(May 15, 2017 at 1:57 am)InteresedUser Wrote: [edit]

Naturalists believe all cause and effects are strictly nature so no God. Atheists claim the same thing.

Obviously Islamic pedophilia is wrong so you can disregard the Koran as false.

Numbers 31.1-18 says what? Where's the pedophilia?

[Num 31:1-54 KJV] 1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2 Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people. 3 And Moses spake unto the people, saying, Arm some of yourselves unto the war, and let them go against the Midianites, and avenge the LORD of Midian. 4 Of every tribe a thousand, throughout all the tribes of Israel, shall ye send to the war. 5 So there were delivered out of the thousands of Israel, a thousand of [every] tribe, twelve thousand armed for war. 6 And Moses sent them to the war, a thousand of [every] tribe, them and Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, to the war, with the holy instruments, and the trumpets to blow in his hand. 7 And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males. 8 And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; [namely], Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword. 9 And the children of Israel took [all] the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods. 10 And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire. 11 And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, [both] of men and of beasts. 12 And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which [are] by Jordan [near] Jericho. 13 And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp. 14 And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, [with] the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle. 15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? 16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. 17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

bold mine

Right there, with the killing. 

No killing is a moral in your fantasy book. Apparently killing is relative/subjective. You are delusional.

(May 15, 2017 at 1:57 am)InteresedUser Wrote: True morals are never subjective.

In any sense at all?

(May 15, 2017 at 2:08 am)InteresedUser Wrote:

(May 14, 2017 at 9:26 pm)Brakeman Wrote: So did your Magic fairy dust god also teach the animals objective morals?
https://www.ted.com/talks/frans_de_waal_...ave_morals

We obviously protect our children from pedophiles because a f*ckhead in a robe and reading from an ancient book told us to, not because we love the child and we don't want them hurt or emotionally scarred.

You "protect our children from pedophiles...not because we love the child and we don't want them hurt or emotionally scared"?

That sounds twisted. What other reasons would you protect children if not because we love them?

You don't seem reasonable placing animals on the same level as humans.

In a society that is not hung up on sex as the western world is, I don't see the problem with pedophilia.  It's the twisted idea of sex that our society has that traumatizes people, not the actual act.  If sex is seen as natural, uncoersed and nothing to be ashamed about, pedophilia loses it terrible connotation.

You seem awful hung up on pedophilia.  Hmmmm.  How wrong could it be?  Mary was supposed to be about 12 years old...

(May 14, 2017 at 3:35 pm)InteresedUser Wrote: I've been watching lots of YouTube videos on atheism. The argument I like lately why I disagree with Atheism has to do with morality. In naturalism, or a natural only world, everything that happens no matter how good or bad is simply a product of nature so it cannot be said to be moral or immoral.

Wrong. Watch me:

Slavery is wrong. Misogyny is wrong. Racism is wrong.

The moral basis for these statements is in human empathy.

(May 14, 2017 at 3:35 pm)InteresedUser Wrote: I've been watching lots of YouTube videos on atheism. The argument I like lately why I disagree with Atheism has to do with morality. In naturalism, or a natural only world, everything that happens no matter how good or bad is simply a product of nature so it cannot be said to be moral or immoral. It is amoral. But we human beings consider morality vital to our being. So that seems to be a problem. Not sure you claim there is free will in that case but that is a side point.

So if in nature all the bad stuff that happens is just a product of nature, including bad religion and bad faiths, then can any of it really be considered wrong even if it is contradictory with other world-views, religions or faiths since it is all naturally induced? That would be my question. When someone is a contradiction I have to reject that world-view.

For example, a societal whim in some cultures considers pedophilia acceptable even necessary to preserve the population. Who is to say even though an atheist may claim he rejects pedophilia now would not be justified in his mind to condone it after a significant time has passed even though he may not commit it? Whereas a non-subjective objective law transcends and would never allow pedophilia under any circumstances.

This is why I believe in objective morals and not subjective relativism based on societal whims. Where then can we find objective morals since atheism doesn't provide it for us?

Curious what you think?

What a bunch of crap, saying that neither good or bad being a battle between a divine sky wizard vs a ground troll is NOT saying we advocate lawlessness or violence to others. It merely means nature produces both. It is still up to humans what we choose, and to claim atheists are not capable of empathy and non violence  is simply bullshit.

Tornados are destructive and kill people all the time, same with earthquakes and hurricanes. Humans can do very cruel shit to each other, but we can also be very compassionate to each other too. 

Saying bad things happen does not mean we want those bad things happening. 

And I really do get tired of people bringing up pedophilia trying to attach it to atheism. 

If you look at the history of our species in antiquity, you'd know the opposite would be true. In antiquity, in both polytheism and monotheism WORLDWIDE, humans had a higher mortality rate on average, and back then males stupidly saw females as property to be bartered between families, and on average the female would be considered ready for sex between the ages of 9-14. 

Western society in the past century has produced better understanding of human biology and better medicine and better psychological understanding of what sexual assault does to kids, not just females. 

Unfortunately the idea of child brides and pre arranged marriages still exist worldwide depending on sect, society and or individual family. Warren Jeffs got busted as LDS leader for having sex with minors. In some families of Sikh and Hindu they still value the male head of the household picking the husband for their daughter. Islam is still ripe with child bride concepts, and we can get into the Catholic Church horrible history of covering up pedophile priests.

Atheist means "off" nothing more, it does not mean "automatically evil" or "lawless".

Quote:I've been watching lots of YouTube videos on atheism.

There's your first mistake.

(May 14, 2017 at 3:35 pm)InteresedUser Wrote: This is why I believe in objective morals and not subjective relativism based on societal whims.

Why would you think society bases it's morals on whims?

(May 14, 2017 at 3:35 pm)InteresedUser Wrote: So if in nature all the bad stuff that happens is just a product of nature, including bad religion and bad faiths, then can any of it really be considered wrong even if it is contradictory with other world-views, religions or faiths since it is all naturally induced?

So you're saying that why should we rely on ourselves when we already proven to be bad by inventing bad stuff like religion.
But the problem with religion is not so much it's invention but the fact that it won't go away. It stands in a way of human progress because it is also a business and when some business gets outdated they do anything (lie and confuse people) just to stay alive.
But if you're truly interested into what is advancing human morality then I would say rise in standard of human living. Sure, there were many philosophers and individuals that advanced human kindness, but still probably the main engines are stuff like industrial revolutions. Understanding nature and having more powerful sources of energy were main reasons why people lived longer and were even more kind to each-other - because they have to fight less for resources.
So if you really want to do the best thing when it comes to morality you should probably support more science and education, so that they bring us on an even higher standard of living. That doesn't necessarily mean that all people should put on white coats and go to some lab, but to at least steer politicians to make world more in that way.

(May 15, 2017 at 12:22 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(May 14, 2017 at 3:35 pm)InteresedUser Wrote: I've been watching lots of YouTube videos on atheism. The argument I like lately why I disagree with Atheism has to do with morality. In naturalism, or a natural only world, everything that happens no matter how good or bad is simply a product of nature so it cannot be said to be moral or immoral.

Wrong.   Watch me:

Slavery is wrong.  Misogyny is wrong.  Racism is wrong.

The moral basis for these statements is in human empathy.

Is empathy quantifiable different than other evolved human feelings and instincts like jealousy, xenophobia, and contempt? Surely there is more to the story.

(May 15, 2017 at 1:08 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(May 15, 2017 at 12:22 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Wrong.   Watch me:

Slavery is wrong.  Misogyny is wrong.  Racism is wrong.

The moral basis for these statements is in human empathy.

Is empathy quantifiable different than other evolved human feelings and instincts like jealousy, xenophobia, and contempt? Surely there is more to the story.

Quantifiably different, of course not. How would that even work? Quantifying qualia appears to be a category error, IMO.

(May 14, 2017 at 3:35 pm)InteresedUser Wrote: But we human beings consider morality vital to our being.

Do we? Personally I generally act in a way that is acceptable to the group I'm with and that changes according to the group I'm with. With some people I swear like a trooper and other people think I never swear at all.

Quote:So if in nature all the bad stuff that happens is just a product of nature, including bad religion and bad faiths, then can any of it really be considered wrong even if it is contradictory with other world-views, religions or faiths since it is all naturally induced? That would be my question. When someone is a contradiction I have to reject that world-view.

well that's one of the reasons I reject religions. I am morally superior to all the religions I know. I am more tolerant of other sexualities and practices. I do not try to oppress others and impose my own standards on them which is one of the hall marks of the religiously minded.

Quote:For example, a societal whim in some cultures considers pedophilia acceptable even necessary to preserve the population. Who is to say even though an atheist may claim he rejects pedophilia now would not be justified in his mind to condone it after a significant time has passed even though he may not commit it? Whereas a non-subjective objective law transcends and would never allow pedophilia under any circumstances.

Interesting that you should pick on paedophila, as that is one thing that the bible does not seem to be specifically against and indeed actively promotes it in several passages, Mohammed of islam seems fond of the young ones as well.

Quote:This is why I believe in objective morals and not subjective relativism based on societal whims. Where then can we find objective morals since atheism doesn't provide it for us?

Curious what you think?

I think that the more a society moves away from religion the more moral it becomes. Look at countries that are totally religious such as Saudi Arabia, Islamic state and even parts of the USA that are overly religious and you'll see what I mean.