Atheists are the moral ones

[HUGGY]

Oh yeah, you're real moral, aren't you? Your morality shines through as you're butchering babies.

The thread is about terrorists. Try to stay focused.

I for one, an atheist, found the killing of Ossama quite enjoyable.

Really? I could have sworn it was about atheists.

Specifically it is about how atheists feel about terrorist's treatment. I refer back to my previous post.

 

[S.J.]

Oh yeah, you're real moral, aren't you? Your morality shines through as you're butchering babies.

The thread is about terrorists. Try to stay focused.

I for one, an atheist, found the killing of Ossama quite enjoyable.

Really? I could have sworn it was about atheists.

Specifically it is about how atheists feel about terrorist's treatment. I refer back to my previous post.

Ok, let's go with that then. Do you think we should make the terrorists talk and maybe save innocent American lives, or do you think we should be nice and treat them like guests at a hotel, or worse yet, release them to go back and kill more Americans like Obama is doing?

 

[FA_Q2]

So you don't deny that Western Morality is based on Christianity? Ok good, than you agree with me. You claimed that society defines right and wrong, which is a fundamentally narrow and blinded viewpoint. Rather, it is Christian ethics that have informed Western Society on what is right and wrong.

Narrow and blinded? You are talking about a handful of societies and then call my statements narrow. How silly.

Did Christians define roman morals? Russian morals? Chinese morals? Greek morals? No, society defined them. the only reason that western society is based upon judeo- christian morality is because the society was mostly judeo- christian and remains so.

IOW, there is no difference tin stating that society defined such a moral set and Christianity did so.

You are the one who claimed the existence of slavery discredits objective christian morality, when it was in fact objective christian ethics that built the foundation for the Abolition Movement. You are the one not addressing arguments, not me

Also, the idea, moral people existed only from the 20th or late 19th Century onward, is just wrong. This point isn't even debatable, history is riddles with men and women of great character. Just open in book. In fact, more in the past than now, society in the West is in decline because we have fallen into secular relativism and lack strong moral foundation and moral leadership. If you think the West is on the rise, you obviously haven't looked at economic and demographic trends. Birthrates are down throughout the West, birthrates are up in the Muslim World, the Asian economies are on the rise along with their demographics, China is now outpacing the US as the largest economy, and the EU is in a sovereign debt and economic crisis. The West is in a economic, demographic, and moral crisis in part due to secularization and the consequential loss of identity and moral foundation.

History is riddled with people that would have been considered moral at the time BUT you seem to forget that you are deeming morality as objective and absolute. In that instance, no, almost no one in history was moral at all. As the democrats like to point out all the time, many of the founders owned slaves. According to objective morality, they are absolutely immoral. Most past societies partook in practices that we would view as quite barbaric today and they would all be completely immoral by the objective moral standards that you are advocating for.

Again, we will be in the same boat. 100 years from now, we will look like a barbaric society.

Care to point out that massive moral slip that is sinking the entire western civilization? How about you show how our loss of morality is causing the decline whereas China's increased moral fiber is allowing it to take over?

Nothing could be further from the truth. To state that our moral code is declining and therefor our nation is declining but fail to recognize the utter lack of your objective morality in a rising China requires a massive amount of doublethink. Why should such a core principal apply to the wastern civilizations yet be vacant from the eastern ones?

Our current decline come from being so damn successful for so long. Americans have come to the point where they do not pay attention to their democracy and therefore it is in trouble. The average American can barely name the three branches of government let alone understand who is a good candidate to represent them. that is why we get presidents based on 'hope and change' without an explanation of WHAT we are changing to and major events include who ate a dog and who put one on their car. The American people are morons rather than the exceptionalism that catapulted us to the top of the heap for a hundred years. As a people, we are more interested in starting another welfare program than actually getting out there and creating something new. We think that we need to be all over the planet making other people just like us when we cannot even get our own fat asses off the chair to improve things at home. There are a lot of problems in our current society but the moral code is not chief among those - an apathetic populous is.

I am glad you can laugh at what you are, whether you know it or not, you are a liberal.

And you know this because? What are my political stances? Do you have a clue? No, you base the entire claim on a single point about morality - you are part of the problem with the decline of this nation. A black and white reality. If I do not agree with you on a single point then suddenly I am a liberal. You certainly make a lot of assertions based on, well, nothing.

 

[FA_Q2]

Oh yeah, you're real moral, aren't you? Your morality shines through as you're butchering babies.

The thread is about terrorists. Try to stay focused.

I for one, an atheist, found the killing of Ossama quite enjoyable.

Really? I could have sworn it was about atheists.

Specifically it is about how atheists feel about terrorist's treatment. I refer back to my previous post.

Ok, let's go with that then. Do you think we should make the terrorists talk and maybe save innocent American lives, or do you think we should be nice and treat them like guests at a hotel, or worse yet, release them to go back and kill more Americans like Obama is doing?

Nice misnomer but the reality is that torture is less effective than other methods of interrogation. That is pretty damn well rooted in virtually every study that takes the issue on.

That is the core problem with torture - NOT that it hurts terrorists but rather we have far more effective tools at our disposal.

 

[cnm]

You talk in circles.

The 'torture' of GITMO detainees in the war against radical Islam was not performed by "the community". Torture is not commonplace throughout the community.

Therefore it is not a community norm and is immoral in your community.

 

[Steinlight]

So you don't deny that Western Morality is based on Christianity? Ok good, than you agree with me. You claimed that society defines right and wrong, which is a fundamentally narrow and blinded viewpoint. Rather, it is Christian ethics that have informed Western Society on what is right and wrong.

Narrow and blinded? You are talking about a handful of societies and then call my statements narrow. How silly.

Did Christians define roman morals? Russian morals? Chinese morals? Greek morals? No, society defined them. the only reason that western society is based upon judeo- christian morality is because the society was mostly judeo- christian and remains so.

IOW, there is no difference tin stating that society defined such a moral set and Christianity did so.

You are the one who claimed the existence of slavery discredits objective christian morality, when it was in fact objective christian ethics that built the foundation for the Abolition Movement. You are the one not addressing arguments, not me

Also, the idea, moral people existed only from the 20th or late 19th Century onward, is just wrong. This point isn't even debatable, history is riddles with men and women of great character. Just open in book. In fact, more in the past than now, society in the West is in decline because we have fallen into secular relativism and lack strong moral foundation and moral leadership. If you think the West is on the rise, you obviously haven't looked at economic and demographic trends. Birthrates are down throughout the West, birthrates are up in the Muslim World, the Asian economies are on the rise along with their demographics, China is now outpacing the US as the largest economy, and the EU is in a sovereign debt and economic crisis. The West is in a economic, demographic, and moral crisis in part due to secularization and the consequential loss of identity and moral foundation.

History is riddled with people that would have been considered moral at the time BUT you seem to forget that you are deeming morality as objective and absolute. In that instance, no, almost no one in history was moral at all. As the democrats like to point out all the time, many of the founders owned slaves. According to objective morality, they are absolutely immoral. Most past societies partook in practices that we would view as quite barbaric today and they would all be completely immoral by the objective moral standards that you are advocating for.

Again, we will be in the same boat. 100 years from now, we will look like a barbaric society.

Care to point out that massive moral slip that is sinking the entire western civilization? How about you show how our loss of morality is causing the decline whereas China's increased moral fiber is allowing it to take over?

Nothing could be further from the truth. To state that our moral code is declining and therefor our nation is declining but fail to recognize the utter lack of your objective morality in a rising China requires a massive amount of doublethink. Why should such a core principal apply to the wastern civilizations yet be vacant from the eastern ones?

Our current decline come from being so damn successful for so long. Americans have come to the point where they do not pay attention to their democracy and therefore it is in trouble. The average American can barely name the three branches of government let alone understand who is a good candidate to represent them. that is why we get presidents based on 'hope and change' without an explanation of WHAT we are changing to and major events include who ate a dog and who put one on their car. The American people are morons rather than the exceptionalism that catapulted us to the top of the heap for a hundred years. As a people, we are more interested in starting another welfare program than actually getting out there and creating something new. We think that we need to be all over the planet making other people just like us when we cannot even get our own fat asses off the chair to improve things at home. There are a lot of problems in our current society but the moral code is not chief among those - an apathetic populous is.

I am glad you can laugh at what you are, whether you know it or not, you are a liberal.

And you know this because? What are my political stances? Do you have a clue? No, you base the entire claim on a single point about morality - you are part of the problem with the decline of this nation. A black and white reality. If I do not agree with you on a single point then suddenly I am a liberal. You certainly make a lot of assertions based on, well, nothing.

Yes, Christian ethics inform Russian Society(Well at least pre and post-USSR), Greek Society(Greece is part of the West last I checked, in fact the birthplace of Western Civilization), and the latter Roman Empire, and certainly the Eastern Roman Empire known as Byzantium. As for China, that is a moot point. I never argued Christian ethics informed the morality of all societies. I made the contention that christian ethics inform our western morality. You are all over the place, on one hand saying then didn't, then saying they did. You are incoherent and all over the place here. I have argued that objective morality is informed by a belief in the divine, and this has yet to be refuted.

The fact that immoral people existed throughout history doesn't mean moral people didn't exist.

On what basis do you claim almost everyone before the 19th century was immoral? Especially in the face of all the good people that existed prior to that time. You have yet to specifically address how almost everyone before the 19th century was immoral. You can't go on making these claims without evidence and just assume they are an objective fact.

And as a counterpoint. I would say many practices our society engages in today are barbaric and are a fall from the morality of our more moral ancestors.

The reality is, on our current trajectory of moral relativism and secularism, if western society exist, it will be far more debased and degenerate than it is today. The fact that they will think themselves more civilized for this just shows how detached from reality they would be and how atomized and self absorbed they would be.

I don't think this will happen however. I think civilization moves in cycles as oppose to the linear progression the left believes in. I think we are in decline, and will have a rebirth and restoration of a more healthy conservative society. Civilization moves along a pendulum and we are swinging far to the left at the moment. The pendulum will swing back. Western Civilization is no less immune to decline and fall than any other civilization

There is no doublethink in what I am saying by any means. I contend that in part, our move towards moral relativism and secularism is part of the decline of the west overall. Societies without a strong foundation of moral regulation, a spiritual grounding, will fall into nihilism and the breakdown of bonds between the individual and the community(the nation and his fellow members of society). How does this conflict with my belief in objective Christian ethics?

The problem with democracy is that voting is fundamentally irrational, and as society grows beyond a healthy scale an it becomes increasingly unrecognizable and impersonal due to an increasingly racially and culturally diverse society society, people will become more self interested and less engaged in the society. Robert Putnam talks about diversity and the breakdown of social capital, John B Calhoun has written about the social pathology and population density.



I know you are a liberal because you believe in moral relativism this is a foundational liberal argument that is born of the liberal Enlightenment Era. Nothing conservative about it. The Libertarianism you are more or less espousing by saying America's problems are merely material ones is a liberal argument. That society's problems can be solved by changing economic inputs, as man is a economic being above all else. I don't agree with the assessment. I don't disagree with some of what you say about the welfare state. But that isn't the be all and end all to our problems.

 

[Steinlight]

You talk in circles.

The 'torture' of GITMO detainees in the war against radical Islam was not performed by "the community". Torture is not commonplace throughout the community.

Therefore it is not a community norm and is immoral in your community.

Just because something isn't regularly practiced , doesn't mean it isn't accepted by the community. The majority of the community support the idea of the right to self defense, but most individuals don't encounter a position where they have to defend themselves. It doesn't mean that self defense is recognized as moral and legitimate.The majority of Americans support waterboarding, and thus by your community norms standard, the practice is moral.

 

[cnm]

You are the one who cited the president as a moral authority, saying he called enhanced interrogation torture, and this somehow validates the claim that enhanced interrogation is torture and is immoral.

The president doesn't need to be a moral authority to define when torture according to US Code has taken place, that is what he did. I don't know where you're going with that straw man.

Just because something isn't regularly practiced , doesn't mean it isn't accepted by the community. The majority of the community support the idea of the right to self defense, but most individuals don't encounter a position where they have to defend themselves. It doesn't mean that self defense is recognized as moral and legitimate.

It is practiced often and is recognised as moral. Your straw men must be tired of being beaten so thoroughly.

The majority of Americans support waterboarding, and thus by your community norms standard, the practice is moral.

No, the majority of Americans are quite immoral as they support practises outside communtiy norms.

Those cases mean nothing without context. Can you cite a case where a US Court has banned the use of waterboarding for US Military or Intelligence Officials or prosecuted and convicted them?

The prosecutions of Japanese for waterboarding demonstrate the expression of American community norms.

 

[cnm]

That is the core problem with torture - NOT that it hurts terrorists but rather we have far more effective tools at our disposal.

I disagree, the core problem with American torture is that it is a war crime and leaves allies open to prosecution if prisoners handed over unsuspectingly have been tortured, as the captors have failed their duty of care over the prisoners.

 

[cnm]

'Making terrorists talk'! Of course you can make terrorists talk with torture. You can make them say anything, that is what it is used for, extracting confessions, not information.

Well, apart from the sadistic infliction of suffering for pleasure. I'm looking at you, Snarlin' Dick.

 

[cnm]

Of course if America wants to have the sort of community where torture is a norm it would appear as though there is some support for it among the religious part of the population.

That part of the population upset Saddam was torturing Iraqis when there were Americans available just as capable of doing the job. If not better. Really, they're quite immoral.

 

[Harry Dresden]

the atheists I read here don't have faith that there is no God....they tell us without a doubt there is no God....ask them...

i agree with that.....im probably agnostic....where are all the others agnosties?....

 

[Harry Dresden]

the atheists I read here don't have faith that there is no God....they tell us without a doubt there is no God....ask them...

Your assertion is false then.

Of course, you failed to actually ask anyone that I have seen. Instead, you answered the question without bothering to ask in the first place.

There is no, and never will be, certainty that god does not exist. The very concept is, quite frankly, impossible.

then you have not read all the views around here on religion....there have been plenty of posters here who have said ....the concept of a God is a fantasy....

 

[PratchettFan]

Not only can you have morals (Ethics)without religion, but any religious source for morality is demonstrably amoral at best, and frequently completely immoral.

Most religion-based moral codes have completely inconsistent definitions of "good" and "bad", which in practice amount to little more than lists of things which are considered "good" or "bad", with little respect for whether any of these things can actually be demonstrated to be "good" or "bad". In religious context, something is "good" if the religion says it's good (even if it's demonstrably bad by any other standard, like demonizing or killing those with different beliefs or ritually mutilating infants), and something is "bad" if the religion says it's bad (again, even if it's demonstrably good by other standards, like questioning authority or equality between the sexes). This is not morality. It's just a dictated set of entirely arbitrary rules intended to control a population and glorify religion. That religions frequently claim that this *is* morality is nothing other than a deliberate corruption of the very concept, and worse, that many religions claim to be the only acceptable source of morality while preaching a deliberate perversion of natural morality is itself *deeply* immoral. But just in case that wasn't bad enough, many religions then exempt their followers from taking responsibility for their own actions, blaming some "evil spirit" or another (Satan) for anything "bad" they might do within the religious culture, giving them ample justifications for committing all manner of demonstrably bad acts outwith the culture without risk of censure, and finally saying that all "sins" will be forgiven if they devoutly follow the religion.

Religion distorts and cheapens morality for its own ends

Atheists Are 0.07% of the Federal Prison Population, Threatening Fact for Christian Fundamentalists
It's a big disruption to the Christian right argument that you need a belief in God to live morally.

Atheists Are 0.07 of the Federal Prison Population Threatening Fact for Christian Fundamentalists Alternet

Staistics without anything behind them are meaningless.

If this stat is true it is less likely to be related to the morality of atheists and more related to people finding religion when they go to prison and I would bet there are services that are offered to people claiming a religion.

In basic military training, almost everyone is 'religious' not because they actually are but because you get to go to services on Sunday. Its the most relaxing thing that happens during the entire course so almost no one claims atheist - no services for them.

I did get to experience a number of types of services.

 

[HUGGY]

Oh yeah, you're real moral, aren't you? Your morality shines through as you're butchering babies.

The thread is about terrorists. Try to stay focused.

I for one, an atheist, found the killing of Ossama quite enjoyable.

Really? I could have sworn it was about atheists.

Specifically it is about how atheists feel about terrorist's treatment. I refer back to my previous post.

Ok, let's go with that then. Do you think we should make the terrorists talk and maybe save innocent American lives, or do you think we should be nice and treat them like guests at a hotel, or worse yet, release them to go back and kill more Americans like Obama is doing?

Guests at a hotel...ya definitely... guests at a hotel.. a five star hotel.

Which should include...

24 hour room service full menu. heated pool. hot tub, in room steam and massage... deep Swedish massage. Complementary limo. Complimentary nails and haircut. Complete video menu...games and movies G-XXX. Don't ask..don't tell drug policy. Front row Tickets for all the good games and shows. In house tailor and complimentary in house dry cleaning. Fresh flowers daily..and bar restock.

 

[Kondor3]

All this fuss over a Pew Research Poll of - what? - 700 people? - 800? - uhhhhh, yeah... now there's a Statistically Significant sampling of the population of the US.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

1) I'm Christian and fully opposed to torture.
2) Atheists don't believe in God so they aren't bound by a moral standard. Without a moral standard they feel free to so as they will. As a consequence we have the historical record of men like Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, and many others. Between those three alone are attributed the deaths of more than 100 million people (many of whom were tortured prior to their untimely death).
3) Unborn babies feel pain. That's a proven fact. Is it not torture to grab a baby by the head with a pair of forceps then rip the head off? Is it not torture to burn that child with a saline solution? Articles The Real Torture Scandal in America & Unborn babies can feel pain during abortion

To the OP: Stop with your sickening hypocrisy.

Put the lid on that can of red herrings:
Refuting the myth that Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot were atheists
Refuting the myth that Hitler Stalin and Pol Pot were atheists - National atheism Examiner.com


Between 1,000,000 to 3,000,000 people were killed by Christians during the Crusades from 1095 to 1291.
List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Atheists don't NEED to have a big invisible man watching over them in order to behave and respect others, unlike you overgrown children who believe in Santa Clause, too.

 

[Synthaholic]

the atheists I read here don't have faith that there is no God....they tell us without a doubt there is no God....ask them...

No different from the hyper-Christians who tell us without a doubt that god exists. They have no proof, only faith.

 

[2aguy]

1) I'm Christian and fully opposed to torture.
2) Atheists don't believe in God so they aren't bound by a moral standard. Without a moral standard they feel free to so as they will. As a consequence we have the historical record of men like Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, and many others. Between those three alone are attributed the deaths of more than 100 million people (many of whom were tortured prior to their untimely death).
3) Unborn babies feel pain. That's a proven fact. Is it not torture to grab a baby by the head with a pair of forceps then rip the head off? Is it not torture to burn that child with a saline solution? Articles The Real Torture Scandal in America & Unborn babies can feel pain during abortion

To the OP: Stop with your sickening hypocrisy.

Put the lid on that can of red herrings:
Refuting the myth that Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot were atheists
Refuting the myth that Hitler Stalin and Pol Pot were atheists - National atheism Examiner.com


Between 1,000,000 to 3,000,000 people were killed by Christians during the Crusades from 1095 to 1291.
List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Atheists don't NEED to have a big invisible man watching over them in order to behave and respect others, unlike you overgrown children who believe in Santa Clause, too.

When the socialists killed close to 100 million people.....they were no longer following the faith of their youth....they gave that up.....the communists do not believe in religion and the elite of the nazis were atheists or pagans....they always say these guys were raised religious....as if that ends the discussion.....they did their killing as atheists.....

And how many did muslims kill to cause the Crusades....after all....the first crusade didn't begin till 50 years after the muslims made their first incursion into France....

Atheists have no one to hold them to account for their sins....since they "know" there is nothing after this life...there is no reason they can't do whatever they want....there will be no accounting when they die....their only limit....just don't get caught.....

 

[2aguy]

1) I'm Christian and fully opposed to torture.
2) Atheists don't believe in God so they aren't bound by a moral standard. Without a moral standard they feel free to so as they will. As a consequence we have the historical record of men like Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, and many others. Between those three alone are attributed the deaths of more than 100 million people (many of whom were tortured prior to their untimely death).
3) Unborn babies feel pain. That's a proven fact. Is it not torture to grab a baby by the head with a pair of forceps then rip the head off? Is it not torture to burn that child with a saline solution? Articles The Real Torture Scandal in America & Unborn babies can feel pain during abortion

To the OP: Stop with your sickening hypocrisy.

Put the lid on that can of red herrings:
Refuting the myth that Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot were atheists
Refuting the myth that Hitler Stalin and Pol Pot were atheists - National atheism Examiner.com


Between 1,000,000 to 3,000,000 people were killed by Christians during the Crusades from 1095 to 1291.
List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Atheists don't NEED to have a big invisible man watching over them in order to behave and respect others, unlike you overgrown children who believe in Santa Clause, too.

The guy didn't do his research....he lists Jonestown as a Christian killing.....jim jones was a communist...not a christian......look him up some time......

He says that stalin was raised catholic....but then tried to get rid of all religion.....but that was only because he was doing that to take power.....come on.....really....?