• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why I am non-religious

Logicman said:
Richard Dawkins and Christian Ravi Zacharias

Dawkins: “What do I think about God? The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomanical, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” – Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

Ravi Zacharias responds: “Now, he (Dawkins) just finished telling us God’s a fictional character! That’s half of the point. The other half of the point is what he thinks about humanity. He goes on to say that basically, he believes in the goodness of humanity without God watching over. Either I’m confused or he is. If God doesn’t exist and all these descriptions apply, then who did these things? Who wrote the Old Testament if God didn’t inspire the words? That would be his answer. And who ordered all these things? That would be humanity. Why are you (Dawkins) so positive about humanity and so down on God when it was humanity who manufactured the God that you deny?”

And who killed all those people throughout history – hundreds of millions of them, if God is fictional? It was humanity. And you – Dawkins – believe humanity is ‘good’! Atheists…. :lamo
Click to expand...

What a siily post. God does not need to exist in order for men to exploit the idea that one does. God is indeed nothing more than a fiction. The evil a man will commit with the excuse that it is what a god wants is real.
 
Logicman said:
Richard Dawkins and Christian Ravi Zacharias

Dawkins: “What do I think about God? The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomanical, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” – Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

Ravi Zacharias responds: “Now, he (Dawkins) just finished telling us God’s a fictional character! That’s half of the point. The other half of the point is what he thinks about humanity. He goes on to say that basically, he believes in the goodness of humanity without God watching over. Either I’m confused or he is. If God doesn’t exist and all these descriptions apply, then who did these things? Who wrote the Old Testament if God didn’t inspire the words? That would be his answer. And who ordered all these things? That would be humanity. Why are you (Dawkins) so positive about humanity and so down on God when it was humanity who manufactured the God that you deny?”

And who killed all those people throughout history – hundreds of millions of them, if God is fictional? It was humanity. And you – Dawkins – believe humanity is ‘good’! Atheists…. :lamo
Click to expand...

Glad to see you finally admit God is a figment of your imagination.
 
soylentgreen said:
Well apparently christians do, in fact they will even murder babies after they are born and then claim it was done in the name of god.

Tuam mass grave 'contains bodies of 800 babies' at site of Irish home for unmarried mothers | Daily Mail Online


Anyone can do good, theists who are christians and theists who are not christians and atheists and agnostics. All capable of doing good things. But it takes a believer in god to do such evil and claim it the will of god.
Click to expand...

On the contrary. They waited till have the child was born.
 
Logicman said:
Was Hitler a Christian?
Click to expand...

WHy, there are certain Christian groups that like to play that 'Hitler wasn't a CHristian' claim.. but the claim (coming through the book 'Table Talk, which has a very poor chain of evidence, particularly the English translation), is weak at best. He was a member of the Catholic church in good standing throughout his entire time as leader of Germany.
 
RAMOSS said:
WHy, there are certain Christian groups that like to play that 'Hitler wasn't a CHristian' claim.. but the claim (coming through the book 'Table Talk, which has a very poor chain of evidence, particularly the English translation), is weak at best. He was a member of the Catholic church in good standing throughout his entire time as leader of Germany.
Click to expand...

Absolute horse manure. You still have a clue what you're talking about.

If anything he was a Reform Jew due to his Jewish heritage.

Study Suggests Adolf Hitler Had Jewish and African Ancestors - History in the Headlines.
 
Last edited:
Logicman said:
Absolute horse manure. You still have a clue what you're talking about.

If anything he was a Reform Jew due to his Jewish heritage.

Study Suggests Adolf Hitler Had Jewish and African Ancestors - History in the Headlines.
Click to expand...

Well, .. that rumor has been around or ages and ages.. but.. no one has ever come up with anything more than speculation and innuendo. If you noticed.. it's one of the history channel 'specials' that 'they hope to find' evidence. However, in the 7 years since they said they 'hope' to find evidence, not one shred was found. It's one of the history channels exaggerations and misdirection s for ratings. I will have to say you lack discernment when it comes to analyzing sources. FOr one thing although it was reported in a number of news papers, not one scientific or historical article actually got published. Amazing how things get disseminated like that, yet no paper gets published in a peer reviewed journal.
 
RAMOSS said:
Well, .. that rumor has been around or ages and ages.. but.. no one has ever come up with anything more than speculation and innuendo. If you noticed.. it's one of the history channel 'specials' that 'they hope to find' evidence. However, in the 7 years since they said they 'hope' to find evidence, not one shred was found. It's one of the history channels exaggerations and misdirection s for ratings. I will have to say you lack discernment when it comes to analyzing sources. FOr one thing although it was reported in a number of news papers, not one scientific or historical article actually got published. Amazing how things get disseminated like that, yet no paper gets published in a peer reviewed journal.
Click to expand...

Beats the cyber-dysentery you post.
 
Logicman said:
Beats the cyber-dysentery you post.
Click to expand...

The one thing I noticed, you aren't able to actually refute anything I say, but merely use potty humor to hand wave things away.
 
Logicman said:
What's your objective basis for saying something is evil? You don't believe in God's moral laws so all you have is your own subjective opinion. At that point, what makes your opinion more valid than the other 6 billion people on earth?
Click to expand...
I dont have an objective basis. All ethics/morals/opinion are subjective.


So, God is malevolent but man is inherently good?
Click to expand...
Nope. I subscribe to Robert Ardrey's view in that man is a territorial animal.
 
Paralogic said:
They were not evil, and it's provable... whatever "evil" means, which is undefinable.
Click to expand...
Wrong.

evil
[ee-vuh l]

adjective
1.
morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked:

Evil | Define Evil at Dictionary.com

Hitler and Stalin did not cause all that destruction on their own. They probably did not kill even one human being themselves, ever. The just barked out orders and a lot of other people -- A LOT -- chose to adhere to the orders and carry them out.

Where all those people evil too? It's easy to show that such a group of almost random people just happened to be "evil" and be at the same place and time as their "evil" leader. That's statistically improbable.

The term "evil" assumes that there is some benevolent supernatural entity out there that some humans refuse to follow, and they follow the hypothetical malevolent supernatural entity instead.

That's just mental crap. :)
Click to expand...

Hitler and Stalin were - by definition - evil.

As for the people that carried out those orders...it depends.

The Milgram experiments proved time and again that about 2/3 of humanity could (theoretically) kill another human being simply because they were ordered to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

Were they evil or just staggeringly weak/stupid? I do not know.


But Hitler and Stalin WERE DEFINITELY - by definition - evil.
 
Ace300 said:
I don't believe in agency since we have no ability to choose our personality and hence we have no ability to choose our values. As such, I don't believe there is such a thing as good and evil, because the idea of good and evil is based on the idea of having agency to choose, meaning choose our values.
Click to expand...

Sounds to me that you might be trying to justify the committing of immoral acts.

I hope that is not the case.

Because immoral acts are wrong and you will and shall be judged negatively for those acts. By whom? Other than humanity - I do not know.
 
PoS said:
I dont have an objective basis. All ethics/morals/opinion are subjective.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. But assuming you were correct, then my subjective morals are at least as good as yours. In fact, if my morals say it's ok to bash someone over the head and take their money, then regardless of what the law says, who are you to say that's really wrong?

(In atheism) "Our very reasoning (our minds) can no longer be trusted, because we can only assume that our minds, controlled by our genes, are not geared towards truth but towards whatever might aid our survival. In fact, the atheist philosopher John Gray concedes exactly that when he writes, “The human mind serves evolutionary success, not truth.” It is a staggering claim.

John Lennox responds to Gray with a serious rebuttal:

"But what about Gray’s own mind…one must suppose, according to Gray, that his writing this sentence [“The human mind serves evolutionary success, not truth”] serves evolutionary success. Well, it certainly would appear to serve the success of evolutionary theory, if it were true. But then Gray has undermined the very concept of truth, and so has removed all reason for us to take him seriously. Logical incoherence (in the mind of an atheist) reigns once more."

Is Anything Wrong (in Atheism)?

Is Anything “Wrong”? | RZIM
 
Logicman said:
Incorrect. But assuming you were correct, then my subjective morals are at least as good as yours. In fact, if my morals say it's ok to bash someone over the head and take their money, then regardless of what the law says, who are you to say that's really wrong?

(In atheism) "Our very reasoning (our minds) can no longer be trusted, because we can only assume that our minds, controlled by our genes, are not geared towards truth but towards whatever might aid our survival. In fact, the atheist philosopher John Gray concedes exactly that when he writes, “The human mind serves evolutionary success, not truth.” It is a staggering claim.

John Lennox responds to Gray with a serious rebuttal:

"But what about Gray’s own mind…one must suppose, according to Gray, that his writing this sentence [“The human mind serves evolutionary success, not truth”] serves evolutionary success. Well, it certainly would appear to serve the success of evolutionary theory, if it were true. But then Gray has undermined the very concept of truth, and so has removed all reason for us to take him seriously. Logical incoherence (in the mind of an atheist) reigns once more."

Is Anything Wrong (in Atheism)?

Is Anything “Wrong”? | RZIM
Click to expand...

Welll, that is basically someone saying 'I don't like athiests'. But, other than personal opinion, and unsupported rhetoric, is there any evidence this person actually provided? That entire essay seems to be 'let me talk to people's preconceptions and bigotry, so I can get money from them'
 
Logicman said:
Incorrect. But assuming you were correct, then my subjective morals are at least as good as yours. In fact, if my morals say it's ok to bash someone over the head and take their money, then regardless of what the law says, who are you to say that's really wrong?

(In atheism) "Our very reasoning (our minds) can no longer be trusted, because we can only assume that our minds, controlled by our genes, are not geared towards truth but towards whatever might aid our survival. In fact, the atheist philosopher John Gray concedes exactly that when he writes, “The human mind serves evolutionary success, not truth.” It is a staggering claim.

John Lennox responds to Gray with a serious rebuttal:

"But what about Gray’s own mind…one must suppose, according to Gray, that his writing this sentence [“The human mind serves evolutionary success, not truth”] serves evolutionary success. Well, it certainly would appear to serve the success of evolutionary theory, if it were true. But then Gray has undermined the very concept of truth, and so has removed all reason for us to take him seriously. Logical incoherence (in the mind of an atheist) reigns once more."

Is Anything Wrong (in Atheism)?

Is Anything “Wrong”? | RZIM
Click to expand...

Nothing is wrong in atheism because atheism is not a religion nor a moral code and makes no claims to be one. Human created moral codes do define right and wrong which are expected to be followed by members of whatever society or culture imposes those particular codes. This has varied through history and different societies and cultures. These are the facts of human created morality. Morality comes from man, is imposed and enforced by man.
 
Ace300 said:
No, I am pointing out we are not free to choose our values, and that our values dictate everything we do.
Click to expand...

Why do you believe either of those propositions? Seems to me we can choose our values to some extent. It also sure seems that values underspecify our actions.

Ace300 said:
You cannot be calmer if you don't first value being calmer more than not being calmer. If you for some reason you start valuing being calmer, you will just start being calmer. No choice is made.
Click to expand...

This strikes me as being underwritten by an overly simplistic view of both values and choices. Of course our choices are influenced by our values. I see no reason to suspect that our choices are determined by our values. But even if this is the case, I also see no reason to think that means we don't make a choice. A choice just is figuring out what to do. It is not random, but not determined either.
 
devildavid said:
Nothing is wrong in atheism because atheism is not a religion nor a moral code and makes no claims to be one. Human created moral codes do define right and wrong which are expected to be followed by members of whatever society or culture imposes those particular codes. This has varied through history and different societies and cultures. These are the facts of human created morality. Morality comes from man, is imposed and enforced by man.
Click to expand...

Atheism has a ton of problems - no objective moral basis for laws, incoherence regarding truth claims, and at the end of the day, a trip down to the Pit for eternity.

Objective morality comes from God. Period.
 
RAMOSS said:
Welll, that is basically someone saying 'I don't like athiests'. But, other than personal opinion, and unsupported rhetoric, is there any evidence this person actually provided? That entire essay seems to be 'let me talk to people's preconceptions and bigotry, so I can get money from them'
Click to expand...

Forgive me, I had forgotten about you. You may go now.
 
Logicman said:
Atheism has a ton of problems - no objective moral basis for laws, incoherence regarding truth claims, and at the end of the day, a trip down to the Pit for eternity.

Objective morality comes from God. Period.
Click to expand...

Atheism is not a philosophy at all. It is simply a lack of belief in god. Atheists can follow any man made moral code they see fit or not, just as theists do. There is no god therefore there is no objective morality. Morality is subjective in its very nature being about how humans should behave. Period.
 
Logicman said:
Atheism has a ton of problems - no objective moral basis for laws, incoherence regarding truth claims, and at the end of the day, a trip down to the Pit for eternity.

Objective morality comes from God. Period.
Click to expand...

All morals are subjective
 
devildavid said:
Atheism is not a philosophy at all. It is simply a lack of belief in god. Atheists can follow any man made moral code they see fit or not, just as theists do. There is no god therefore there is no objective morality. Morality is subjective in its very nature being about how humans should behave. Period.
Click to expand...

Wrong again.
 
devildavid said:
There is no god therefore there is no objective morality. Morality is subjective in its very nature being about how humans should behave. Period.
Click to expand...

Moral Realism, the idea that there is such a thing as objective morality, is the dominant position within the fields of normative ethics and meta-ethics today. I'm not saying they are right, I'm just pointing out that, contrary to your claim, whether God exists or not has no bearing on whether morality is objective or not. Atheist philosophers regularly defend the moral realist position; indeed most philosophers in those fields are atheists AND moral realists.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/
 
Last edited:
CrabCake said:
Moral Realism, the idea that there is such a thing as objective morality, is the dominant position within the fields of normative ethics and meta-ethics today. I'm not saying they are right, I'm just pointing out that, contrary to your claim, whether God exists or not has no bearing on whether morality is objective or not. Atheist philosophers regularly defend the moral realist position; indeed most philosophers in those fields are atheists AND moral realists.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/
Click to expand...

I obviously disagree with the stance of moral realists in some way. But that doesn't mean that I think that moral codes are meaningless. I think moral codes are very useful in helping to create a more ordered, peaceful social environment. I am not at all opposed to moral codes per se, only to the claim that they are objective beyond the context of what is accepted for each particular society.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom