Organic Molecules Found 400 Light Years From Earth

[rjh4 is back]

To Godscreated

I must say, for the most part, I agree with Brian37 in his response to you.

You call them "sheep". An overgeneralization. While they may think similarly, that does not make them sheep as each may have different reasons for their positions. People think for themselves. Furthermore, labeling in this manner provides no argument whatsoever. If he called all Christians "sheep", would it prove anything? Clearly not as Christians think for themselves also.

You call them a "gang". I seriously do not think they are contacting each other behind the scenes and coordinating how to respond to me. I do think they are more biased to criticize a Christian than an atheist as I pointed out in my last post, but I would not characterize them as a gang. I am a Christian on an Atheist's forum. I kind of expect this sort of thing.

You say they are a political party and say they are probably mostly liberal democrat. Where does that come from?  And...who cares (unless we are discussing political issues...which we are not)? There are plenty of liberal democrat Christians, too, you know. I'm not, but I know there are plenty. So making such a broad sweeping statement that is totally irrelevant to the issues being discussed seems silly to me.

---

Answer the questions regarding right and wrong and the basis for them (see my previous post above that was mostly directed to Thumpalumpacus) and let's go from there. Depending on your answers, maybe I can show you the necessity.

"Atheist" is not a worldview, please stop trying to peddle that lie.

Dawkins being right about evolution, does not mean I like or agree with everything he says or does. I have actually met him in person, and no, he is not someone I would want to have a beer with, in reality, he came across to me as a bit of a stuffed shirt. Harris is a great critic of most religions but has a Buddhism fetish I don't agree with. Hitchens also was a great critic of religion, but also was a bit of a warhawk, so even with him, NO, I don't agree with everything an atheist may claim.

Even GOP theist voters don't challenge or deny gravity, they accept gravity as a fact, but that doesn't mean I agree with their religious views or economic views. I hate to burst your bubble, but atheists don't, and should not give each other a pass either. 

Now again, you are relatively new here. I really would suggest you read a wider sample rate of threads, if you did that you would know we don't always agree on everything all the time.

"atheist" means "off" on claims of god/s. That is it, outside that we DO NOT agree on all things all the time.

What!!!! I said nothing in my post about atheist being a worldview. And I was agreeing with you on every point I mentioned.

Are you just conditioned to make an argument when a Christian posts something and fail to read what they write?????

Read...man...read what is written!!!

---

---

Answer the questions regarding right and wrong and the basis for them (see my previous post above that was mostly directed to Thumpalumpacus) and let's go from there. Depending on your answers, maybe I can show you the necessity.

Nope, I don't want to go there. Which post, there have been several. You can address my statements. 

Prove god exists or have god prove itself to exist. Until then god remains a unnecessary fantasy delusion.

Edit: You can't discuss/debate god into existence.

These questions:

So, Thumpalumpacus, in your position what makes stealing or kicking someone in the teeth wrong? I mean I think it is wrong because the Bible tells us to treat others like we want to be treated. But without God, what is your naturalistic explanation for right and wrong? Is it just a result of chemical reactions going on in your brain?

If you don't want to go there...fine. Are you concerned that your answers may not logically lead to the conclusions you want?

While I agree that you cannot discuss/debate God into existence (He exists or he doesn't regardless of our discussion/debate), it will only be by discussion/debate that we can discuss the reasons why we take one position or the other and it is only by discussion/debate that the reasons can be critiqued.

---

To Thumpalumpacus

This thread is getting way off track.


1) Maybe you should practice nuance also.  I never used the word "insulting".

2) I agreed that at the point you were talking about that I was generalizing. So why are you commenting like I said I wasn't. More nuance practice needed on your part.

3) I really love this one: "but I sure as hell won't let your overbroad generalization slide without comment".  This one is really rich given that neither you nor anyone else has piped up in Min's defense indicating that his original post was really meaningful in any way. It certainly does not show evidence that supports any view of life to non-life. And if it did, I would think people like you would have called me out for that, i.e., that I was wrong on my original post. But...you didn't. So from what I get out of this is that  here at this forum, you, Thumpalumpacus, will hold a Christian to a different standard than an atheist.

So, Thumpalumpacus, in your position what makes stealing or kicking someone in the teeth wrong? I mean I think it is wrong because the Bible tells us to treat others like we want to be treated. But without God, what is your naturalistic explanation for right and wrong? Is it just a result of chemical reactions going on in your brain?

While I am specifically asking Thumpalumpacus, I am interested in any atheist's position on the matter.

If you need a old book of mythology to keep you from harming others, it isn't religion you lack, it is empathy you lack. Now while the word "atheist" is also not a magic word that will prevent us from harming others, it also does not automatically mean we will harm others.

Funny how every nation in the world under every religious label all have hospitals and prisons. Just like you can accept there are Jews and Hindus and Buddhists whom also do not commit acts of violence, atheists are also perfectly capable of not harming others.

Maybe you need to consider that it isn't the book telling you to refrain from acts of violence, but your own evolutionary empathy. Our species was around long before any first writing or first nations. 

If you need that old book of mythology to prevent yourself from harming others, by all means keep it. But don't pretend we need it just because you like it. Most humans can figure out that harming others causes more problems than it is worth. You liking that book only means you like it. You are still not doing anything differently as far as apology that we have seen from people from every religion.

There are good people in every religion, but that does not make the religion a requirement for 7 billion diverse humans. It just means for most, they bought the religion of their parents. You found a story you like, well so what. 7 billion humans with thousands of sects under each major label. I say the same to you as I say to anyone of any label. Get in line, take a number.

You still have not explained your basis for determining good/evil. You say it is "evolutionary empathy". What in the world is that? Do you mean just the chemical reactions going on in my body/brain?

Some other things to consider: In your worldview (I am talking about you personal worldview...and everyone has a worldview), where do the laws of logic come from? Are they just a product of chemical reactions in the brain?