Toaster strudel alliance takes on drugs, atheists and liberalism

[Silver]

If you want to learn about scripture, learn about it To be able to reason about scripture you must know a fair amount of it.

That would be circular logic, to attempt to prove a deity exists by using scripture as "evidence".

[jstrodel]

If you want to learn about scripture, learn about it To be able to reason about scripture you must know a fair amount of it.

That would be circular logic, to attempt to prove a deity exists by using scripture as "evidence".

No, that is mind that lacks nuance and fails to see the necessity of separating the study of scripture from natural theology and is eager to share the fruits of his atheist indoctrination.

Even secular Bible critiques know the Bible fairly well before they try and "reason" about it. You are just going to try and create some sort of syllogism with propositions the original languages havn't don't even contain.

You can either be a student of the Bible, or you can be a "free thinker" and rely on atheist apologetics to think for you.

[Silver]

You can either be a student of the Bible, or you can be a "free thinker" and rely on atheist apologetics to think for you.

That would be a false dichotomy. One can be a student of the Bible and still find the content within fictitious.

[jstrodel]

I didn't say anything related to the truth claims of scripture, your black and white apologetic mind searches out anything to disprove Christianity, when you fail to see what I am advocating is the most minimal consideration you would give to any field of study, which is to understand it on its own terms.

You would prefer ideology to critical inquiry though, I take it.

[Autumnlicious]

I didn't say anything related to the truth claims of scripture, your black and white apologetic mind searches out anything to disprove Christianity, when you fail to see what I am advocating is the most minimal consideration you would give to any field of study, which is to understand it on its own terms.

You would prefer ideology to critical inquiry though, I take it.

Project much?

[The Grand Nudger]

I didn't say anything related to the truth claims of scripture, your black and white apologetic mind searches out anything to disprove Christianity, when you fail to see what I am advocating is the most minimal consideration you would give to any field of study, which is to understand it on its own terms.

You would prefer ideology to critical inquiry though, I take it.

One can understand something on it's own terms without simply capitulating to the notion that those terms are accurate. IOW, I can understand why a believer might propose faeries - after having them explain it to me - but this does not mean that their reasons for believing or utterances originating there-from are an authority on the subject of faeries, or that I must defer to that non-existent authority when discussing faeries.

Understand?

It's very common to see religion, or the religious, demanding that others consider things on their terms based solely upon an assertion though, isn't it? In fact....I think that about sums up religion and religious people. Face it, unless someone swallows the kool-aid beforehand you have nothing to say. You cannot tolerate or even fathom dissent, and rather than face it, you would like to sweep it away. I suspect that this is because you (and religion, to be blunt) are either incapable of or unwilling to competently express or demonstrate your position. Whichever it is, I couldn't care less. Now do work, rather than bitching and moaning that others won't go lock step on your whims.

[downbeatplumb]

4. The ground of atheism varies person to person with no common non-coincidental agreement

All atheists agree that they don't believe in god

5. If the ground of ethics varies person to person with no common non-coincidental agreement, ethical statements are incommensurable

Societies impart morals and ethics much more effectively than religions. If you followed all the rules in the bible then you would be a monster.

6. Ethical statements are incommensurable for atheists (MP 6,7)

The athiests on this site seem to contradict this by being quite ethical by the standards of the society in which they live. You statement is false.

7. If ethical statements are incommensurable, they cannot have a ground higher than them-self

You build on your false premise, building your little strawman.

8. Ethical statements between atheists cannot have a higher ground than them-self (MP 6,7)

It gets bigger.

9. There must be a ground for the will to rule and ethical statements between atheists cannot have a higher ground then themselves
10. If ethical statements are incommensurable, there is no way to know whether they are true or not
11. There is no way to know whether atheist ethical statements are true or not (MP 5 entails 10a, 10)
12. If there is no way to know whether a statement is true or not and the statement cannot have a higher ground than itself, it lacks authority
13. Atheist ethical statements lack authority (MP (10 & 7,12)

Can you see where this is going kids.

14. [Where governments are organized by atheists or politics is conducted by atheists ], if ethical statements do not have authority, people do not have to obey them
15. Where governments are organized by atheists or politics is conducted by atheists, people do not have to obey it (MP 14,13)

Please respond in a syllogism or some other form of logic, that will be much more interesting.

You are talking bollocks your argument makes false assertions presents them as fact. Atheists exist in societies that follow their own moral and ethical code. the society of today has moved on from the "religious" morals and ethics and in europe at least left them largely behind and is better for it. It is not rocket science to work out what is the moral thing to do it is either the one that does least harm or most good depending on the circumstance.

The crux of the argument is that atheist ethics are highly subjective and individual, that atheist approaches to ethics become incommensurable, meaning they cannot be compared, that when the condition of incommensurable is reached, there is no way to know whether atheist ethical beliefs are true or not and if there is no way to know if they are true, people do not have to obey them. There can be no culture that people are bound ethically to accept from atheism, and no law that can proceed, other than the law of the force of one will, as in the Soviet Union.

You do blather on rather don't you. You always go to the soviets for your view on atheism but you would be better off looking at countries that are secular in practice that are not ruled by a mad dictator at the time. Englands laws are overwhelmingly secular and at least try to be moral and ethical.

[/quote]

You are arguing that desire is a suitable ground for morality? Do you have any evidence for that? That is an extremely huge claim that goes contrary to what virtually every society in history has taught, that people are selfish, that they need to be governed, that power is necessary to restrain evil. Even the Communists had a Puritanical side.

"power is necessary to restrain evil" it isn't necessary to restrain me. I'm quite easy going and overall rather nice. I could probably say the same about most people.
I would suggest that most people desire peace stability and to get along with others and to do this they would automatically be ethical. Its part of being a social animal.

[jstrodel]

The fact that atheists obey the law does not prove that atheist ethics are not incommensurable. The fact that no two atheists are like increases the problem of incommensurability. Nothing that you said refute the argument.

[My imaginary friend is GOD]

The fact that atheists obey the law does not prove that atheist ethics are not incommensurable. The fact that no two atheists are like increases the problem of incommensurability. Nothing that you said refute the argument.

I think you meant to post this in another thread.

[jstrodel]

I didn't say anything related to the truth claims of scripture, your black and white apologetic mind searches out anything to disprove Christianity, when you fail to see what I am advocating is the most minimal consideration you would give to any field of study, which is to understand it on its own terms.

You would prefer ideology to critical inquiry though, I take it.

Project much?

Can you project a single shred of evidence that suggests that I prefer ideology to critical inquiry, other than the vague claim that atheists, responsible for such beacons of rational inquiry as communism, possess an absolute monopoly on the mind?

---

The fact that atheists obey the law does not prove that atheist ethics are not incommensurable. The fact that no two atheists are like increases the problem of incommensurability. Nothing that you said refute the argument.

I think you meant to post this in another thread.

In response to downbeatplumb