Sayest the Christian:
So I don't misunderstand you, you do affirm that there is no objective morals or real right or wrong? Or are you saying some things are wrong and some things are right, for instance rape, are you taking kind of a Betrand Russel stance and saying that like yellow is not blue, rape is wrong. Things are as they are kind of thing... Hopefully that makes sense but I just wanted to clear up what you were saying... because for me, knowing for sure that certain things are inherently wrong in the universe, is objective... So we can't say rape is wrong. From our own logic, we have merely said that it is probably not the best thing for society...

sayest I:
I guess I'm saying that there are no objective morals even if a god exists who ordered us to obey his commands. Merely being in a position of authority does not mean that you have the best interest of your subjects at heart. If a god exists, he may have the ability to insist upon our subservience, but that does not mean that his commands are made for our benefit. One can possess legal authority via physical intimidation, but true moral authority lies behind the intent of its origin. This god you suggest invented morality is the same god who invented tornadoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, famines, vicious animal attacks and etc; not exactly the resume of a individual who is concerned about our well being. Either rape is evil because we say it is or because god says it is, either is subjective to the will of the originator. The best morality would be one that came from those who personally stand to gain and lose as a result of its enforcement; as it will most likely be the best reflection of the desires of those whose behavior it serves to modify. Again, even if morality is objectively based (rape is wrong because rape is wrong) it would still be dependent upon us to figure this out. We would still be operating under an assumption that we know what is moral and immoral whether it was true or not. I will say this: convincing a person that they should obey your commands or they will burn in hell forever means that they will probably do what you ask. Unfortunately, what they are asked to do is where the trouble usually starts. If morality means nothing more than doing what one is told, then our morality has been kidnapped by a small and often unscrupulous bunch. Morality is nothing if it's just blind subservience.

Sayest the Christian:This is somewhat uncharitable of you. I can think of many acts of charity and even what we might call heroism that were motivated by faith.

Sayest I:
You're correct. Belief in a god has motived good and evil, but oddly it doesn't seem to matter which god you believe in for this to be true.


Sayest the Christian:This is a view that only survives in near total ignorance.
The vast majority of those caring for the poor and needy, and defending the oppressed are doing so as Christians or as a discernible response to Christianity.

Sayest I:
Do Christians do a good works? Absolutely, but I honestly suppose that much of these good works would also be done in the absence of faith. Perhaps I'm wrong, and there's no way to test this theory. Christianity over the past few centuries has possessed the majority of the world's wealth and made up a plurality of the worlds population (both may change during this century) so it stands to reason that they are doing more charitable work than other sociological groups. Of course, much of their charitable works are in the form of prostylization, which IMO doesn't help unless the poor can eat the bibles they are being given. Don't forget that most Muslims would suggest that Christians and Jews were the source of the majority of the world's evil and oppression and that god was being best served by Islam.


Sayest the christian:
Martin Luther King Jr., a devote christian just for example, was motivated by faith. As were many of the other people involved in the civil rights movement.

Sayest I:
And the proponents of the system of racism and hatred that he opposed could probably quote you every verse in the bible.

Sayest the christian:
Mother Theresa was motivated by faith.

Sayest I:
A faith which lead her to believe that using a condom was tantamount to murder and that divorce should be legally inaccessible to a physically abused wife.

Sayest the christian:
William Penn was motivated by faith when he invited all the Anabaptists in Europe to move to Pennsylvania to escape persecution.

Sayest I:
And it was faith that led to this persecution, a persecution he himself was escaping along with his fellow believers.

Sayest the christian:
Many (probably most) abolitionists were motivated by faith when they risked their livelihoods and lives to shelter runaway slaves on the underground railroad.

Sayest I:
Many (probably all) proponents of slavery in the USA were Christians and found their very justification for the practice within the bible. While it can be weakly argued (very very weakly) that the bible does not promote slavery, one cannot argue that it speaks out against it. The fact that most abolitionists were Christians is deceptive as there were very few openly non-Christians in the country at the time; none-the-less the movement did include several non-believers.

Views: 2

Comment

You need to be a member of Atheist Nexus to add comments!

Join Atheist Nexus

Comment by Johnny on October 12, 2009 at 10:39am
someone gave me one today! i was quite happy the group already exists:

http://www.atheistnexus.org/group/winningarguments
Comment by Marshall on October 10, 2009 at 10:46pm
Or data base of evidence to use against the more common lies told by Christians.
Comment by Johnny on October 10, 2009 at 8:46pm
I had the BEST debate with a Christian the other day. OMG. I felt that giddy feeling that people get when they're "saved." I'm so used to circular reasoning and never letting me finish my arguments. Finally I got to the end, where I was left with an intelligent and (i must thank him for this) fair arguer reduced to the point where nothing could possibly be circularly argued. By the end there was no question that he was absolutely with out a doubt wrong... omg I really need to post it. Retracing and posting a debate like this is hard though! Too much thinking (ironic! lol). I will definately try to post it in the near future with a link to it here.

It would be great if we had a group or something here that is full of atheist vs theist debate all collected so that we can study them better and learn how to debate theists. Does something like that exist here?
Comment by Marshall on October 7, 2009 at 12:24pm
Will do. Thanks.
Comment by Johnny on October 7, 2009 at 12:20pm
Apparently per capita Atheists are MUCH better people than theists.

Read this blog: I find it a glorious bitch slap, though I am not too suprised.

http://www.atheistnexus.org/profiles/blogs/atheism-its-good-for-america
Comment by Jim DePaulo on October 6, 2009 at 9:54pm
Evil people will do evil and good people will do good but it takes religion for good people to do evil.

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

MJ

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service