Attn: Christians, We've Heard Them Already

[Pandas United]

You mean like a Christian forum? Do you know of a single Christian forum that doesn't bring the banhammer down on any skeptic who argues forcefully?

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/ch...own-topic/

Enjoy.

[John V]

@DP: I responded in the original thread. I alerted the mods that we're arguing in different threads and asked them to make the call as to which one to use. The original thread makes more sense to me but whatever they decide is fine.

---

Post in the op.

You dismissed any point on petty grounds. Ignoring the underlying challenge.

Come on DP step up to the challenge. Go find some Christian controlled site and post an argument in a way that doesn't offend them. Why is this so hard for you?

I'd say it's impossible to post such an argument on a Christian-controlled site without offending them.

I haven't been there in years and don't know if they've changed, but back in the day, the theologyonline forums were open to opposing viewpoints.

[Angrboda]

You mean like a Christian forum? Do you know of a single Christian forum that doesn't bring the banhammer down on any skeptic who argues forcefully?

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/ch...own-topic/

Enjoy.

http://thunderf00tdotorg.wordpress.com/2...-evidence/

[DeistPaladin]

Secular morality is transient. it's based upon the prominent view of society at the time. So much breath is wasted on these forums dispatching the secular morals of biblical record it makes you wonder how anyone could express such duality without flinching.

As if Yahweh's morality wasn't transient.

What amazes me is the sheer arrogance of Christians like John V, Frodo, Ronedee and others. They first try to ridicule and dismiss my post on secular morality calling me stupid or ignorant. One must expect that their views on morality must be so advanced, so nuanced, so well thought out as to justify such derision and off-hand dismissal. When I finally pry a non-ad-hominem reply out of John V, here is the jewel in the crown of his religious-based morality (have a seat and get ready):

It’s good because god wills it

That's right, Yahweh wills what is or is not good.

Christians have the audacity and bigotry to ridicule atheists for having no "absolute" or "objective" standard of morality and yet when pressed to state their own source of such objective or absolute standard, they have nothing to offer but this childish and shallow bare assertion that "big guy in the sky says so".

North Koreans have a similar source of "absolute" or "objective" standards of right and wrong. Kim Jung Un and his will decide such things. What he wills is "good" and what he doesn't like is "bad". Mafia Dons and military Juntas can offer sources of similar standards of morality.

In the first place, anyone who's not indoctrinated so thoroughly as to use such special pleading with no sense of irony can easily see that this basis for determining morals is neither "objective" nor "absolute".

By definition, "objective" can't depend on the will or opinions of any being, however wise or powerful that being might be. Christians don't have an "objective" source of morals. They simply defer their moral judgment to the whims of an imaginary god. This is no more "objective" then letting Kim Jung Un decide what's right or wrong for you.

But is Yahweh's moral standard "absolute"? Shouldn't this mean unchanging, that the laws laid down today won't blow with the winds tomorrow? Yahweh's will, if the Bible is any indication, is as fickle as the warlords that made him up. His standards are hardly "absolute". The same god says on one day to "love your neighbor" and "do not murder" and on another day to "smite Amalak" including all the women, children and elderly.

Christian apologies ties themselves into knots attempting to justify the genocide, slavery and mass rape documented in the OT as the ancient Hebrews allegedly carved a bloody path to their promised land. Yahweh must have had a "good reason" to order such atrocities, as if there could ever be a good reason for them. The truth is that Yahweh has all the moral credibility of Big Brother.

Ultimately, this is a "might-makes-right" view on morality. Yahweh is the only god out there and what he says goes and if you don't like it, go to Hell, literally. It is both a childish, vapid moral philosophy (if one can even be so charitable as to even call it a philosophy) as well as one that is morally bankrupt.

Frankly, anyone who flippantly declares...

It’s good because god wills it

...has already demonstrated an inability to think about morality beyond Kohlberg's "pre-conventional" stage of moral reasoning and is certainly in no position to either call me "ignorant" or look down on me as having no moral compass.

Note: Since the other thread has been resurrected, I'll post my direct response to John V there.
Disclaimer: I have not yet had a chance to read his latest response and will do so later this evening when I have a chance and will post on the other thread. This post is simply based on some thoughts I had today regarding his initial response and that particular gem of a quote.

[fr0d0]

You forgot to address the points DP.

[DeistPaladin]

You forgot to address the points DP.

You miss the disclaimer at the bottom? I wasn't addressing his latest post. I was addressing the arrogance of Christians, yourself included.

[ronedee]

As if Yahweh's morality wasn't transient.

What amazes me is the sheer arrogance of Christians like John V, Frodo, Ronedee and others. They first try to ridicule and dismiss my post on secular morality calling me stupid or ignorant. One must expect that their views on morality must be so advanced, so nuanced, so well thought out as to justify such derision and off-hand dismissal. When I finally pry a non-ad-hominem reply out of John V, here is the jewel in the crown of his religious-based morality (have a seat and get ready):

It’s good because god wills it

That's right, Yahweh wills what is or is not good.

First of all... I'm honored to be in your top 3! But, Its hard to be nice when you are bombarded on all sides by varying degrees of hostility to Christians! I'm in a good mood now!

I didn't call you, or anyone here stupid personally. I said the concept of atheism, or non-belief in God was. Also your argument doesn't take into account several items...

1. How can you say there isn't a God? For lack of proof? Isn't that like saying there isn't a 10th, 11th, and 12th planet? I choose to believe there is because of 1-9!

2. If you refuse to believe there is a God.... How can you relate to anything spiritual? Its like complaining about Love when you've never experienced it.
Call it: ghosts, delusional, mental illness....or whatever your lack of understanding it wants. But don't call being spiritual [non-effective]! There is plenty of evidence it is very.

3. If God is considered Love & Good.... Whats not to like? Because the OT says He did bad things? Because there are pedophile priests? Or the one I heard here; I prayed He would save my mom from cancer, and He didn't? If we can agree that the "concept" of a God would be basically the same: Omnipotent/essent. Then God can do whatever the heck He wants!

Christians have the audacity and bigotry to ridicule atheists for having no "absolute" or "objective" standard of morality and yet when pressed to state their own source of such objective or absolute standard, they have nothing to offer but this childish and shallow bare assertion that "big guy in the sky says so".

North Koreans have a similar source of "absolute" or "objective" standards of right and wrong. Kim Jung Un and his will decide such things. What he wills is "good" and what he doesn't like is "bad". Mafia Dons and military Juntas can offer sources of similar standards of morality.

In the first place, anyone who's not indoctrinated so thoroughly as to use such special pleading with no sense of irony can easily see that this basis for determining morals is neither "objective" nor "absolute".

By definition, "objective" can't depend on the will or opinions of any being, however wise or powerful that being might be. Christians don't have an "objective" source of morals. They simply defer their moral judgment to the whims of an imaginary god. This is no more "objective" then letting Kim Jung Un decide what's right or wrong for you.

But is Yahweh's moral standard "absolute"? Shouldn't this mean unchanging, that the laws laid down today won't blow with the winds tomorrow? Yahweh's will, if the Bible is any indication, is as fickle as the warlords that made him up. His standards are hardly "absolute". The same god says on one day to "love your neighbor" and "do not murder" and on another day to "smite Amalak" including all the women, children and elderly.

IMO you're making some good points here. But, again God gets to do what He wants in true form to the concept. We don't know exactly why. Just that it works toward Good in whatever way that He wants. There are many unanswered questions. And for us to...But our religion is based on Faith! And God never said Faith would be easy to attain or understand. All we know is the end result of it!

We Christians are held to the "absolute", because "objective" would show lack of Faith. Or a "choice" to be moral or not. But, then again someone is either moral or not. Or at least that's how we portray them. God (and His wisdom) not withstanding!

Christian apologies ties themselves into knots attempting to justify the genocide, slavery and mass rape documented in the OT as the ancient Hebrews allegedly carved a bloody path to their promised land. Yahweh must have had a "good reason" to order such atrocities, as if there could ever be a good reason for them. The truth is that Yahweh has all the moral credibility of Big Brother.

Ultimately, this is a "might-makes-right" view on morality. Yahweh is the only god out there and what he says goes and if you don't like it, go to Hell, literally. It is both a childish, vapid moral philosophy (if one can even be so charitable as to even call it a philosophy) as well as one that is morally bankrupt.

Frankly, anyone who flippantly declares...

It’s good because god wills it

...has already demonstrated an inability to think about morality beyond Kohlberg's "pre-conventional" stage of moral reasoning and is certainly in no position to either call me "ignorant" or look down on me as having no moral compass.

I don't know if someone called you "ignorant", or said you have "no moral compass".... But I did ask the question; "where does the moral compass come from?" At least for atheists?

Most said they thought it was "just inside them". And it had "nothing to do w/ God".

But, my next question would be if, "the kingdom of God is within" as Jesus said, maybe that has a little to do with it?

We are all brought up with some concept of God as essentially Good. Especially here in the usa. As we grow-up, we also grow-away from God, for whatever reasons. And many come back because they feel an emptiness, for whatever reasons. Still more never get a real message other than our culture provides. But God is still thought of as "good".

While emotions run wild on both sides of the God issue, we are still connected in basic ways. And we come together in times of: need, love, happiness and misery.

I offer to you the words of Jesus on Judgment Day to the believers & non-believers [edited for space].

For I was hungered, and you [gave/didn't give] me food: I was thirsty, and you [gave/didn't give] me drink: I was a stranger, and you [took/didn't take] me in: Naked, and you [clothed/didn't clothe] me: I was sick, and you [visited/didn't] visit me: I was in prison, and you came/didn't come to me. …

The irony is that the sheep & the goats ask Jesus the same question:

"Lord, when did we see you...?"

So, in the scheme of all things...what do both of us really know? Jesus says to "Look within..." for answers. Maybe morality is a start.

[Mystical]

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/ch...own-topic/

Enjoy.

I'm gonna go tell on the Christians around here, to Christians now.

[Gilgamesh]

Same can be said for all the arguments listed in the OP. Don't agree, huh? Well, you're in luck; we're on a discussion board!

...


...


dur

No, it can't.

This isn't opnion. The things from the OP have ben debunked. Cold hard. And the things that panda posted (the majority of them) are true and have been proven to be true.

Oh, so you disagree. Prove to me they've been debunked, then. I won't take links, by the way. Gee, I'm sure glad we're on a discussion board =]

[fr0d0]

You forgot to address the points DP.

You miss the disclaimer at the bottom? I wasn't addressing his latest post. I was addressing the arrogance of Christians, yourself included.

I was talking about my points. And as for arrogance...