(January 18, 2017 at 9:31 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote:

(January 18, 2017 at 8:32 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Would you deny that Christianity has a moral imperative?

Is that a rooster I hear crowing?

If you proclaim yourself Christian, I expect you to adhere to its tenets. If you do not, how important, how imperative, are those tenets?

Let's go back to Square One: What do you think are the tenets of atheism?

We have a problem here, Thump. Which tenet is he supposed to adhere to? The one where Jesus tells his disciple put away your sword. They who live by the sword will die by the sword. Or the one where he tells his disciple take your sword. If you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one?

They say atheists need moral absolutes, but the bible certainly does not fulfill that need.

Anything a Christian wants to do, he can find scripture to support it.

Of course that's a problem. But I'm sure glad it's not my problem.

There's a serious problem with a large number of the theists we get here...

They can't seem to stand people disagreeing with them. It's just outrageous that anyone could consider it.

(January 18, 2017 at 9:13 pm)Pulse Wrote: Why would he be wrong and you right? All just a matter of opinion manufactured by our brains which are the result of random meaningless processes in a random meaningless Universe?

Morality is both relative and subjective.

(January 18, 2017 at 9:33 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(January 18, 2017 at 9:13 pm)Pulse Wrote: That's because we have laws in this world that are mostly based on the Ten Commandments which are reflected in most religions and we thus no longer act like barbarians.

Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

Treaty of Tripoli. Signed under President Washington, ratified under President Adams.

Article 11:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation

Dag, Simon. That's in the Constitution? So if we want to get Christians to abandon the idea that their god is a conservative republican, all we have to do is show them what the constitution says. They'll drop all pretense and come right out as proponents of the theocracy they're really after.

(January 19, 2017 at 4:35 am)Pulse Wrote: Tazzycorn, you seem to be STRETCHING the truth somewhat (Atheism has no rock solid basis for morality so i am not surprised) ok Ill quote more from Dawkins and see if you can by some miracle extract from this fuller quotation that I was wrong and Dawkins in fact believes there is Good and Evil in the Universe

"In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”   Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life

Why would we need to restrict ourselves to one quotation? Surprisingly, people's views of things can often extend beyond the confines of a single, arbitrarily picked snippet of text.

What Dawkins is saying there is that the universe doesn't operate with any inherent moral principles, that there's no mechanisms within reality doing any moral heavy lifting. While this might be true, it's also true that Dawkins has spoken at length about the development of morality and social progress through reason, and that notions of good and evil are superior for coming about as the result of this, instead of dictates from divinity. Dawkins' view is that morality comes about through people, people are a part of the universe, and therefore, there is good and evil in the universe, even if this is something sustained by minds, and not objectively real in any physical sense.

You might do yourself a favor and look into the is/ought fallacy, too. It could clear up some misconceptions you have, though I don't hold any particularly high hopes that you will. It'd be nice to be proven wrong one of these days.

(January 19, 2017 at 11:00 am)Rhondazvous Wrote:

(January 18, 2017 at 9:33 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

Treaty of Tripoli. Signed under President Washington, ratified under President Adams.

Article 11:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation

Dag, Simon. That's in the Constitution? So if we want to get Christians to abandon  the idea that their god is a conservative republican, all we have to do is show them what the constitution says. They'll drop all pretense and  come right out as proponents of the theocracy they're really after.

*decloaking for a minute*

It's not in the Constitution, but rather verbiage in the Treaty of Tripoli (which was, well, a treaty between the US and Tripoli).  That said, the quote is interesting because it's just one of many which highlights the Founding Father's views on religion and government, namely that the US is, and always has been, a secular nation.  That secular quality is there by design, and was incredibly important in the formation of the nation itself (what do you think would happen if there was a declared religion, or even a leaning towards a particular one, in a land populated by Jews, Catholics, Protestants, and likely others in a time when religious disputes between them often turned violent?).

Regarding the 10 Commandments as a foundation of law, that's bullshit.  The first 4-5 are dumb, and usually manifest in idiotic blue laws (which are typically only found in conservative states, and are rapidly disappearing, or are lightly enforced).  6-9 are common to just about all cultures, and have their origins far earlier than the Commandments (and adultery is no longer considered a crime in most places).  10 is simply ridiculous.

Our government and laws have a lot more to do with ancient Greece, Rome, and colonial Britain than the Bible.

*recloaking*

(January 19, 2017 at 10:46 am)robvalue Wrote: There's a serious problem with a large number of the theists we get here...

They can't seem to stand people disagreeing with them. It's just outrageous that anyone could consider it.

Lack of ability to compartmentalize and compensate for their cognitive dissonance.

Holy shit, look at all those big words.

(January 19, 2017 at 4:35 am)Pulse Wrote: Tazzycorn, you seem to be STRETCHING the truth somewhat (Atheism has no rock solid basis for morality so i am not surprised) ok Ill quote more from Dawkins and see if you can by some miracle extract from this fuller quotation that I was wrong and Dawkins in fact believes there is Good and Evil in the Universe

"In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”   Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life

Personally, and like Dawkins I speak for just one atheist, I have no use for the word "evil" and prefer the word  "prosocial" to "good".  Goodness and Evil as nouns are nonsense.  Acts which get singled out as 'good' tend to be ones which are good for the wider group.  As a community we naturally appreciate such acts.  But self serving acts which serve only the individual are not 'evil', they're just not socially relevant.  On the long view, even the pursuit of solitude or solitary pleasures can be seen as having some prosocial value if by nurturing the individual that individual is then able to go on to more fully participate in and contribute to the social good.  

But some acts actually subtract from the social good and I have no problem calling them "bad": hitting or even killing others in anger, robbing them, the destruction of property, and so on.  But "evil" is still a reach.  The closest I can come to attaching meaning to that would be anyone who inflicts pain and suffering on others for the pleasure they receive in doing so, like Charles Manson.  But then, he was obviously deranged so possibly all 'evil' is really an offshoot of pathology of one kind or another.  But "evil" as a thing in itself itself exists no where but fiction (e.g., in the bible).

(January 19, 2017 at 10:46 am)robvalue Wrote: There's a serious problem with a large number of the theists we get here...

They can't seem to stand people disagreeing with them. It's just outrageous that anyone could consider it.

The objectionable ones like Pubes here lack all humility in regard to what are their opinions.  It is as if by calling their opinions their 'faith', the positions they endorse were elevated somehow.  Their lack of humility prevents them from sharing their uncertainty.  Indeed uncertainty isn't allowed among the faithful.

Pulse, do you know that you are going to hell for attacking us and not loving us unconditionally?