DELLAPELLE JOHN Posted October 2, 2009 Author Share Posted October 2, 2009 btw none of this has to do with justifying belief in zeus... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 of course the value can change, it depends on the situation.... The definition of moral relativism ladies and gentlemen. Finally. this isnt moral relativism, Yes, it is. its still based on a foundation of happiness and suffering... its subjective but not moral relativism... again at least i have a foundation that wraps around on itself. happiness is conducive towards more happiness... belief that morals come from god imply that what god does is moral, no matter what action, this is moral relativism...there is no value system here or utility... You really don't understand the definition of the word relative do you? Moreover, you don't understand that definition of absolute either. If we are to believe that morality comes from God, then it is an ABSOLUTE morality, as in "The 10 COMMANDMENTS", not suggestions, not guidelines. "Thou shalt not kill" is an absolute. It does not say: "Thou shalt not kill, unless of course this situation, in your judgment, calls for it, or, it's Wednesday, then it's OK". So babbling about how God is relative is ridiculous. In fact it is the rigidity of religion that normally draws criticism. I have never heard of any serious person trying to make the case that religion is fluid or relative and therefore bad. The other point I was making in my first post is: atheism can easily be criticized for the exact same rigidity of thinking as religion can = ACLU lawsuits, etc. i believe something is right because its conducive towards well being. So therefore you believe it's OK to steal, because it will be conducive to the thief's well being. You must also like taxes, because it's OK to take from one person, and give to another, as long as we are only concerned with the 2nd person's well being. a theist believes something is right because god said so... this is moral relatvism Wrong, and wrong. Most theists believe that while God, Buddha, Allah, etc. has made laws/rules, he has done it through men. Also, it is up to each person to exercise free will as to how and when they follow those laws. They also believe that no man is perfect and therefore, atonement is necessary when those laws are not followed. Nothing relative about that. your premise that because i place value on life and that this value can change says nothing about what is moral or not , it just says that the values themselves can change depending on the situtation... ur equating change with moral relativism. that is where u r wrong The fact that your beliefs can change, based on the situation, is by definition relative. Go look up the word for pete's sake...or better, let me do it for you:Moral relativism. Once again, instead of basing your beliefs on universal truths, you are saying that they can change at any time.... Morality by definition, and therefore, those who have morals, say that these universal principles are absolute and NEVER CHANGE regardless of the situation. Now enough of this babble. Learn what these words/concepts mean. This is a fine example, again, of why any atheist who considers himself smarter than other people, just because he is an atheist, is in fact a fool. Intellectual achievement is an individual thing. You don't get an "I'm smart" card when you join a group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 an atheists ethics come from the foundation of happiness and suffering... Says what? The Athiest Handbook? You get called names because you're just plain stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olivier in france Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Seen with my deist eyes this debate between atheist and religious people is a total waste of time. Atheism has no sense for me and religions either. How can humans be so arrogant they can think there is no "something" above all this? How can humans be so arrogant they think "God" has a plan for them and send them once in a while some prophets/angels/his "son" or whatever you want? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 bottom line christianity says non-believers will go to hell... its not a good premise, its disturbing man And here we have it. The main reason that DumbLapel John hates Christianity...because he can't fathom the thought that a God who is unable to stomach sin in his presence would send the souls of human beings to a place that was intended for the fallen angels. But, as usual for these types of "i'm not eating my broccoli" atheists, he misses the point completely that God PROVIDED a way out, through Jesus. The whole point of Christianity is SAVING people from an eternity separated from God, not sending people to Hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 558,675 (Minutes) = 9311.25 (Hours) 9311.25 (Hours) = 387.97 (Days) 387.97 (Days) = 1.06 (Years) 1.06 full years of your life. If my math is no good, I'm sure I'll hear about it. Religion is a hobby, like watching football or, arguably more to the point, Dungeons & Dragons. And like any other hobby, it carries an opportunity cost. That year is a waking year. I prefer to think about it economically. Leaving out tithes, donations, and offerings, as well as gas, your Sunday suit, and other things, 9,300 man hours is spent on the hobby. At a billable rate of $50 an hour say, you are talking about $40,000 worth of your time. I suggest spending half of that time working, and the other half in Vegas worshiping the Goddess Lady Luck, who offers an occasional blessing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Religion is a hobby, like watching football or, arguably more to the point, Dungeons & Dragons. And like any other hobby, it carries an opportunity cost. That year is a waking year. I prefer to think about it economically. Leaving out tithes, donations, and offerings, as well as gas, your Sunday suit, and other things, 9,300 man hours is spent on the hobby. At a billable rate of $50 an hour say, you are talking about $40,000 worth of your time. I suggest spending half of that time working, and the other half in Vegas worshiping the God Lady Luck, who offers an occasional blessing. I doubt any true believer would be satisfied with your 'religion is a hobby' statement but I think you're pretty close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 In general, yes. Specifically as Darwin laid out, no. Care to elaborate on this please? I'd like to know what you specifically think Darwin was wrong about. I honestly can't get enough of this particular brand of anti-Darwin sentiment especially from a true believer. Please provide some details. If you knew what you were talking about, you would know that the vast majority of what Darwin laid out in On the Origin of Species was pretty much dead-on and has held up to years and years of scrutiny from people who would give their left nut to discredit his ideas. Darwin has truly had it almost completely right so far - an amazing achievement considering the relatively primitive science that existed when he was forming his theories. The evidence for Darwinian Evolution today is overwhelming when you consider the genetic links we are now able to draw between species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Care to elaborate on this please? I'd like to know what you specifically think Darwin was wrong about. I honestly can't get enough of this particular brand of anti-Darwin sentiment especially from a true believer. Please provide some details. If you knew what you were talking about, you would know that the vast majority of what Darwin laid out in On the Origin of Species was pretty much dead-on and has held up to years and years of scrutiny from people who would give their left nut to discredit his ideas. Darwin has truly had it almost completely right so far - an amazing achievement considering the relatively primitive science that existed when he was forming his theories. The evidence for Darwinian Evolution today is overwhelming when you consider the genetic links we are now able to draw between species. It would take far too much time to elaborate well on this. Suffice it to say, I am NOT anti-Darwin. I think that in general species have evolved, but the mechanics and rates at which the evolution occurs do not necessarily match up with his theory. If you knew what you were talking about, you might realize this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 It would take far too much time knowledge to elaborate well on this. Fixed. I mean you're not really adding credence to your claim with this statement. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Darwin provided his and it was quite extraordinary. Suffice it to say, I am NOT anti-Darwin. I think that in general species have evolved, but the mechanics and rates at which the evolution occurs do not necessarily match up with his theory. If you knew what you were talking about, you might realize this. So what, 6,000 years or so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Fixed. I mean you're not really adding credence to your claim with this statement. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Darwin provided his and it was quite extraordinary. So what, 6,000 years or so? Darwin was not dead-on right. But he got a lot of it right. You don't seem capable of comprehending this, so I see no point in expanding upon that point. Considering the Earth appears to be ~4.5B years old, I see little justification to believe life has only existed on this planet for the last 6,000. But feel free to believe whatever it is you want to believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Care to elaborate on this please? I'd like to know what you specifically think Darwin was wrong about. I honestly can't get enough of this particular brand of anti-Darwin sentiment especially from a true believer. Please provide some details. If you knew what you were talking about, you would know that the vast majority of what Darwin laid out in On the Origin of Species was pretty much dead-on and has held up to years and years of scrutiny from people who would give their left nut to discredit his ideas. Darwin has truly had it almost completely right so far - an amazing achievement considering the relatively primitive science that existed when he was forming his theories. The evidence for Darwinian Evolution today is overwhelming when you consider the genetic links we are now able to draw between species. Modern evolutionary biology has discredited Darwin in the details of his evolutionary theory...not the principle of evolution as a whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Fischer Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Let's call a lifetime of spiritual delusion 65 years. The average lifespan is between 70 and 75 years I think and we'll cut the first 5 or 10 before you've been brainwashed. Setting aside the "getting ready" and travel for a moment, let's say church takes 1 hour per week. Let's additionally assume that you pray for 15 minutes per day. 1 (Sunday) * 60 (Minutes) * 52 (Weeks) * 65 (Years) = 202,800 (Minutes) 365 (Days) * 15 (Minutes) * 65 (Years) = 355,875 (Minutes) 202,800 (Minutes) + 355,875 (Minutes) = 558,675 (Minutes) 558,675 (Minutes) = 9311.25 (Hours) 9311.25 (Hours) = 387.97 (Days) 387.97 (Days) = 1.06 (Years) 1.06 full years of your life. If my math is no good, I'm sure I'll hear about it. Not as bad as I thought, but it was a conservative calculation. You're right in that you probably waste more time watching TV, but think about how much more TV you could be watching! If Joe is right, what is the minimum amount of time I need to be in good standing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Fischer Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 And here we have it. The main reason that DumbLapel John hates Christianity...because he can't fathom the thought that a God who is unable to stomach sin in his presence would send the souls of human beings to a place that was intended for the fallen angels. But, as usual for these types of "i'm not eating my broccoli" atheists, he misses the point completely that God PROVIDED a way out, through Jesus. The whole point of Christianity is SAVING people from an eternity separated from God, not sending people to Hell. But what if you're a good person who has never heard of God, Jesus, Christianity or even religion. Are you therefore incapable of being "saved?" Does God still keep you at a distance? If so, why? If you accept Jesus as your "savior" what is the maximum amount of sins before your separate from God? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Modern evolutionary biology has discredited Darwin in the details of his evolutionary theory...not the principle of evolution as a whole. Exactly. In principle he was almost completely correct. I guess that's what happens when you're a genius who contemplates a theory for many years before publishing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DELLAPELLE JOHN Posted October 2, 2009 Author Share Posted October 2, 2009 The definition of moral relativism ladies and gentlemen. Finally. moral relativism has no foundation, it has nothing to fall back on for guidance... Yes, it is. wrong. You really don't understand the definition of the word relative do you? Moreover, you don't understand that definition of absolute either. If we are to believe that morality comes from God, then it is an ABSOLUTE morality, as in "The 10 COMMANDMENTS", not suggestions, not guidelines. "Thou shalt not kill" is an absolute. It does not say: "Thou shalt not kill, unless of course this situation, in your judgment, calls for it, or, it's Wednesday, then it's OK". saying morality comes from god is like saying morality comes from zeus. u first need to prove gods existence before u say morals come from god... again if god says something does that make it right, or is something right for another reason. what if god in your case says slavery is right or children should be stoned to death for talking back... because god or the bible says these things does that make it right? no. So babbling about how God is relative is ridiculous. In fact it is the rigidity of religion that normally draws criticism. I have never heard of any serious person trying to make the case that religion is fluid or relative and therefore bad. The other point I was making in my first post is: atheism can easily be criticized for the exact same rigidity of thinking as religion can = ACLU lawsuits, etc. sticking up for certain liberties is not rigidity, unless u want to say the constitution is wrong... So therefore you believe it's OK to steal, because it will be conducive to the thief's well being. You must also like taxes, because it's OK to take from one person, and give to another, as long as we are only concerned with the 2nd person's well being. no i dont think its ok to steal... im guessing happiness is to general for u to comprehend... Wrong, and wrong. Most theists believe that while God, Buddha, Allah, etc. has made laws/rules, he has done it through men. Also, it is up to each person to exercise free will as to how and when they follow those laws. They also believe that no man is perfect and therefore, atonement is necessary when those laws are not followed. Nothing relative about that. there is no free will with an omniscient god..... The fact that your beliefs can change, based on the situation, is by definition relative. Go look up the word for pete's sake...or better, let me do it for you:Moral relativism. Once again, instead of basing your beliefs on universal truths, you are saying that they can change at any time.... the morality doesnt change because the foundation doesnt change.... u equating that because people make different decisions because of different situations that this is relativism... its not, why? because all the decision are based on a foundation.... Morality by definition, and therefore, those who have morals, say that these universal principles are absolute and NEVER CHANGE regardless of the situation. Now enough of this babble. Learn what these words/concepts mean. This is a fine example, again, of why any atheist who considers himself smarter than other people, just because he is an atheist, is in fact a fool. Intellectual achievement is an individual thing. You don't get an "I'm smart" card when you join a group. i never said i was smarter... so ur wrong again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 But what if you're a good person who has never heard of God, Jesus, Christianity or even religion. Are you therefore incapable of being "saved?" Does God still keep you at a distance? If so, why? Well, they you're screwed. Like say, if you're an infant who didn't survive it long enough to have his sins washed away by some pedophile. Ok, maybe that was crossing the line... If you accept Jesus as your "savior" what is the maximum amount of sins before your separate from God? That's the best part and the part that keeps em coming back for more. It doesn't matter what you do in life, provided you repent and tell some guy all the bad things you've done on your death bed. Clean slate! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DELLAPELLE JOHN Posted October 2, 2009 Author Share Posted October 2, 2009 And here we have it. The main reason that DumbLapel John hates Christianity...because he can't fathom the thought that a God who is unable to stomach sin in his presence would send the souls of human beings to a place that was intended for the fallen angels. But, as usual for these types of "i'm not eating my broccoli" atheists, he misses the point completely that God PROVIDED a way out, through Jesus. The whole point of Christianity is SAVING people from an eternity separated from God, not sending people to Hell. what happens to children when they die without jesus? lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 But what if you're a good person who has never heard of God, Jesus, Christianity or even religion. Are you therefore incapable of being "saved?" Does God still keep you at a distance? If so, why? If you accept Jesus as your "savior" what is the maximum amount of sins before your separate from God? Question one is tough, and I don't think anyone has an answer to that. The redemption bought at the cross was for ALL sins, past, present and future for all those who believe. That's it. Not "belief + good works." Not "belief + being nice." Just belief that the sacrifice of Christ was enough to take away your sins personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 That's the best part and the part that keeps em coming back for more. It doesn't matter what you do in life, provided you repent and tell some guy all the bad things you've done on your death bed. Clean slate! That's if you're a CATHOLIC. A protestant doesn't confess to a priest. He confesses only to God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts