Russia embraces religious intolerance with draconian blasphemy and anti-gay laws

[Statler Waldorf]

For all I know the bible is right about this, I just have no reason to think so.

It doesn’t seem you have any reason to think relativism is right either, so why did you choose it over the Biblical view?

Bahaha, are you speaking from experience regarding a mouse and a hammer?

Yup, he got away

Ultimately it comes down to our own standards is what I think. I could not tell you which is right or wrong by my own standards, but I can analyse why society A and B differ on their approach and the results of such. So the standard I think we SHOULD use is whether or not morals hold up to analysation.

So do we have justification in putting a criminal in prison? Are we really justified in punishing someone for violating a standard that you admit is self-determined? That does not seem to add up to me.

Statler, I have yet to see any proof for your baseless assertion of Stalin's reasoning. Are there any speeches or first hand accounts that back up your claim?

Sure, we know why he became an atheist, and once he became an atheist it makes sense that he’d act in a manner consistent with atheism, namely that there’s no afterlife so a person can do whatever they want because as long as they do not get caught they’ll get away with it. If Stalin believed he’d receive eternal torment and punishment for what he did in this life do you really think he’d still do it? He was ruthless, but not insane.

You have also failed a second time to demonstrate how I misconstrued the OT.

Everything you claimed it condoned was totally false, you misrepresented a prophetic passage to be a moral commandment, you misidentified laws preventing bearing false witness with condoning rape, and you confounded antebellum slavery with having bond servants in the Old Testament which is absurd (fallacious equivocation). It was all very typical of the atheist playbook unfortunately. The truth is that you do not want to take the time to do the necessary research to properly understand those passages, you simply want them to mean what you incorrectly assert they mean.

Existential rights do exist by default of existing. You exist, I exist. We are both equals within our realm of existence.

Again, according to whom? You? What rights are existential rights?

If you and I were the only two beings, and you killed me: you would be invading upon my right to live with no right to do so because we are equal right.

According to whom? And if there is no god, then so what? You’d be dead and I’d never receive justice for what I did.

If you use your brute strength to enslave me, also wrong. If you stole my food or belongings: wrong. Who gives your existence precidence over mine? Nobody. If you want food ask for it if you want help ask for it. Don't claim there's some big punisher in the sky who will torment me forever if I don't do what you say; I might believe you and thus create religion.

Again, how do you know any of this? What if I can better my own life by enslaving you or stealing from you? Why should I harm myself in order to help you out? You seem to be forgetting that under your view of reality, we’re nothing more than matter, so what if one organized system of matter steals from another organized system of matter? They’ll both be gone soon enough anyways, so who cares? The Christian has reasons for believing all of this is wrong, but atheism renders morality meaningless.