Subjective Morals and Societal Whims

[Ravenshire]

Yes, Muhammad was a pedophile and so are atheists. Atheists are pedophiles

I, for one, am sick and fucking tired of being called a pedophile. Fuck you InteresedUser. You, your mom, your dad, your siblings and the horses you all rode in on.

[The Valkyrie]

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.

Yes, Muhammad was a pedophile and so are atheists. Atheists are pedophiles because we observe in nature societies that practice this and criminals against society do it. They think they are right. There is only the natural explanation in atheistic naturalism. But who is to say it is bad since it is simply part of nature. Whereas in Christianity it is bad each and every time under any circumstances. Objective truth supersedes your changing feelings why this week you think pedophilia is good or bad.

"Despise not one of these little ones" (Matt. 18.10).

"Without natural affection" (Rom. 1.31).

"Lovers of their own selves, covetous" (2 Tim. 3.2).

"Lusts of the flesh" (Gal. 5.16).

"Fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness" (Gal. 5.19).

Don't try and speak for me or other atheists.

You're obviously not qualified, nor do you have the intellectual capacity to do so.

The vast majority of kiddie-fiddlers are religious and use their religion to justify it.

It's just a shame many religious people are just too weak willed to stand up to their religious leaders when they do things like this.

And quoting from your little book of myths has no baring on the real world.

Now, call me a pedo one-more-time...

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

@ Interested User

Hello.  Out of curiosity, if a deity is far beyond human comprehension and perfect imitation, then could humans actually be behaving immorally by putting divine morality into practice? For example, if divine morality can only be completely/successfully practiced by a deity, then could humans be reckless in the sense that they are attempting to put ideas and concepts into action which are far beyond their development and understanding?

Now, if human theists accept that they cannot perfectly follow the example of a particular deity, yet they are expected to follow that example to the most realistic degree possible, then does it actually make sense for humans to construct their own moral system and own that system by acknowledging that they are the objective source of their particular morality; their particular morals are a part of their nature in the same way that divine morals are a part of a deity's nature? Would such behavior actually be in accordance with the particular example of one's deity?

Thanks, and I hope you enjoy your time on AF.

[Whateverist]

Troll.

Yup.

[brewer]

[edit]

Atheists are pedophiles 

[edit]

christian god is a petulant child that has a penchant of killing his creations when in a hissy fit.

Christians are hopeless spineless suck ups who are willing to mentally castrate themselves in a very misguided hope for the ultimate fantasy prize if they step and fetch correctly to their child god. 

You seem to be fixated on pedophiles. I'm beginning to think that you may be a closet one yourself. How much time do you spend thinking/talking about acts with children? How much time do you spend in the company children? My guess is quite a bit. Did you want to touch yourself when reading this? Or did you go into a phony manufactured rage (even mentally) in an attempt to deceive yourself and those around you?

You may want to seek professional help before it's to late. There is good indication that you may be past that point. I don't see a good end for you.

[Harry Nevis]

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.

Yes, Muhammad was a pedophile and so are atheists. Atheists are pedophiles because we observe in nature societies that practice this and criminals against society do it. They think they are right. There is only the natural explanation in atheistic naturalism. But who is to say it is bad since it is simply part of nature. Whereas in Christianity it is bad each and every time under any circumstances. Objective truth supersedes your changing feelings why this week you think pedophilia is good or bad.

"Despise not one of these little ones" (Matt. 18.10).

"Without natural affection" (Rom. 1.31).

"Lovers of their own selves, covetous" (2 Tim. 3.2).

"Lusts of the flesh" (Gal. 5.16).

"Fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness" (Gal. 5.19).

You seem to be hung up on pedophilia.  There are support groups, you know.

BTW, you're acting like a dick.

[Zenith]

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.

That's because we human beings have gone beyond mere "nature" and for a long time have been social creatures who live in large communities. If you live alone among beasts in the jungle, then whatever you do no one will consider "moral" or "immoral". But if you live in a society, that's a totally different situation.

Morality is vital not to our beings as individuals but vital for our living in a society. "Thou shalt not kill!" is not a commandment that God gave and that people respect because "God said so" but because you can't form a society where anybody can kill everybody at any moment. Everybody needs a sense of security and reliance on the other people in the community, that's why we have rules & laws.

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.

These sentences don't make much sense to me. "Someone is a contradiction" -- really?

If I happened to understand what you actually meant: If you seek for an entity or essence called "evil", I don't believe in such a thing. If you talk about "good or bad", "right or wrong", then you have to consider the context. Killing another human being may not be "bad" for you but it is for the society. And if you realize that the society will respond to your killing someone then you may call it "bad" for yourself too.

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?

The reason why fucking a child is bad is because it does harm to the child.

Whereas a non-subjective objective law transcends and would never allow pedophilia under any circumstances.

A non-subjective law given by... whom? A priest, a religious community, a subjective-minded guy who wrote a book in the Bible?

btw, I don't remember ANY verse in the Bible to say that screwing with children is bad. NOT ONE. And people used to do it back then.

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?

Religion is a societal whim. It is the ancient "wisdom of the elders" transmitted from generations to generations up to the present, now when they are more harmful than they do good. It is subjective wisdom of ancient people, not objective.

[Neo-Scholastic]

(As you may recall, the point that the OP made that I took issue with was that a naturalist worldview could not account for morality.  It can, and it appears that you think so as well.)

Personally, I think it only takes you halfway there. Natural reasoning can only go so far.

[Cyberman]

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.

Yes, Muhammad was a pedophile and so are atheists. Atheists are pedophiles because we observe in nature societies that practice this and criminals against society do it. They think they are right. There is only the natural explanation in atheistic naturalism. But who is to say it is bad since it is simply part of nature. Whereas in Christianity it is bad each and every time under any circumstances. Objective truth supersedes your changing feelings why this week you think pedophilia is good or bad.

"Despise not one of these little ones" (Matt. 18.10).

"Without natural affection" (Rom. 1.31).

"Lovers of their own selves, covetous" (2 Tim. 3.2).

"Lusts of the flesh" (Gal. 5.16).

"Fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness" (Gal. 5.19).

You need a book to tell you that it's wrong to fuck children?

That's very sad.

[downbeatplumb]

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.

Yes, Muhammad was a pedophile and so are atheists. Atheists are pedophiles because we observe in nature societies that practice this and criminals against society do it. They think they are right. There is only the natural explanation in atheistic naturalism. But who is to say it is bad since it is simply part of nature. Whereas in Christianity it is bad each and every time under any circumstances. Objective truth supersedes your changing feelings why this week you think pedophilia is good or bad.

"Despise not one of these little ones" (Matt. 18.10).

"Without natural affection" (Rom. 1.31).

"Lovers of their own selves, covetous" (2 Tim. 3.2).

"Lusts of the flesh" (Gal. 5.16).

"Fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness" (Gal. 5.19).

There is an actually a way of telling who is more likely to be a paedophile. Populations in prison serving time for that crime versus the faith they assert, would actually give you a figure to work on.

So you could conceivably find out just how wrong you are.

prick.