(September 19, 2011 at 10:35 am)Cinjin Wrote:

(September 17, 2011 at 2:11 pm)little_monkey Wrote: To theists, not believing in god means you are free to steal, rape, murder, etc. It is beyond their capacity of understanding that anyone can have a moral compass and be an atheist at the same time. Any attempt to make them understand this simple concept to their single digit IQ will turn out to be futile.

Agreed. They cannot (or possibly will not) understand the concept of self-accountability. They don't believe humans capable of a little self-restraint and self-imposed regulation. Possibly because their fear of god is the ONLY thing keeping them from committing wanton vile acts upon humanity, and in reality, they are the REAL demon to be feared - projecting all their hidden desires onto non-believers. Much like a father who is overly possessive of his daughter and her boyfriends because he himself has a devious mind and has treated his own past female conquests with disrespect.

It seems that the question is actually what do you use as a standard against which to judge whether you should restrain yourself (in your example) and how is that standard arrived at?
Why are Christians not controlled by sinful behaviour? Because they have a new nature - opposed to sin. No longer slaves to sin.
To suggest that Christians never sin, is not true and on the basis of that deserves hell. People are however saved by grace and thus not based on our compliance with "rules" which we all break - basically all the time as it is not a set of outward/behaviours but also what we think.
Your claims about projection is somewhat removed from reality. As I stated before, we all sin. You sin, I sin and it is not for me to condemn you. Your sin is no worse than mine. When a person is however saved, it is purely by grace and nothing that he/she can boast about.
To claim that all atheists are bad, is also not true. There are many wonderful, generous and kind atheists, no doubt. If our salvation was based on works, many (all) Christians will not make it into heaven as would all atheists, whether generous or not. But because our salvation is by grace and not by works, all that accept the finished work of Jesus on the cross and trust in Him for salvation, will be saved. As an example, consider the criminal on the cross next to Jesus. Not by the looks of it deserving of eternal life. However, Jesus told him that he will be with him in paradise.

Firstly, people boast about being saved all the time. Secondly, are you saying atheists can make it into heaven? If yes, I don't think you'd find much agreement from Christians on that point, and it makes belief in God superfluous. If not, then worship is being valued over actions, which is a crock of shit.

The question of how we arrive at a moral standard is by evaluation of current practices, discussion, debate, enquiry and consideration of potential better paths to take. It's exactly the same way you do, but you exclaim 'GOD GAVE US OUR MORALITY' even though it's demonstrably untrue that it comes from the Bible.

Sorry bud, that whole carrot-and-stick rethoric ain't gonna work here.

Religion is not required for morals to be established. Chimpanzees live in troops and interact, as do all social animals, mostly they display behaviour that conforms to the norm and get along this is a sort of 'morality', behaviour that does not harm the others in the troop, tribe,whoop or whatever. Behaving morally is a social lubricant, it eases relationships and lessens conflict. That is why moral behaviour has evolved in many social species at many different times.

Quote:Though animals may not possess moral behavior, all social animals have had to modify or restrain their behaviors for group living to be worthwhile. Typical examples of behavioral modification can be found in the societies ants, bees and termites. Ant colonies may possess millions of individuals. E. O. Wilson argues that the single most important factor that leads to the success of ant colonies is the existence of a sterile worker caste. This caste of females are subservient to the needs of their mother, the queen, and in so doing, have given up their own reproduction in order to raise brothers and sisters. The existence of sterile castes among these social insects, significantly restricts the competition for mating and in the process fosters cooperation within a colony. Cooperation among ants is vital, because a solitary ant has an improbable chance of long term survival and reproduction. However as part of a group, colonies can thrive for decades. As a consequence, ants are one of the most successful species on the planet, accounting for a biomass that rivals humans.[1][2]
The basic reason that social animals live in groups is that opportunities for survival and reproduction are much better in groups than living alone. The social behaviors of mammals are more familiar to humans. Highly social mammals such as primates and elephants have been known to exhibit traits that were once thought to be uniquely human, like empathy and altruism.

(September 19, 2011 at 2:22 pm)ElDinero Wrote: Firstly, people boast about being saved all the time. Secondly, are you saying atheists can make it into heaven? If yes, I don't think you'd find much agreement from Christians on that point, and it makes belief in God superfluous. If not, then worship is being valued over actions, which is a crock of shit.

The question of how we arrive at a moral standard is by evaluation of current practices, discussion, debate, enquiry and consideration of potential better paths to take. It's exactly the same way you do, but you exclaim 'GOD GAVE US OUR MORALITY' even though it's demonstrably untrue that it comes from the Bible.

If they boast about being saved, I will question their authenticity. The Bible is very clear that we have nothing to boast about and any real Christian will know in his/her heart that their lives are not what it should be. Being saved is a gift and it is really funny for anybody claiming merit when receiving a gift undeservedly. Grace is unmerited favour. So boasting is excluded.
Will atheists make it into heaven? All I was saying is that we are all deserving of eternal damnation and no "good works" can change that. We are all imperfect.
If an atheist is convinced in his/her heart of his/her own sinfulness and realise that their only hope of being made right with God is through the blood of Jesus Christ, repent, and make Jesus Lord of their lives, then they will be saved. Based on their lives, they deserve hell - as we all do.
The question remains what you use as guideline on which is "better". Why?
I accept the Bible as the Word of God in which He gives me guidelines for my life. I am going out on a bit of a limb here, but it seems to me that morality cannot be "legislated". It is a state of the heart. The purpose of the law in the Bible (e.g Ten Commandments) is to reveal sin and not to make us holy. Human judgement is very subjective and as the Bible states "the heart is deceitful above all things". You will also know that sometimes even our best actions may be questioned whether it is our own ego's that we want to bolster or is it for the better for the suposed "beneficiary" of our actions.
Have a great day ( here in RSA, it is now night time)

---

(September 19, 2011 at 2:29 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Religion is not required for morals to be established. Chimpanzees live in troops and interact, as do all social animals, mostly they display behaviour that conforms to the norm and get along this is a sort of 'morality', behaviour that does not harm the others in the troop, tribe,whoop or whatever. Behaving morally is a social lubricant, it eases relationships and lessens conflict. That is why moral behaviour has evolved in many social species at many different times.

Quote:Though animals may not possess moral behavior, all social animals have had to modify or restrain their behaviors for group living to be worthwhile. Typical examples of behavioral modification can be found in the societies ants, bees and termites. Ant colonies may possess millions of individuals. E. O. Wilson argues that the single most important factor that leads to the success of ant colonies is the existence of a sterile worker caste. This caste of females are subservient to the needs of their mother, the queen, and in so doing, have given up their own reproduction in order to raise brothers and sisters. The existence of sterile castes among these social insects, significantly restricts the competition for mating and in the process fosters cooperation within a colony. Cooperation among ants is vital, because a solitary ant has an improbable chance of long term survival and reproduction. However as part of a group, colonies can thrive for decades. As a consequence, ants are one of the most successful species on the planet, accounting for a biomass that rivals humans.[1][2]
The basic reason that social animals live in groups is that opportunities for survival and reproduction are much better in groups than living alone. The social behaviors of mammals are more familiar to humans. Highly social mammals such as primates and elephants have been known to exhibit traits that were once thought to be uniquely human, like empathy and altruism.

I suppose one could ask where does this behaviour come from?

(September 19, 2011 at 3:14 pm)Carnavon Wrote: I suppose one could ask where does this behaviour come from?

It evolved, just like every other useful trait.

(September 19, 2011 at 3:14 pm)Carnavon Wrote: Will atheists make it into heaven? All I was saying is that we are all deserving of eternal damnation and no "good works" can change that. We are all imperfect.
If an atheist is convinced in his/her heart of his/her own sinfulness and realise that their only hope of being made right with God is through the blood of Jesus Christ, repent, and make Jesus Lord of their lives, then they will be saved. Based on their lives, they deserve hell - as we all do.
The question remains what you use as guideline on which is "better". Why?
I accept the Bible as the Word of God in which He gives me guidelines for my life. I am going out on a bit of a limb here, but it seems to me that morality cannot be "legislated". It is a state of the heart. The purpose of the law in the Bible (e.g Ten Commandments) is to reveal sin and not to make us holy. Human judgement is very subjective and as the Bible states "the heart is deceitful above all things". You will also know that sometimes even our best actions may be questioned whether it is our own ego's that we want to bolster or is it for the better for the suposed "beneficiary" of our actions.
Have a great day ( here in RSA, it is now night time)

Firstly, I find this self-loathing approach of yours really weird and sad. You're saying that over the course of our natural lives, we will all do things that warrant being tortured for eternity - do you honestly believe that? I agree of course that we all do things we shouldn't, but does the punishment fit the crime? I don't think I've ever done anything bad enough to warrant that. Have you?

You do not use the Bible as your source of morality, no matter what you claim. I am almost certain of it. If you do, then perhaps you would deserve eternal torture.

(September 16, 2011 at 9:23 pm)Shell B Wrote: Did I say it was wrong? I just said you were.

Why did you say I was if it were not wrong? Were you complimenting me?

Quote:
Actually, you said "whatever unsubstantiated claim I am making today." The only claim against you I made today -- prior to this ridiculous back and forth -- is that you are rude, which was easily substantiated. The dishonest thing was another thread. I can always count on you to convolute everything.

Lack of basic comprehension seems to be one of your shortcomings. I said that because you have a history of making unsubstantiated claims such as the one about me being dishonest the other day, so I was poking fun by saying you seems to make at least one a day.

Quote:
My apologies. Religion. At any rate, I did not bring it up. I discussed it when it became part of the discussion. My initial post and later posts did not introduce the topic to this discussion.

Apology accepted. Granted you did not introduce it, other atheists did, but my point was that it should have never been even discussed because it had nothing to do with the OP and I didn’t understand why all the atheists (including you) kept pushing the discussion there.

Quote:Perhaps in your opinion, but it is hardly esteemed, so I believe I am safe from stigma.

My opinion has nothing to do with it; the laws of rational thinking demonstrate that you are irrational.

(September 16, 2011 at 9:39 pm)SleepingDemon Wrote: We must have certain rules in place so that we may live together. Morality is a byproduct of civilization.

Do we make those rules based off of something that is “good” or does something become “good” once it is adopted as a rule by a society?

---

(September 19, 2011 at 3:59 pm)ElDinero Wrote: You're saying that over the course of our natural lives, we will all do things that warrant being tortured for eternity - do you honestly believe that?

I believe that’s what he is saying and yes I am sure he believes it as do I.

Quote: I agree of course that we all do things we shouldn't, but does the punishment fit the crime?

Yes, crimes against a being with infinite authority warrant infinite punishment.

Quote: I don't think I've ever done anything bad enough to warrant that. Have you?

Actually yes you have and so have I.

Quote: You do not use the Bible as your source of morality, no matter what you claim. I am almost certain of it. If you do, then perhaps you would deserve eternal torture.

You just made a whole point about how eternal torture does not fit the crime and then you proceed to say that basing one’s own moral views upon God’s revealed word deserves eternal torture? What gives?

Stat, I have made it clear that I do not want to have an endless conversation with you about the same bullshit. Insult me all you want. I simply do not want to converse with you about morality anymore. You have a hell of a blockade in your judgment and you are using it to accuse me of all manner of things, despite my having never given you the information necessary for you to do so. Furthermore, you took a conversation that I had ended in another thread, with the hope that you would just let it go, and continued it in this thread. Let me make this clear: Simple understanding is not my problem. You wish it was, so you wouldn't look like such a nagging fucking idiot. For at least the fourth time, I am done with this conversation because conversing with you is an endless loop of assertions about my beliefs, of which you have exactly no knowledge, apart from the fact that I do not believe in god. So, again, leave me the fuck alone about it. You have been doing this for fucking months. I'm pretty sure it has gotten to the point where I can rightfully say I tried and that it really isn't worth wasting any more time. If you, at any point, start to see the error in your hubris, I will gladly try again. Until then, take your thoughts about my morality and do something unpleasant to yourself with them.

(September 19, 2011 at 6:33 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: You just made a whole point about how eternal torture does not fit the crime and then you proceed to say that basing one’s own moral views upon God’s revealed word deserves eternal torture? What gives?

I was being facetious, really. Making the point that if anyone does take their morality from the Bible, they would believe it was moral to do a lot of really terrible things.

If he (and you) really believe anything I have done, or you have done, deserves eternal torture, I think that is incredibly sad. Hitchens' summation of religion being 'the wish to be a slave' seems apt here.