Thursday, November 12, 2009

Love? Only if you want to.

So say atheist relativists. I can ask them over and over and over again if love (eg. Loving our children) is an objective moral obligation / value. They would love to say “No” but can’t quite make themselves do it. Instead they say nothing at all. And why would they do that? Because atheists know that if there are objective morals, values and obligations, it’s because Creator God exists. If Creator God exists, then objective morals, values and duties exist.

So absurd is the atheist world-view, that atheists would rather say that discrimination against women and even the sexual slavery of children is open for discussion, as long as it keeps out the existence of Creator God.

10 comments:

Chris Mackey said...

Morals, values and duties are not objective.

While there is no universally accepted articulation of objectivity, a proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are "mind-independent.

Chris Mackey said...

Because atheists know that if there are objective morals, values and obligations, it’s because Creator God exists.

Non sequitur.

So absurd is the atheist world-view, that atheists would rather say that discrimination against women and even the sexual slavery of children is open for discussion, as long as it keeps out the existence of Creator God.

The sexual slavery of girl children of a neighboring people was approved of by YHWH in the Old Testament. The list of female discriminatory verses and laws in the Bible is long.

Chris Mackey said...

"Love? Only if you want to."

Jesus' message from YHWH can basically be summed up as "Love me or I'll throw you into a fire."

tinkbell13 said...

As long as you persist in your childish generalizations, I will continue. It is time for you to think.

You said;
"So absurd is the atheist world-view, that atheists would rather say that discrimination against women and even the sexual slavery of children is open for discussion, as long as it keeps out the existence of Creator God.

So, you are again dismissing the contextual implications of the Bible, and minimizing the pain and suffering that the Bible has caused. You feel that atheists use this as a way of deflecting and denying the existance of God. Total bullshit. Never mind the pain associated to the people that you are discussing. it is funny, and a flimsy argument to you.

The Bible, in your world, is the word of God. Let us examine how the Bible directs people to behave towards women. Here are a few examples;

"And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire." (Leviticus 21:9)

"Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go." (Judges 19:24-25)

So, do you support this? Are you saying that it is acceptable to kill a woman who is a "whore" or to use your daughters as concubine?

Or, how about keeping them good and ignorant? Are you telling me that women should not be allowed to speak in churches?

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)

Where did you find out what the atheist world view is? Can you please post a link so that I can read it and understand how I am to view the world? Could you please clarify what my objective obligations are?

The Atheist Missionary said...

Makarios, I think you have been writing this blog long enough to know perfectly well that there is no such thing as an atheist world view. Everyone living outside your bubble (including those with other religious delusions) reject your beliefs but that is where the uniformity ends.

You are smart enough to know that love for our children is an evolved emotion. Why are children many more times likely to be abused by step-parents than their biological parents?

Your Creator Judeo-Christian god is a joke and a figment of your imagination. Just look at yourself. On a virtually daily basis, you need to keep telling yourself and others that he/she/it exists.

I must say that I find this blog amusing. It's almost like you enjoy the intellectual flagellation.

Gandolf said...

"So say atheist relativists. I can ask them over and over and over again if love (eg. Loving our children) is an objective moral obligation / value. They would love to say “No” but can’t quite make themselves do it. Instead they say nothing at all."

Mak ive already said before more than once, its only "relative" to everyone of us all thinking its good/ moral to love our children.

The moral still is only relative to humans and their emotions etc..That most humans ALL love their children has got nothing to do with any connections to god/s.

Most animals ALL love their babies too,and its just "relative" to animals and feeling emotions for offspring.Animals dont read no bibles!...They still love their children though!...Its relative to emotion and offspring

Its maybe thought a "ultimate" type moral, in the sense the worldwide stats say almost every being "agrees" on it.

Mak even your bible proves morals are often only relative...Remember they once stoned people to death very often many years ago...(Because then it was suggested to be thought moral).

By seeing the moral change we can tell it was "only ever relative" to human thought!..It just cannot be any "objective" god moral,as "objective" god morals should never have any need to change like we see this moral in the bible does..

Froggie said...

Chris Mackey said...
"Love? Only if you want to."

Jesus' message from YHWH can basically be summed up as "Love me or I'll throw you into a fire."
----------------------------------

That's not love, that's blackmail.

tinkbell13 said...

Here is another definition that summarizes the general world view found on this blog- Stereotyping.

"So absurd is the atheist world-view, that atheists would rather say that discrimination against women and even the sexual slavery of children is open for discussion, as long as it keeps out the existence of Creator God."


What is a Stereotype?

Stereotype: A fixed, commonly held notion or image of a person or group, based on an oversimplification of some observed or imagined trait of behaviour or appearance.
Stereotypes are as old as human culture itself. They reflect ideas that groups of people hold about others who are different from them.

A stereotype can be embedded in single word or phrase (such as, "jock" or "nerd"), an image, or a combination of words and images. The image evoked is easily recognized and understood by others who share the same views.

Stereotypes can be either positive ("black men are good at basketball") or negative ("women are bad drivers"). But most stereotypes tend to make us feel superior in some way to the person or group being stereotyped. Stereotypes ignore the uniqueness of individuals by painting all members of a group with the same brush.

Makarios said...

The sexual slavery of girl children of a neighboring people was approved of by YHWH in the Old Testament. The list of female discriminatory verses and laws in the Bible is long'

So? Are you suggesting that there is something wrong with that?
================

"Love me or I'll throw you into a fire."

You say that like it'sa bad thing.

tinkbell13 said...

Are you suggesting that there is nothing wrong with that? You know better than that, or I would like to think that you do.

Love me or I will throw you in the fire.

I refuse to believe that anyone thinks that this is acceptable. I would like to think that humans are more civilized.