Imperefct God

[Greatest I am]

My conclusion is: Atheism does not rationalize any morality.

How do you rationalized Yahweh using genocide when he can cure just as easily as kill?

Regards
DL

[Immanuel Can]

My conclusion is: Atheism does not rationalize any morality.

How do you...

Nope. No questions until Lace answers. Fair is fair: she asked, I answered.

Now, she answers.

[Lacewing]

My conclusion is: Atheism does not rationalize any morality.

How do you...

Nope. No questions until Lace answers. Fair is fair: she asked, I answered.

Now, she answers.

As I've already said, your statement is distorted nonsense to me. Atheism is not an entity. It's not a club. So whatever you're trying to assign or attribute to it (other than it meaning not believing in a god) is a distortion. That's my answer.

So, why does your conclusion make any difference or matter at all in your mind?

[Greatest I am]

My conclusion is: Atheism does not rationalize any morality.

How do you...

Nope. No questions until Lace answers. Fair is fair: she asked, I answered.

Now, she answers.

IOWs, you cannot answer your own question, because you do not question the immoral tenets you follow along with your genocidal god.

Regards
DL

[Immanuel Can]

As I've already said, your statement is distorted nonsense to me.

You're avoiding. And I know why.

Both the premise and the conclusion I gave you are inescapable. The premise is true by definition, and the conclusion was anything you wanted it to be. And still, you can't come up with one moral precept Atheism compels. If you could, you'd have done it, and you'd have won your point. But you didn't. And you can't.

[Lacewing]

As I've already said, your statement is distorted nonsense to me.

You're avoiding. And I know why.

Ah, more of your bullshit. I'm not avoiding anything and I answered your question honestly. You said you would answer mine, but as usual, you're a liar full of childish excuses.

So, I have to believe as you do or you cannot answer questions about what you say?

Once again, you demonstrate that you're not worth the energy of interacting with, as you continue to be the most dishonorable and dishonest person on this forum... to the point of being disgusting.

[Immanuel Can]

So, I have to believe as you do or you cannot answer questions about what you say?

You don't at all have to "believe" anything in particular. You only have to be able to do three things:

1. Know the definition of an "Atheist".
2. Know what a "moral principle" is, so you can select one that suits you.

and

3. Be able to do a rudimentary bit of logic.

If you can do those three, then not a thing depends on "what I say." It all depends strictly on what words mean and what logic requires.

But I've perhaps asked too much, I see... The theatrics and ad hominems are really funny, but all they show is that you're cornered and dismayed, or maybe just confused or unable to take up the task. Either way, I think the point is well made, so I'm content to subside.

[uwot]

Beliefs are spread by people aggrandizing their own beliefs. Atheist do the same.

Is my premise acceptable to you?

Well, atheists shoot themselves in the foot in that respect since they cannot claim to be in communion with some god. That said, atheism is no protection against being a pompous fool.

[Dontaskme]

Watch Kabul. Watch Haiti. Watch South Africa. Watch Cuba. Watch China, or Venzuela. Watch many places, for that matter; and then tell me human beings are all sweetness and light.

And when you're done, have a look within yourself. A person only has to know his own heart to know the truth.

Again, ask yourself, why would anyone want to impose or force upon another life to live as a person born in Kabul, or Haiti, or South Africa. or Cuba, or China, or Venzuela. ?

"Force"?

It just supports what the Bible says about human nature.

Yes 'force'

When people choose to bring new life into the world they are literally forcing someone else to live a life.. already knowing that someone will be subject to the same risks of having to experience evils, pains, misery, suffering. This is the reality of sentient life. The positive aspects about being a sentient life ONLY happens where there is the absence of the negatives. Negatives rule, first and foremost, in their absence, there is the brief interval of relief, and we call that the good time.

So yes, you're now only saying the obvious, The Bible is a story about human nature. Well of course it's a story about human nature, humans wrote the damn story, they were simply recording their own personal experiences.
There is nothing supernatural or divine about their experiences. We can all simply garner as much truth from the story of Cinderella or Snow White ..when it comes to the experience of our human nature.

But you haven't really answered the question have you?

Why would one already knowing the implications of what it feels like to experience human nature, then choose to impose that on another human being? Is that the moral thing to do - impose a Kabul Taliban way of life onto another human being...when it really doesn't need to?


What is more moral here? making more misery and suffering, or just having the guts to say this is a stupid and very expensive game we are playing with other peoples lives.

As for not answering me on the moral issue. Why do you keep playing the 'drama card' ... aren't we all about drama here, including you.

Or are you some kind of God, who is excluded from such trivial human drama. Is it because you believe you are the special image of God himself, and that gives you some sort of superior immunity as if it would be totally beneath you to interact with other people who are standing on the same stage as you. My, are you one arrogant disgusting fuck.

I used to think you were a decent character, but you've proved me wrong, you are in fact just another internet fool who believes he is better informed than everyone else who he is responding to.

What are you actually trying to prove here, what is your agenda. Are you trying to save us all from this hell that is sentient life?
Why are you preaching the God way, what benefit is involved in such activity. Religion has imposed nothing but unimaginable suffering, torture and grief upon humanity, to the point the whole of the middle east are a 'Powder Keg' just waiting to implode in on itself, taking the western world down with it no doubt.

Excellent, lets just celebrate the really amazing moral postive that is man-made religion.

[uwot]

You don't at all have to "believe" anything in particular. You only have to be able to do three things:

1. Know the definition of an "Atheist".

Accepting Mr Can's definition of "Atheist" is not the same as knowing the definition.

2. Know what a "moral principle" is, so you can select one that suits you.

Again, Mr Can's concept of a moral principle is his own. The general christian guide to morality is that some one else gets punished for your sins, and that failure to believe this is the only unforgivable sin, the punishment for which is eternal torture. Forgivable sins include rape, torture, murder and genocide, all of which occur in the bible, but which with characteristic revisionism Mr Can deems sinful because he has been infected with a healthy dose of secular morality.

3. Be able to do a rudimentary bit of logic.

Here comes the irony, total lack of self awareness and hypocrisy all rolled into one:

If you can do those three, then not a thing depends on "what I say." It all depends strictly on what words mean and what logic requires.

But I've perhaps asked too much, I see... The theatrics and ad hominems are really funny...

Yep, the reason people fail to accept Mr Can's arguments is that they are incapable of processing "a rudimentary bit of logic". Time for the self righteousness:

...but all they show is that you're cornered and dismayed, or maybe just confused or unable to take up the task. Either way, I think the point is well made, so I'm content to subside.

[Belinda]

uwot wrote:

Again, Mr Can's concept of a moral principle is his own. The general christian guide to morality is that some one else gets punished for your sins, and that failure to believe this is the only unforgivable sin, the punishment for which is eternal torture. Forgivable sins include rape, torture, murder and genocide, all of which occur in the bible, but which with characteristic revisionism Mr Can deems sinful because he has been infected with a healthy dose of secular morality.

The point I want to discuss is

The general christian guide to morality is that some one else gets punished for your sins,

It's true that many Xians do believe the Atonement teaching like it is an updated version of human sacrifice to placate a god. However the idea has mileage that very good men and very good acts by men can alleviate the horribleness of men in general, like lights in the darkness.
Many Xians believe a version of the latter , but what distinguishes Xians from unbelievers is that true Xians also believe Jesus Christ was and always will be the unique light in the darkness.

It is unclear from Immanuel Can's posts which sort of Xian he is.

[uwot]

The point I want to discuss is

The general christian guide to morality is that some one else gets punished for your sins,

It's true that many Xians do believe the Atonement teaching like it is an updated version of human sacrifice to placate a god.

Can you be a christian and not believe that Jesus died for our sins?

However the idea has mileage that very good men and very good acts by men can alleviate the horribleness of men in general, like lights in the darkness.

I suppose if you believe in the general horribleness of men that would be some relief, but I think you would have to be very selective to infer that only christian men are capable of good acts.

Many Xians believe a version of the latter , but what distinguishes Xians from unbelievers is that true Xians also believe Jesus Christ was and always will be the unique light in the darkness.

Which is lovely and if it makes them a better person, even lovelier.

It is unclear from Immanuel Can's posts which sort of Xian he is.

He's made it pretty clear over the last eight years. Start with what sort of human being he is and add christian.

[Immanuel Can]

When people choose to bring new life into the world they are literally forcing someone else to live a life..

So you think reproduction is evil?

That's got to be more theatrics, unless you've got some actual reasons behind that.

[Immanuel Can]

The point I want to discuss is

The general christian guide to morality is that some one else gets punished for your sins,

Well, I normally ignore uwot. He's a suicidal loon. But occasionally I see his remarks from something quoted by somebody else, and if it's somebody I do speak with, like yourself, I may respond.

Christianity does not say that somebody else gets punished for your sins. Ezekiel 18:20, Psalm 49:7.

Everybody dies for his own sins, not for the sins of another. The one exception is as follows:

"God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (Romans 5:8)
and
"For Christ also suffered for sins once for all time, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God..." (1 Peter 1:18)

It is unclear from Immanuel Can's posts which sort of Xian he is.

That's good. There shouldn't be "sorts of" Christians. There is one truth, and all Christians should stand for the same truth. What need have we of "sorts"?

[jayjacobus]

The point I want to discuss is

The general christian guide to morality is that some one else gets punished for your sins,

Well, I normally ignore uwot. He's a suicidal loon. But occasionally I see his remarks from something quoted by somebody else, and if it's somebody I do speak with, like yourself, I may respond.

Christianity does not say that somebody else gets punished for your sins. Ezekiel 18:20, Psalm 49:7.

Everybody dies for his own sins, not for the sins of another. The one exception is as follows:

"God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (Romans 5:8)
and
"For Christ also suffered for sins once for all time, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God..." (1 Peter 1:18)

It is unclear from Immanuel Can's posts which sort of Xian he is.

That's good. There shouldn't be "sorts of" Christians. There is one truth, and all Christians should stand for the same truth. What need have we of "sorts"?

If that's your premise, you should state evidence that your premise is true.