morality is subjective and people don't have free will

[Amarok]

Who is teaching a two year old that they a born tainted sinners? You are blowing this way out of proportion!

Now you are pivoting to the term "evil" to make your objection appear stronger. Evil is a moral term and we have already established that a young child is not morally responsible. The point has always been that we are born knowing how to be selfish, intolerant, harmful, etc. and need to be taught these things are wrong.

As Mr Agenda says, 4000 good news clubs in public schools across the country, and a lot of evangelicals, of which there are more than a few.
Teaching it to a 6 year old in Kindergarden, or a 20 year old in church does not make it better.

And you ignored that I used your own words for most of the statement and pick out the word evil. Fine, I take back the word evil, and insert your own word, sin, and reassert my statement. Teaching people that they are born in sin and jesus is the only way to fix that sin is morally repugnant and harmful to the mental state of humans, children included.

And back back back to CL. You can imagine god outside of space and time, but not sentient computers? Frankly I'm surprised.  I mean, people have been imagining sentient computers for well over 100 years. Sometimes they are dangerous, as in The Matrix and Terminator,  sometimes friendly as in My Iron Giant and I Robot and also Terminator and The Matrix, lol.

Aren't you familiar with some of these modetn stories? When you watch them, you don't, for a time, imagine sentient macines taking both moral and imoral actions, as they are happening in the movie?

Indeed

---

And yet the 2 Christians participating in the discussion (Steve and I) are both like "uhhh what?" [...]

What?! The whole 2 christians? Yeah - that's definitely a representative sample...   LOL...
2 christians, out of millions, who also frequent atheist forums, are not particularly bright, or informed, and who - for all we know - could be lying, in order to show their faith in a more positive light (I know, I know - that neeeeeever happens)... Yeah, no more questions about that, then...

Yup

[Catholic_Lady]

Who is teaching a two year old that they a born tainted sinners? You are blowing this way out of proportion!

Now you are pivoting to the term "evil" to make your objection appear stronger. Evil is a moral term and we have already established that a young child is not morally responsible. The point has always been that we are born knowing how to be selfish, intolerant, harmful, etc. and need to be taught these things are wrong.

bold mine

Isn't enough that you/christians believe that they are? Isn't that one of the motives for infant baptism? It does not need to be taught to the child. You already believe it and that will come through in interaction with the child. 

I've heard parents teach their infants to pray from the time they can talk, pray to be forgiven for sin, even before the child can understand what they are saying.

(my bold)

Yes it is true that we do, but again, to most of us that is at its core simply the religious way of saying/explaining that none of us humans are perfect. That's the underlying principle, and I don't think anyone can disagree with it. I mean, do you think there is any fully functioning, grown human being who has never done anything wrong in his life? Never been rude to someone, never lied, never done anything selfish or petty, etc? No? We agree then that imperfection of that sort is the human condition. The difference lies in the way we explain it or word it. But the principle itself is one that we agree on.     

And even considering that, as far as I'm aware, the vast majority of Christian parents nonetheless view their babies and young children as precious and innocent, not as tainted and impure. Albeit knowing they won't be perfect, that's not how we view our babies and young children, and certainly not how we treat them or talk to them.

[The Grand Nudger]

The vatican disagrees.

Yes, ofc most parents view their children as something -other- than what their religious nonsense demands their children must be...because most believers aren't all that faithful (or stupid, for that matter).....catholics are a case study, and this much isn't lost on the vatican...who's been bemoaning their heretical flock for years now. A group for which you have demonstrated yourself to be representative in any thread you've participated in. You believe, flatly, in heretical things...worse than that, you advocate for heresy among the faithless. You may see children as innocent, christrians may see children as "innocent", the catholic church decrees infallibly that they are not. QED.

That's kind of the point. You, CL..are a bad catholic. Objectively. To me, that actually makes you a decent person. The disparity between catholic beliefs and your own is precisely equal to your common human decency.

Gratz.

[Homeless Nutter]

[...]And even considering that, as far as I'm aware, the vast majority of Christian parents nonetheless view their babies and young children as precious and innocent, not as tainted and impure. [...]

Yes, as far as we're all aware, the vast majority of christians are hypocrites, who only pay attention to those parts of their religion's doctrine, that are convenient for them at the moment. What else is new?...

[Neo-Scholastic]

Yes, as far as we're all aware, the vast majority of christians are hypocrites, ...

As compared to what exactly? Probably the vast majority of people are hypocrites, regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof.

[The Grand Nudger]

"Everyone's as bad as my group/religion/self"

Probably not, but it seems like people like to imagine so when pressed.

[Amarok]

"Everyone's as bad as my group/religion/self"

Probably not, but it seems like people like to imagine so when pressed.

Yup absolution by collective guilt is weak sauce indeed

[Homeless Nutter]

As compared to what exactly? Probably the vast majority of people are hypocrites, regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof.

As compared to those hypocrites, who don't claim to be following the will of an all-knowing god, with their eternal lives in the balance. I can be hypocritical all I want, as long as I'm discrete about it. And in most situations, there's very little at stake, even if the discrepancy between what I preach and what I actually think is brought to light. You can't hide your thoughts from your allegedly mind-reading idol, who - according to you - doesn't take kindly to those, who disregard his will, be in the privacy of their own homes, or their own minds.

What I'm saying is that the vast majority of christians (or, indeed - monotheists in general) do not really believe in what is the very core of their professed faith - that there is a god, who gives a sh*t about what anybody thinks.

[Angrboda]

That's because you're a nutjob.

On this thread, you've been very disrespectful of me personally and are now resorting to insults.

The part undermines the whole?  That's nonsense.  Does the existence of randomness in quantum mechanics undermine the science.  Does the existence of randomness in the universe "undermine" order?  You're talking poetic rubbish.

If randomness means that anything can happen for no reason at all, then yes, it does undermine scientific inquiry. If on the other hand we are talking about physical operations within certain parameters and the presumption that there is an underlying reason for why particular results manifest, then no.

Reality is a bitch.  Get over it.

I'll take that as an admission that your view has serious problems.

You're talking barely intelligible metaphysical gobbledygook and invoking stupid platitudes?  Get over yourself.  The world is a mixture of the intelligible and unintelligible, and much as you might not like the fact, wishing it away won't make it so.  Our reason and our senses are fallible, and a healthy skepticism is a good thing.

My use of that adage refers to the notion that an existential choice to believe something positive, like the efficacy of reason, is necessary in order to justify subsequent positive beliefs. Your version of skepticism crosses into nihilism. Perhaps the things you consider unintelligible appear that way to you because of your incoherent and self-defeating stance.

The universe is a mixture of chaos and order. The existence of chaos defines the existence of order, and vice versa. You want to champion half of that equation. You wish away the chaos because the lack of control that implies scares you. Departing from reason into a worldview based upon the mysterious interventions of a mysterious spook isn't making an existential choice, it's abandoning existence as it is for a fairy tale. You want reality to be simpler and cleaner than it is. You embrace the lie that it is. Existence and reason are messy business and that bothers you. Well, tough shit. Get over it. You haven't made a positive choice, investing in the efficacy of reason. You've plastered over the reality with your wishful thinking. And why? Apparently the true face of reality bothers you. Or maybe you're just following the primrose path that your investment in outdated metaphysics has led you to. Either way, I don't care. You are the enemy of reason, not its friend.

[Amarok]

On this thread, you've been very disrespectful of me personally and are now resorting to insults.

If randomness means that anything can happen for no reason at all, then yes, it does undermine scientific inquiry. If on the other hand we are talking about physical operations within certain parameters and the presumption that there is an underlying reason for why particular results manifest, then no.

I'll take that as an admission that your view has serious problems.

My use of that adage refers to the notion that an existential choice to believe something positive, like the efficacy of reason, is necessary in order to justify subsequent positive beliefs. Your version of skepticism crosses into nihilism. Perhaps the things you consider unintelligible appear that way to you because of your incoherent and self-defeating stance.

The universe is a mixture of chaos and order.  The existence of chaos defines the existence of order, and vice versa.  You want to champion half of that equation.  You wish away the chaos because the lack of control that implies scares you.  Departing from reason into a worldview based upon the mysterious interventions of a mysterious spook isn't making an existential choice, it's abandoning existence as it is for a fairy tale.  You want reality to be simpler and cleaner than it is.  You embrace the lie that it is.   Existence and reason are messy business and that bothers you.  Well, tough shit.  Get over it.  You haven't made a positive choice, investing in the efficacy of reason.  You've plastered over the reality with your wishful thinking.   And why?  Apparently the true face of reality bothers you.  Or maybe you're just following the primrose path that your investment in outdated metaphysics has led you to.   Either way, I don't care.  You are the enemy of reason, not its friend.

Indeed reason is messy and no amount of convenient mythology is going to change that Wooter needs to pull his head out