Friday, November 20, 2009

If I Understand You Correctly

If I understand atheists correctly, our morals and obligations are actually invented, made up as we go along.

At one point rape really was ok, and then it became not ok. On atheism, that could change again.

At one point racism really was ok, and then it became not ok. On atheism, that could change again.

On atheism, no one is in a position to judge Hitler’s actions as right or wrong.

Right now having sex with animals really isn’t ok but as atheist Peter Singer predicts, one day bestiality “will cease to be an offence to our status and dignity as human beings.”
Peter Singer, “Heavy Petting,” a review of Midas Dekker’s dearest Pet: On Bestiality (2001)


At one point pornography was not ok. Because of moral relativism that goes hand in glove with atheism, that has changed.

At one point having sex with children was wrong. Because of moral relativism that goes hand in glove with atheism, that is changing.

On atheism we first invent morality and then it becomes right.

Now atheists are correct when they say, we should be good for goodness sake, not because we think someone might be watching. The problem is, atheists say that we alone decide for ourselves what is good. So when we’re pretty sure that no one is looking a high percentage of people (those who disagree with the society in which they live) are actually not so good.

Atheists say that the community should decide what is right and wrong, but that only works if the community agrees with what atheists think - eg, no prayer in school, same sex marriage etc. In those cases atheists say, “It doesn’t matter what the community thinks. It only matters what we / I think.”

The problem is, there is only room for one God in any given universe. When your god and my god are forced to share the same space, or to decide what is right or wrong, good or bad, something has got to give. On atheism, might decides what and who is right.

If I understand atheists correctly, atheism is absurd on virtually every level.

18 comments:

Marcus Wellington said...

'eg, no prayer in school, same sex marriage etc'

I got one point to make. 'no prayer in schools'? As long as there is maths tests, there will always be prayer in schools. No one can stop you praying in school.

It's actually _No teacher led prayer in schools_ and it's a good thing.

Why is it a good thing?
If we had teacher-led prayer in schools then the Papists would have our children forced to worship lifeless statues and THE POPE. Imagine the damage if Moslems started becoming teachers!

If our religion mixes with the government, we'll end up with a watered-down, 'Church Of England' style government religion. We can not let that happen.

Makarios said...

I'm not suggesting either prayer (teacher led) or same sex marriage is right / wrong, good / bad. I was just pointing out how community ideas of right and wrong change over time and how atheists are all for it, or all against it depending on whether they agree or not.

tinkbell13 said...

I am not being nice about this anymore.

I can see that your private intellectual pipeline has really told you what all us of think. Not only that, it has made you privy to completely understand how our thoughts are trending within society. Really, you are not learning at all from any of us.

The modern English word "stupid" has a broad range of application, from being slow of mind (indicating a lack of intelligence, care or reason), dullness of feeling or sensation (torpidity, senseless, insensitivity), or lacking interest or point (vexing, exasperating). It can either infer a congenital lack of capacity for reasoning, or a temporary state of daze or slow-mindedness.

What is it? You cannot even try to provide an articulate argument.

uzza said...

"If I understand atheists correctly,"

but you don't, so who cares?

Makarios said...

"but you don't, so who cares?"

What did I get wrong?

tinkbell13 said...

WE HAVE BEEN TELLING YOU ALL ALONG WHAT YOU GET WRONG.... You lump us all into one category that is bordering on being entirely demeaning.

Flute said...

Papists is a pretty offensive word, Markus. They prefer to be called Catholics. (A vast number of non-catholic Christians don't believe Catholics are true Christians)

Gandolf said...

Mak->"If I understand atheists correctly, our morals and obligations are actually invented, made up as we go along."

Hi Mak .. Yes that must be what happens ... Think about it ... In the first testament they stoned folks to death ... Years later by the time the second testament came along,they no longer stoned folks to death.

Yet the fact remains it was never ever really a good or moral thing to do to stone folk to death.

So yes like you said .." our morals and obligations are actually invented/evolving, made up as we go along."

Mak->"At one point rape really was ok, and then it became not ok. On atheism, that could change again."

The bible if it actually does one thing it sure records some human history.And by looking in the bible you can see it written where in the old days even raping a women was often not so frowned upon,and even maybe quotes of suppling your own vigin daughters was a suggestion for escaping something else happening etc.

So yes Mak its so very very obvious morals have evloved over time the bible is very good proof of this.Thats the logical and only honest understanding we can have of how it happens.Its what fits the actual honest factual evidence Mak.

I suggest only a biased opinion would stop you and disallow you to let yourself see it Mak.A type of tunnel vision that trys to make the obvious evidence available,still fit religious indoctrinated opinion! even when the evidence suggests completely otherwise.

But why do you need to suggest under atheist rule rape could change back to being ok ?.Is it because as a christian you feel a need to just try absolutely anything possible to hopefully grasp onto some moral high ground no matter what,and if that means wrongful assertions imposed on atheists to purposley try lowering and demeaning the outlook of their morality ...Then so be it ..youll do it! you dont mind even if it takes some dishonest judgement and unfair assertions... Who cares hmmm ?

I really cant understand this, so please tell me Mak what good feeling is it for someone having a faith belief, if he/she knows it takes needing to revert to a little dishonesty and unfair judgement or wrongful assertions with regards to truth of others, to survive?.Do you just simply overlook those things,and focus your thought on supposedly how rightious and good the faith and love of god makes people?.

Sure i freely admit i no longer believe in any god! and also havent been to church warming pews for many many years now! ,i dont bother reading bibles!.

But i still very much like to try to always be as fair and honest as i posibly can be.Specially concerning matters of other people,it all comes back down to matters of our evolution of the golden rule really.Its a matter of simple human decency,and i suggest is good proof lack of god does not suggest non believers need revert to any immorality at all.

Ginx said...

Actually, since rape and racism/slavery were instituted under Christian ideology, that would make them the ones most liable to re-institute it.

Makarios said...

Now look what you've done. You've gone and made me contradict myself!

More on this later.

Makarios said...

Yet the fact remains it was never ever really a good or moral thing to do to stone folk to death.

So yes like you said .." our morals and obligations are actually invented/evolving, made up as we go along."

So in comment one you describe objective morals, "It's wrong regardless of what people think." and in comment two you describe selective morality, "It might have been ok at one point but now it's not ok."

Gandolf said...

Hi Mak i cant see how there are any morals which are objective in the sense of coming from some supernatural higher being,if that were the case we would have always known stoning people to death was wrong.

The fact that we can see this moral evolved proves all morals are connected only to the thoughts and knowledge of man and the time in which the morals are being used.

So all morals have always been selective Mak,years ago they selected it was ok to stone folks,these day we select its not ok.Why? ..because our knowledge has grown and matured over time.

So no i dont think rape was ever really ok either.

Yes it was selective/evolving because the bible you read even proves that many years ago at that time morals were still barbaric and not really so moral at all.

Back then it seems many thought rape was ok sometimes,today most everyone including me thinks rape is not ever ok.

Makarios said...

Hi Mak i cant see how there are any morals which are objective in the sense of coming from some supernatural higher being, if that were the case we would have always known stoning people to death was wrong."

Stoning people is simply a method of execution. Methods of execution have changed down through history, but I wouldn’t say that execution is objectively wrong.
==============

“So no i dont think rape was ever really ok either.”

It is for other animals. I’m saying that rape is objectively wrong. On atheism, rape is “wrong” only as a societal taboo.
================

Gandolf said...

Mak->"but I wouldn’t say that execution is objectively wrong."

What not even if you execute a innocent person?.

Im very thankful folks of faith dont rules us.

And i disagree stoning people is not simply just execution, its actually execution with added torture!.It was nasty barbaric religious folk with bad prehistoric cave-man type social skill morals,that were not yet evolved into the modern social skills we have today.

Mak->"Methods of execution have changed down through history"

Yes they have evolved Mak,they evolved because they were always based on mans thoughts and decisions.And this is proof gods have never ever existed.

Mak->"It is for other animals. I’m saying that rape is objectively wrong. On atheism, rape is “wrong” only as a societal taboo."

Yes but even if we are like animals we still have our own special set of social rules which yes do happen to evolve, just like most animals do.Our human social rules have evolved to where we no longer accept rape as part of our social rule....That is little different to us no longer accepting stoning folks to death either.

Why get so upset over social rules? why all the handwaving like its something specially unheard of Mak ?,disallowing devorce is only a old social rule of religion and a ancient possessive tendency of opressive type male attitudes of ways the used laws to be able to ensure domination and control.

You didnt (really) think it was actually some god who suggested women need to be owned and dominated did you Mak?.

I realize its very important for your faith to try to believe faith morals somehow are something very different to human social morals....But they are not Mak ... Christian moral are simply christian social morals that evolved around the circles of christian faith believers thats all they ever really were....There is much evidence that proves this Mak including the fact stoning folks was never simply execution and moral, it was actually always execution with torture added and was always totally barbaric and totally immoral as well.

As Gods are unlikely to ever make such wrongful immoral decisions by suggesting execution by stoning,this evidence suggests there is good proof that god/s never ever existed.

The only honest answer that really fits the evidence is, human morals are social and cultural and relative to time and human thought etc.

Mak->"I’m saying that rape is objectively wrong"

By what moral law ? ..Your bible? .Pffffttt! ....What use is it suggesting the bible as any benchmark,hell there is plenty of suggestions of rape within that bible from time to time Mak...That bible was a hotbed!, of human social type thinking and evolving morals

Once again proof, rape was only considered morally wrong relative to the surrounding cultural and evolving social thoughts of humans.

Tristan Vick said...

Christians are basically creating their own sense of right and wrong, good and bad, and using what they know—whether they get it from their holy leaders or from the Bible directly--to try and formulate ways of thinking which tie into the ecumenical whole. But this is, in all intents and purposes, relative moralizing. Which means they are doing what Atheists and secular humanists do when we practice moral relativism.

Makarios said...

“And i disagree stoning people is not simply just execution, its actually execution with added torture!.”

Ya, they should have used lethal injection.
===========

“Yes they have evolved Mak,they evolved because they were always based on mans thoughts and decisions. And this is proof gods have never ever existed.”

What’s the definition of non sequitur? See Gandhi’s replies.
=============
“social rules which yes do happen to evolve, just like most animals do.”

Now that’s interesting. I’ve not read anything about the morals of lions, or penguins, or lizards changing over time. Perhaps you could direct me to your source material.
=================

“What use is it suggesting the bible as any benchmark,hell there is plenty of suggestions of rape within that bible from time to time Mak...That bible was a hotbed!, of human social type thinking and evolving morals”

Interesting how you take a Book that is a litany of our failures and you understand it as being a description of God’s blessing and approval of our failures.

It’s hard to describe just how far atheists fall from comprehending anything to do with their Creator.
===========

Tristan: Sadly, in many cases, you are correct. Only 20 years or so ago, the divorce rate for those identifying themselves as “Bible believing Christian” was 1 in 14,000. Today, as many have gone down exactly the road you describe, “Christians” are divorcing at a rate as great or even greater than their secular neighbours.

It would be a mistake however to look at what some people are doing and say that they are getting their lead from the Bible. I believe that it’s in Malachi where God says in no uncertain terms, “I hate divorce.”

Thankfully neither you nor I will be held accountable for what other people are doing or not doing.

Gandolf said...

"Ya, they should have used lethal injection."

Mak you know full well there was plenty of other ways to kill people quickly and more humanely,than stoning.

"Now that’s interesting. I’ve not read anything about the morals of lions,"

No social rules Mak which is all morals really are anyway,and yes Mak believe it or not animals evolve a certain amount to.Sorry today i cant be bothered hunting for information thats unlikely to change what has come to seem to me only a biased opinion anyway.Believe animal social rules dont ever change if you wish Mak i dont mind,but please dont moan when many christians start getting called things like being ignorant and deluded.People are often only stating a simple fact.

"understand it as being a description of God’s blessing and approval of our failures."

Interesting how it can be translated to suit.Very extra interesting that it can obviously be translated by many to induce them to do the most nasty things also...Should i take yours and a few others opinion of what the translation supposedly really should be...And simply forget all those very many others who disagreed with you and translated it to suggest they could be real nasty.

For instance if say some manual for VW mechanics existed that led heaps of people trying to use it to fix their car, into making a complete balls-up!! of fixing the car...Like you i could fall on special pleading and try begging ... oh but but no, folks are just not translating it correctly thats all honest.

But the fact remains Mak, the manual is still a utter mess.The evidence of the very many balls-ups repair jobs prove it so.It quite often obviously doesnt help folk to repair their car,it often makes the car a complete right off unstead.

Anonymous said...

What a great resource!