- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Stunning Admission By Renowned Atheist; Decline of Christianity is Hurting Society
Posted on 11/7/19 at 3:48 pm to Jon Ham
Posted on 11/7/19 at 3:48 pm to Jon Ham
quote:
Are you implying you don’t murder people people because an invisible entity is watching and judging you?
No. He's asking why murder is a universal wrong.
1
Posted on 11/7/19 at 3:49 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Why should I sacrifice my wants and needs for others if I don't perceive there to be a benefit to myself? And, what if I perceive there to be a benefit to myself by hurting others around me?
This pretty much sums up where a large segment of western society exists today.
Posted on 11/7/19 at 3:56 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
What I've always wanted to ask religionists is: what would you do if Jesus commanded you personally to start knifing babies and small children to death?
... And what would you do if the constitution still allowed for slavery? Hypotheticals are hypothetical. The bottom line is that Jesus doesn't. We've done a fine job of living off the cultural interest of Christianity for a couple of generations. Now we get to see just how horrid living under paganism is.
This post was edited on 11/7/19 at 3:58 pm
Posted on 11/7/19 at 4:00 pm to Boatshoes
quote:
No. He's asking why murder is a universal wrong.
And the answer is that it's not, in a universal objective sense.
Posted on 11/7/19 at 4:02 pm to Perfect Circle
The seeds to the demise of Christian civilization and values were sewn on October 31, 1517. It's been downhill ever since.
Posted on 11/7/19 at 4:04 pm to Strophie
quote:
And the answer is that it's not, in a universal objective sense.
And there you have it. The final conclusion of the pagan worldview.
Posted on 11/7/19 at 4:05 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
The seeds to the demise of Christian civilization and values were sewn on October 31, 1517. It's been downhill ever since
Nah. They were just trying to fix what you all broke in 1054.
Posted on 11/7/19 at 4:06 pm to ThuperThumpin
quote:
When religious individuals behave morally based solely on the concept of reward or punishment, heaven or hell they are operating on a very child like way of viewing morality.
quote:
He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. 3 And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children,you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.4 Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of Heaven.
Posted on 11/7/19 at 4:11 pm to Boatshoes
quote:
And there you have it. The final conclusion of the pagan worldview.
The problem (insofar as there is one), is that you seem to think this implies some radical conclusion. What myself (and others in this thread) are pointing out is that you're arguing with the presupposition that there has to be an objective, hard, universal moral code. But why is that a requirement?
Posted on 11/7/19 at 4:13 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:A society that has no basis for objective morality has no objective basis for condemning "immoral" behavior and thus discouraging actions becomes an endeavor of arbitrariness. Even trying to define what is considered "damaging" becomes subjective, as well as the determination that happiness within society is the best outcome.
Correct
Such a person will be swiftly punished and his actions discouraged because they do damage the functionality of our society and disrupt accepted social norms, but without an objective moral standard such a thing can not be deemed objectively wrong. Now if we establish our current society as the best model for subjective human happiness constructed thus far you could argue there’s an objective reason to dissuade such actions but it’s an argument independent of moral truth.
Essentially what I'm getting at is that humans inherently know right from wrong (because we are made in God's image) and when they adopt a philosophical or moral worldview that diminishes those things that allow for meaning within a moral framework, all standards and actions taken according to those standards are ultimately inconsistent with what people know to be true vs. what they profess to be true in regards to their worldviews.
Posted on 11/7/19 at 4:13 pm to Perfect Circle
quote:
When even atheists admit Christianity is necessary for an ordered moral society, the alarm has been sounded.
A society being more moral because of Christianity doesn't make it any more legitimate than a 5 year old who behaves better because he thinks Santa Claus is watching him and he wants shiny new toys under the tree Christmas morning.
God / Jesus is the adult version of Santa Claus and it's going to take us a while to grow out of it and learn to handle things without the crutch of religion.
Posted on 11/7/19 at 4:14 pm to Perfect Circle
Dawkins’ conversion to the belief that Christianity is good—and perhaps even necessary—for Western civilization to function in harmony is nothing short of mind boggling. Dawkins has been one of secularism’s most intolerant fundamentalists, a man who believed that parents should be denied the right to pass on their faith and that the government should actively side with the godless over the faithful. In a few short years, he is changing his tune.
Dawkins, the smug secularist, might not be so perplexed about his new, unwanted epiphany had he read Gerhard Masur, the German émigré who came here free of the virulent hatred for Western Civilization held by others we allowed in around the same time, who might have explained long ago the reason for this unsettling reality that Dawkins has found necessary to admit.
Masur, the author of the definitive biography on Simon Bolivar, and also a book that is the best look into Western culture between the years 1875 to 1915, in which it was never said better.
Greece taught the universal validity of a truth that all men could perceive;
Rome had given a law universally valid for all men;
and Christianity bestowed the ideal of human brotherhood and the belief in one God whose essence is love, forgiveness, and ultimate redemption.
~Gerhard Masur, from his Prophets of Yesterday
Also, with Dawkins' seemingly matter-of-fact indifference to children being alienated from the influence of their parents, he would make an acceptable member of the staff of the Institute for Social Research.
It's still there, so he should explore the possibilities.
Dawkins, the smug secularist, might not be so perplexed about his new, unwanted epiphany had he read Gerhard Masur, the German émigré who came here free of the virulent hatred for Western Civilization held by others we allowed in around the same time, who might have explained long ago the reason for this unsettling reality that Dawkins has found necessary to admit.
Masur, the author of the definitive biography on Simon Bolivar, and also a book that is the best look into Western culture between the years 1875 to 1915, in which it was never said better.
Greece taught the universal validity of a truth that all men could perceive;
Rome had given a law universally valid for all men;
and Christianity bestowed the ideal of human brotherhood and the belief in one God whose essence is love, forgiveness, and ultimate redemption.
~Gerhard Masur, from his Prophets of Yesterday
Also, with Dawkins' seemingly matter-of-fact indifference to children being alienated from the influence of their parents, he would make an acceptable member of the staff of the Institute for Social Research.
It's still there, so he should explore the possibilities.
This post was edited on 11/7/19 at 4:27 pm
Posted on 11/7/19 at 4:14 pm to Azkiger
quote:It's not pointless because ultimately it can be showed that people are acting inconsistently with what they proclaim to be true.
And if they agree then this point is pointless. Which is why you should ask.
If a person admits that they believe that morality is subjective then by application they should never condemn the actions of anyone else, no matter how unpleasant they find them to be.
Posted on 11/7/19 at 4:23 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
If a person admits that they believe that morality is subjective then by application they should never condemn the actions of anyone else, no matter how unpleasant they find them to be.
Why? The fact that there isn't a universal, objective moral code doesn't preclude me from judging the moral code of another. Why are the two mutually exclusive in your mind?
If your response is to question what makes my moral code superior to that of anyone else, the answer is that it's not. But if my moral code aligns with the general moral framework of the society I live in (be it "America," or "the Western world," or "Humanity", to speak of several levels), then I can judge the actions of others relative to that accepted framework.
As it stands, that's exactly what we do. That's how laws are dictated and enforced. An objective underlying moral code isn't required.
Posted on 11/7/19 at 4:29 pm to Azkiger
quote:
Honest question, if there were no God you'd behave like that?
Observe the reprobate masses.
Posted on 11/7/19 at 4:31 pm to Perfect Circle
Clerical fascism is the only way forward
Posted on 11/7/19 at 4:35 pm to Perfect Circle
quote:
lifesitenews
This shite again? Also one random atheist doesn't speak for everyone
This post was edited on 11/7/19 at 4:36 pm
Posted on 11/7/19 at 4:38 pm to Azkiger
quote:
Why can't neurons firing create, through a very long evolutionary process, feelings of altruism (a conscience).
If having those sorts of feelings increases the likelyhood of survival and the reproduction of your species then it would be selected naturally.
It's not hard to imagine how an altruistic nature would be a good thing for a species.
Altruism and Natural Selection (survival of the fittest, the strong outcompete the weak for resources) are mutually exclusive.
Posted on 11/7/19 at 4:39 pm to Perfect Circle
quote:
Altruism and Natural Selection (survival of the fittest, the strong outcompete the weak for resources) are mutually exclusive.
They absolutely are not.
Posted on 11/7/19 at 4:42 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
If a person admits that they believe that morality is subjective then by application they should never condemn the actions of anyone else, no matter how unpleasant they find them to be.
Incorrect. That only holds true if you believe that the level of subjectivity is dynamically and chaotically changing within that person. Generally a person's morality is going to be fairly static although it may vary from subject to subject depending on various factors.
You seem to be trying to take the wildly varying morality of a society that looks at it subjectively and trying to apply that to a person.
Page 8 of 19
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News