.htm
Haven’t read all of it. But I (as an atheist) found it quite entertaining.
[quote]human743 wrote:
Michael570 wrote:
Hope this isn’t too much off topic but I have a question for the atheists. Assuming God (or any version of a non-physical “higher power”) does not exist, explain to me if it would be wrong to murder an entire classroom full of children? If so, then why?
I really hope that belief in God isn’t the only thing keeping you from murdering classrooms full of children. Is that the first thing you would do if you stopped believing?[/quote]
Of course not.
Also, I never stated my position on the existence of God.
[quote]human743 wrote:
lovehunter wrote:
sugarfree wrote:
PGA wrote:
Shit, I dont believe in god but I sure as hell believe Jesus walked this earth. Anybody that thinks otherwise its an idiot.
I never knew people actually believed Jesus didnt exist…
Personal belief systems aside, could you explain the logic in this?
You don’t believe in god, but you believe in his son? So how did he do it? Where did the miracles come from if not the power of God? How can there be no son, if there is no father?
Or you are saying there was a guy named Jesus, but he wasn’t son of God and couldn’t do all the things the bible said he did? So you don’t believe that there was anything other than a man named Jesus once.
By that logic, whoever states that Jesus doesn’t exist, probably means the miracle performing son of god Jesus didn’t exist. Not that there was ever a man called Jesus before.
I realize I’m making my point by writing your side of my point, so please elaborate on how there is no God, but the son of God, Jesus is possible.
He probably meant Jesus the person not Jesus as the son of God. You know there are a lot of people who believe that there was a man named Jesus that was just a man.
I believe there was a man named Jesus. He was a carpenter’s helper I worked with in Nevada.[/quote]
That was almost funny.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
haney wrote:
That would be contrary to the Bible its self. No where does it say that we should have faith with out questioning things.
Yeah, but what about John 20:29, two lines down, in which Jesus rebukes Thomas, saying that because he required visible and tangible proof, he is less blessed than a believer who takes it purely on faith?[/quote]
That isn’t a rebuke. That is a statement.
but lets take your argument and think about it.
Jesus doesn’t say those that have seen him are less blessed. He just says blessed are those that believe even though they havn’t seen.
Now the statement implies that there is a blessing for those that blieve with out seeing Jesus risen. So we have to ask who would these people that havn’t seen him be, and is there a special blessing for them that the other disciples that have seen him don’t get.
The ones who would not have seen him would be the church that the disciples taught through out the world. Since Jesus didn’t show up in greece, someone had to tell them, and they had to believe by word of mouth/faith.
So with that being the case, Jesus is saying blessed are those that believe after I am gone.
now is there some extra blessing? Jesus doesn’t say there is, and no where in the Bible does it have one.
The only blessing is that which the believer receives on the day of the Lord.
This text while it shows similiarities to the beattitudes lacks the reward at the end. Many people take this text to mean something other than what it is.
I would like to state though that All of the other disciples had seen Jesus in his risen form, so why single out Thomas?
Look at Peter. when they told him Jesus was risen he went straight to the tomb to see for himself. He didn’t believe either.
Jesus singled out Thomas to teach all of them something about how others would have to come to faith with out their advantage.
[quote]Michael570 wrote:
human743 wrote:
Michael570 wrote:
Hope this isn’t too much off topic but I have a question for the atheists. Assuming God (or any version of a non-physical “higher power”) does not exist, explain to me if it would be wrong to murder an entire classroom full of children? If so, then why?
I really hope that belief in God isn’t the only thing keeping you from murdering classrooms full of children. Is that the first thing you would do if you stopped believing?
Of course not.
Also, I never stated my position on the existence of God.[/quote]
A person that doesn’t believe would have no afterlife to look forward to and would understand that life in this reality is the only value possible from which all other values would depend on.
They would know that ending someone’s life would take everything away from them. A believer could in principle believe that s/he was sending the schoolchildren to a better place and have one less obstacle to murder.
[quote]lovehunter wrote:
human743 wrote:
lovehunter wrote:
sugarfree wrote:
PGA wrote:
Shit, I dont believe in god but I sure as hell believe Jesus walked this earth. Anybody that thinks otherwise its an idiot.
I never knew people actually believed Jesus didnt exist…
Personal belief systems aside, could you explain the logic in this?
You don’t believe in god, but you believe in his son? So how did he do it? Where did the miracles come from if not the power of God? How can there be no son, if there is no father?
Or you are saying there was a guy named Jesus, but he wasn’t son of God and couldn’t do all the things the bible said he did? So you don’t believe that there was anything other than a man named Jesus once.
By that logic, whoever states that Jesus doesn’t exist, probably means the miracle performing son of god Jesus didn’t exist. Not that there was ever a man called Jesus before.
I realize I’m making my point by writing your side of my point, so please elaborate on how there is no God, but the son of God, Jesus is possible.
He probably meant Jesus the person not Jesus as the son of God. You know there are a lot of people who believe that there was a man named Jesus that was just a man.
I believe there was a man named Jesus. He was a carpenter’s helper I worked with in Nevada.
That was almost funny.[/quote]
It wasn’t a joke. It really happened. I saw him walk on concrete.
[quote]chris666 wrote:
A bit off topic. An comment to the current entry in the Dilbert Blog (the blog is even better than the comic) had a link to:
http://whydoesgodhateamputees.com/god5.htm
Haven’t read all of it. But I (as an atheist) found it quite entertaining.[/quote]
Pretty interesting.
The thing is, though, that God does heal amputees.
He simply charges an arm and a leg for it.
[quote]human743 wrote:
A person that doesn’t believe would have no afterlife to look forward to and would understand that life in this reality is the only value possible from which all other values would depend on.
They would know that ending someone’s life would take everything away from them. A believer could in principle believe that s/he was sending the schoolchildren to a better place and have one less obstacle to murder.[/quote]
“A person that doesn’t believe would have no afterlife to look forward to and would understand that life in this reality is the only value possible from which all other values would depend on”
We’re talking about atheism. Value? What value? A human is no more important than a cockroach. You may think you are, thanks to the hundreds of thousands of years of evolution behind the human ego, but that doesn’t make it so.
No God? No afterlife? No right. No wrong. No value. Just physical matter and nothing more.
That would be the intellectually honest position of an atheist. Unfortunately it’s too uncomfortable to admit.
[quote]Michael570 wrote:
Digital Chainsaw wrote:
OK, I get it.
You want someone to summarize all of the thought processes of humans from pre-history onward, citing all reasons for why most every civilization independently concluded and passed down to future generations that killing other humans for no good reason with/without a god or gods involved (with some exceptions) is wrong. Good luck with that.
No, I already know the answer to that.[/quote]
Aaaaallll righty then…
[quote]Michael570 wrote:
human743 wrote:
Michael570 wrote:
Hope this isn’t too much off topic but I have a question for the atheists. Assuming God (or any version of a non-physical “higher power”) does not exist, explain to me if it would be wrong to murder an entire classroom full of children? If so, then why?
I really hope that belief in God isn’t the only thing keeping you from murdering classrooms full of children. Is that the first thing you would do if you stopped believing?
Of course not.
Also, I never stated my position on the existence of God.[/quote]
No, but you specifically called out atheists and their take on a moral question based on what they believe.
Then you turn around and claim you are not defending religion, but want a serious answer to why murdering children is wrong. If that is really what you wanted to know, why involve belief/disbelief in a deity at all? It should have nothing to do with the question you want an answer to.
It seems what you were asking was:
“Is it absolutely wrong to murder an entire classroom full of children? If so, then why?”
But then, you already know the answer to that…
[quote]haney wrote:
postcrime wrote:
The religious guys never get this right. You’re not supposed to try to prove that Jesus existed, and you’re not supposed to need or ever care about the proof. You’re supposed to just believe it for no other reason than because the Bible says so. And if you can’t take it on blind faith then you’re not a true believer in Christianity.
That would be contrary to the Bible its self. No where does it say that we should have faith with out questioning things.
[/quote]
Don’t know what dictionary you’re using but how do you figure one can have faith with questioning things?
Can you say “oxymoron”? I knew that you could.
For one specific example (there are countless others):
Matthew 21:21:
I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and it will be done. If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.
So much for “No where [sic] does it say…”.
In fact, anytime the Bible commands one to “have faith” or “believe”, that is exactly what it is saying.
I can’t wait to hear how I have misinterpreted everything. I’m gonna go make some popcorn.
[quote]Michael570 wrote:
We’re talking about atheism. Value? What value? A human is no more important than a cockroach. You may think you are, thanks to the hundreds of thousands of years of evolution behind the human ego, but that doesn’t make it so.
No God? No afterlife? No right. No wrong. No value. Just physical matter and nothing more.
That would be the intellectually honest position of an atheist. Unfortunately it’s too uncomfortable to admit.[/quote]
That’s an interesting position. Out of curiosity, is that only your personal position as an atheist, or do you also speak for the 1.1 billion atheists and agnostics in the world?
Many of them, I would dare to guess, value the life of a human over that of a cockroach.
[quote]Michael570 wrote:
human743 wrote:
A person that doesn’t believe would have no afterlife to look forward to and would understand that life in this reality is the only value possible from which all other values would depend on.
They would know that ending someone’s life would take everything away from them. A believer could in principle believe that s/he was sending the schoolchildren to a better place and have one less obstacle to murder.
“A person that doesn’t believe would have no afterlife to look forward to and would understand that life in this reality is the only value possible from which all other values would depend on”
We’re talking about atheism. Value? What value? A human is no more important than a cockroach. You may think you are, thanks to the hundreds of thousands of years of evolution behind the human ego, but that doesn’t make it so.
No God? No afterlife? No right. No wrong. No value. Just physical matter and nothing more.
That would be the intellectually honest position of an atheist. Unfortunately it’s too uncomfortable to admit.[/quote]
Dude, did you read my post?
Anyway, the question would be important to whom? Humans are no more important to the Earth (if there is such an entity) than a cockroach, but humans are very important to me.
By the way, nice avatar.
[quote]human743 wrote:
lovehunter wrote:
human743 wrote:
lovehunter wrote:
sugarfree wrote:
PGA wrote:
Shit, I dont believe in god but I sure as hell believe Jesus walked this earth. Anybody that thinks otherwise its an idiot.
I never knew people actually believed Jesus didnt exist…
Personal belief systems aside, could you explain the logic in this?
You don’t believe in god, but you believe in his son? So how did he do it? Where did the miracles come from if not the power of God? How can there be no son, if there is no father?
Or you are saying there was a guy named Jesus, but he wasn’t son of God and couldn’t do all the things the bible said he did? So you don’t believe that there was anything other than a man named Jesus once.
By that logic, whoever states that Jesus doesn’t exist, probably means the miracle performing son of god Jesus didn’t exist. Not that there was ever a man called Jesus before.
I realize I’m making my point by writing your side of my point, so please elaborate on how there is no God, but the son of God, Jesus is possible.
He probably meant Jesus the person not Jesus as the son of God. You know there are a lot of people who believe that there was a man named Jesus that was just a man.
I believe there was a man named Jesus. He was a carpenter’s helper I worked with in Nevada.
That was almost funny.
It wasn’t a joke. It really happened. I saw him walk on concrete.[/quote]
Continuing on this unfunny joke…
…Hey Zues right?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Michael570 wrote:
We’re talking about atheism. Value? What value? A human is no more important than a cockroach. You may think you are, thanks to the hundreds of thousands of years of evolution behind the human ego, but that doesn’t make it so.
No God? No afterlife? No right. No wrong. No value. Just physical matter and nothing more.
That would be the intellectually honest position of an atheist. Unfortunately it’s too uncomfortable to admit.
That’s an interesting position. Out of curiosity, is that only your personal position as an atheist, or do you also speak for the 1.1 billion atheists and agnostics in the world?
Many of them, I would dare to guess, value the life of a human over that of a cockroach.[/quote]
Right on target, varq, as always.
Unfortunately, the ridiculous horseshit that Michael570 just spewed above is exactly what many children growing up in Christian homes are taught to believe, and to hear some of our (supposed to be secular) political leaders speak, it sticks pretty well.
“No, I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God.”
– George Bush, to American Atheists’ reporter Robert Sherman in 1987, while serving as vice-president
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Michael570 wrote:
We’re talking about atheism. Value? What value? A human is no more important than a cockroach. You may think you are, thanks to the hundreds of thousands of years of evolution behind the human ego, but that doesn’t make it so.
No God? No afterlife? No right. No wrong. No value. Just physical matter and nothing more.
That would be the intellectually honest position of an atheist. Unfortunately it’s too uncomfortable to admit.
That’s an interesting position. Out of curiosity, is that only your personal position as an atheist, or do you also speak for the 1.1 billion atheists and agnostics in the world?
Many of them, I would dare to guess, value the life of a human over that of a cockroach.[/quote]
It’s not my personal position nor do I speak for anyone else. I see it as a position that logically follows from atheism. However, I know that atheists don’t actually behave this way and I doubt there a many that arrive at the same conclusion.
[quote]blooey wrote:
Dude, did you read my post?
Anyway, the question would be important to whom? Humans are no more important to the Earth (if there is such an entity) than a cockroach, but humans are very important to me.
By the way, nice avatar.[/quote]
I did read your post. Your response was in a similar vein as Varq’s and jwillow. I agree with the learned and innate aspects of human behavior as an explanation for why people believe it’s wrong to kill others.
Suppose society didn’t impose restrictions on killing and humans weren’t hard-wired with empathy (everyone was a sociopath). Would it still be wrong?
Natural selection isn’t driven by any moral compass, so why rely on the hard-wired nature of human behavior to explain a moral position?