New Levels of Low

[ChildOfReason]

Strawmen everywhere

[Faith No More]

Yawn. Another atheist sets himself in judgement of God.

And another theist avoids having to defend atrocities with a weak, pathetic deflection.

Rather than defend the absurdity of the level of atrocity undertaken in their religious beliefs, we get the tired and sanctimonious "who are you to judge my god." It's the debating equivalent of simply urinating on your opponent's shoe.

[Cyberman]

Comeon Stimmy........ You know that God doesn't live in a book!

Then why keep mentioning it? Are we going to talk gods or literature?

[ChildOfReason]

The bible is bullshit.

Gods (all) are not real.

Religions (all) are a poisonous delusion.

Jesus never existed.

Most theists are jerks.


These are the facts and they stand for themselves. The proof is this written in this post. This post claims that everything in this post is true, and that anything that disagrees with this post bears the burden of proof to prove otherwise. The author of this post is incapable of lying and is above questioning in any way. Worship my laws or you're going to hell (whatever I decide that is from day to day).

"Facts" FFF?

Let me pose a serious question to you: If indeed God, and His kingdom is found "within" as Jesus said.... what can anyone tell you that isn't a lie, or opinion?

You are here ----›











































































· ‹----- The point is here.

[Esquilax]

Fair enough. Science is neutral. Without the guidance of 'equal in the eyes of the Lord' you get the American eugenics movement of the 1930's and Nazi ' Master race' programs.

I see. And what part of god having a chosen people, in your own damn holy book, that are empowered by him to dominate the surrounding tribes, has this "equal in the eyes of the lord," stuff? Fucking hell, even Jesus Christ admitted he was sent only to save "the lost sheep of the children of Israel," at one point.

Besides, you're quick to throw around accusations at science and evolutionary theory, but I notice that at no point do you ever underline the actual parts of those things that would lead one to eugenics and so on. Could it be because those parts don't actually exist, and since you don't have a real argument you resort to slinging mud?

Can you point out those obviously racist tenets of science and human nature, or will you just admit that you're lying? Because, I'm interested to note, while science has continued to exist, and so have people, both of those evil things you mentioned happened over sixty years ago. It's a demonstrable fact that the number of religious nones are on the rise, so if what you say is true, shouldn't we have had another eugenics purge by now?

[Lion IRC]

Science doesn't lead to eugenics.
Atheist humanism does!

[Neo-Scholastic]

Equilax, why is it necessary for you to call me a liar? If I misunderstand someone’s point and respond in error that doesn’t make me or, if the situation is reversed, you a dishonest person.

With that said, I unequivocally stated that science was neutral. I believe if you had read my post more carefully you would have seen that I never said anything about science being inherently racist. With respect to the larger point, evolutionary concepts like “survival of the fittest” have been used to justify racism in the form of Social Darwinism.

I sincerely believe that the secular society was not the origin of today’s moral sensibilities. If it was, secular humanism would have independently developed its own moral system. It did not. It rejected God then piggy-backed on the already existing moral system, like how Thomas Jefferson edited out all the NT miracles to leave only the moral teachings of Jesus. Humanism is not responsible for discouraging eugenics, but rather the remnants of unacknowledged religious conscience.

Of course I already hear the objection that religion co-opted the Man’s evolved moral sense in pre-history. Perhaps. But there is not proof that such was the case. (And we’re all about evidence and proof here aren’t we?). Whereas we can see secular humanists even today trying to rationalize their acceptance of traditional morals without giving credit their Judeo-Christian source.

[Lion IRC]

Of course, scientists are moral agents and they have to take responsibility for their thalidomide, asbestos, Chernobyl meltdowns, cane toad environmental stuff ups, weapons of mass destruction...

And I think I read somewhere that most scientists are atheists.

[Esquilax]

Equilax, why is it necessary for you to call me a liar? If I misunderstand someone’s point and respond in error that doesn’t make me or, if the situation is reversed, you a dishonest person.

Okay, yeah, sorry about that. I've got a short chain when people start talking about science and racism in the same sentence.

With that said, I unequivocally stated that science was neutral. I believe if you had read my post more carefully you would have seen that I never said anything about science being inherently racist. With respect to the larger point, evolutionary concepts like “survival of the fittest” have been used to justify racism in the form of Social Darwinism.

And here's where we start disagreeing, because "survival of the fittest," in the way you're describing it here, is a misinterpretation of evolutionary theory, for a number of reasons. Fittest doesn't necessarily mean strongest, or most capable of taking from others; within evolution, fitness refers to the ability of organisms to best survive in their current ecological niche. In fact, if we're talking about humans, fitness could be more accurately applied to those of us capable of cooperation and social grouping, since we're a social species whose survival thus far has come down to our ability to form societies and groups.

Hell, even the survival part of survival of the fittest isn't exactly right: it's more down to "survival of the not-lethally unfit." Things that are terrible, yet have no selection pressures, will survive just as well as awesome things that do; the blobfish still exists, for example, and that thing is just gross.

That's sort of my point, when it comes to this stuff; there's nothing in evolution, properly understood, that leads to racism, or can be used to justify it either, and there's simply no reason to hold the theory responsible for the things people get wrong about it.

I sincerely believe that the secular society was not the origin of today’s moral sensibilities. If it was, secular humanism would have independently developed its own moral system. It did not. It rejected God then piggy-backed on the already existing moral system, like how Thomas Jefferson edited out all the NT miracles to leave only the moral teachings of Jesus. Humanism is not responsible for discouraging eugenics, but rather the remnants of unacknowledged religious conscience.

See, you're missing a step here, though: you're missing the first part, where religious moral systems first stole human, evolved morality from people and gave the credit to god.

Of course I already hear the objection that religion co-opted the Man’s evolved moral sense in pre-history. Perhaps. But there is not proof that such was the case. (And we’re all about evidence and proof here aren’t we?). Whereas we can see secular humanists even today trying to rationalize their acceptance of traditional morals without giving credit their Judeo-Christian source.

But your last sentence is begging the question when applied to a scenario where there isn't any proof either way, and unfortunately for you, you do have the burden of proof here, since you're making the positive claim regarding the existence of a god that initially formulated these morals. You can't claim that christianity was the source of morality without proving first that your god exists, but I can claim that humans were the source, because... well, humans exist. Demonstrably so. And when we also account for the number of outright immoral things within the judeo-christian ethos that have to be edited out before you can even claim your religion to be moral in the first place, well...

[freedomfromforum]

"Facts" FFF?

Let me pose a serious question to you: If indeed God, and His kingdom is found "within" as Jesus said.... what can anyone tell you that isn't a lie, or opinion?

What facts are you looking for?

Can you simplify the second question?

Does your second question require a presupposition?

Are you saying that it is your opinion that the bible is true?

Sincerely.