James Holmes confirmed to be an atheist

[rob19]

Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus going on before.
Christ, the royal Master, leads against the foe;
Forward into battle see His banners go!

[Spesh]

First off, give me an idea of what I am dealing with here. Are you a naturalist?

Where do you get this notion that I have to actually be an atheist in order to know what someone who is one believes? That seems to be a bit of a non-sequitur there.

I wouldn’t say it was just one single piece of his atheistic belief system that pushed him over the edge, it was probably a combination. A lot of it was probably the fact he would believe that he owns himself, that was the biggest belief that seemed to push Jeffery Dahmer over the edge so I imagine it played a role here as well.

Why would it matter what my beliefs are? Your argument cant stand on its own merits, you can only point the finger? Sounds about right.

And of course, not ever having been in ones shoes you still pass judgement. I guess that judge not, that ye be not judged doesnt apply right? Wait! Does that mean your not a real christian?

[Spesh]

Where have I used a circular argument?

Passage and verse please.

Huge difference! The Israelites were given strict rules on how their bond servants were to be treated; this was not the case in America. Bond servant-hood was quite often a means for people to obtain shelter and food who would otherwise not be able to have it. Extradition of the servants was prohibited, they could not be forced to work on the Sabbath, they were also set free after a certain period of time (after six years); after being freed the servants were given gifts so they would be economically stable. None of this was the case with American slaves; in fact comparing the two seems to be nothing short of an insult to those who went through slavery in America. Historical context is important, and the servant-hood the Israelites used was nothing like what we are familiar with today. In an atheistic universe why would owning slaves be morally wrong? You have not answered that question yet.

I see nothing in book of Numbers to suggest any virgins were raped if you can find where it stated they were please show me. Appealing to “common sense” is a logical fallacy.

I dont recall seeing tyler say "American Slavery". Isnt slavery still slavery no matter how well you treat the slave?

And atheists still obey the laws of the land. In America, that includes things that avoid lording over others.

[tylerdolphin]

Holy ****. In one sentence he asks me to list the verses where the Bible condones slavery and in literally in the next sentence he explains to me the rules they had for keeping slaves. You cant even make this **** up.

Owning slaves is morally wrong because we as a human race have evolved to the point where we realize that other humans have feeling and emotions and we should probably treat everyone equally. My God. Common sense. You dont need a book for that.

And Im sure those virgins were falling all over themselves to **** the people that just took over their land and killed their family. Common sense isnt a logical fallacy. Its common sense. Im applying it here. Youre not.

[rob19]

Holy ****. In one sentence he asks me to list the verses where the Bible condones slavery and in literally in the next sentence he explains to me the rules they had for keeping slaves. You cant even make this **** up.

Owning slaves is morally wrong because we as a human race have evolved to the point where we realize that other humans have feeling and emotions and we should probably treat everyone equally. My God. Common sense. You dont need a book for that.

And Im sure those virgins were falling all over themselves to **** the people that just took over their land and killed their family. Common sense isnt a logical fallacy. Its common sense. Im applying it here. Youre not.

How do you think the people came up with those moral commandments? It's through experience.. we know it sucks to have stuff stolen from you, we know it sucks to fear you might be murdered, we know it sucks to have your wife cheat on you, you really should treat other people nice.. those aren't cast down from God.. those are just things we've found to be true throughout human experience. The Bible is an antiquated book with a few good points. We'd know that those things suck with or without any bible.

[tylerdolphin]

How do you think the people came up with those moral commandments? It's through experience.. we know it sucks to have stuff stolen from you, we know it sucks to fear you might be murdered, we know it sucks to have your wife cheat on you, you really should treat other people nice.. those aren't cast down from God.. those are just things we've found to be true throughout human experience. The Bible is an antiquated book with a few good points. We'd know that those things suck with or without any bible.

Lots of animals seemingly figured out a lot of the same stuff by themselves.

[Spesh]

How do you think the people came up with those moral commandments? It's through experience.. we know it sucks to have stuff stolen from you, we know it sucks to fear you might be murdered, we know it sucks to have your wife cheat on you, you really should treat other people nice.. those aren't cast down from God.. those are just things we've found to be true throughout human experience. The Bible is an antiquated book with a few good points. We'd know that those things suck with or without any bible.

And lets face it, that book is hardly original.

[Statler Waldorf]

How old do you believe the Earth to be Waldorf? 6000 years?

How is the age of the Earth at all relevant to our discussion on morality?

Psalm 137:9

“Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.”

Wait just one minute here, even if you had taken this verse in its proper context, which you have not, how can you as an atheist object to this? Isn’t this just Darwinism in action? It looks like just one group of organisms out competing another for survival right? How are you in any position to object?

Kings 18:27“But Rabshakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? Hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?”

Figures of speech existed just as much back then as they do today.

Deuteronomy 21:18-21

“If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.”

So? Again, are you in any position to object to this as an atheist? Of course not. It’s just two bags of mostly water throwing stones at another bag of mostly water and destroying it according to your worldview, that’s hardly something to object to. Whenever you appeal to human dignity and absolute morality you are borrowing from my worldview, and thus proving my worldview is true.

Deuteronomy 23:1
No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord.

1 Samuel 18:25-27

Then Saul said, “Thus shall you say to David, ‘The king desires no bride-price except a hundred foreskins of the Philistines, that he may be avenged of the king’s enemies.’” Now Saul thought to make David fall by the hand of the Philistines. And when his servants told David these words, it pleased David well to be the king’s son-in-law. Before the time had expired, David arose and went, along with his men, and killed two hundred of the Philistines. And David brought their foreskins, which were given in full number to the king, that he might become the king’s son-in-law. And Saul gave him his daughter Michal for a wife.

So?

Ezekial 23:19-20

Yet she increased her prostitution, remembering the days of her youth when she engaged in prostitution in the land of Egypt. She lusted after their genitals as large as those of donkeys, and their seminal emission was as strong as that of stallions.

Oh brother, “she” is Israel. This is all obviously metaphoric language.

— DEUTERONOMY 25:11-12

"If two men, a man and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity."

So?

What of the Wars I posted about on the first page? Why is atheism causally linked with a murder, but theism is not for those who murder in the name of Christ?

It’s simple, when an atheist murders someone he is acting in a manner that is completely consistent with his atheism, man is just another animal, or even just glorified pond scum, so one man destroying another is completely meaningless. When a professing Christian murders someone he is acting in a manner that is completely contrary to his professed belief system. Christ taught that murder was wrong and that man was made in the image of God and had a level of dignity not found in any other living creature. So the murderous Christian is actually rebelling against Christ, which really doesn’t make him a Christian now does it?

I'm with you that how you view the world affects your actions, but at the same time you can't deny that theism, and in this case Christianity, can lead people to do terrible things as well.

No I do not agree with the last part, the teachings of Christ do not lead anyone to do terrible things, man’s sinful nature leads him to do such things.

How much do you know about other world religions?

A fair amount, but I’d prefer to keep the discussion on point here by focusing on what you and I believe, not what someone else believes. Fair enough? : -)

Why would it matter what my beliefs are? Your argument cant stand on its own merits, you can only point the finger? Sounds about right.

Of course it matters what your beliefs are, if you have to assume my position is correct in order to even argue against it then your objections are proving my position. If you are a naturalist, then there is no way you can consistently raise the objections you did, hence why I asked.

And of course, not ever having been in ones shoes you still pass judgement. I guess that judge not, that ye be not judged doesnt apply right? Wait! Does that mean your not a real christian?

So now you are appealing to scripture? Or only because you think it serves your position? Of course that passage is not referring to someone’s actions, but rather their heart. I can deem your actions as good or evil all day long because I have been given a standard of morality to measure them by. God has no problem with this; He has a problem with people making judgments about another person’s heart or salvation.

Isnt slavery still slavery no matter how well you treat the slave?

Nope, there are different degrees of servant hood; to say otherwise is a gross oversimplification.

And atheists still obey the laws of the land. In America, that includes things that avoid lording over others.

So if slavery were legal today, you’d be completely cool with it?

Holy ****. In one sentence he asks me to list the verses where the Bible condones slavery and in literally in the next sentence he explains to me the rules they had for keeping slaves. You cant even make this **** up.

My apologies, I assumed you knew the difference between giving regulations on a necessary but undesirable behavior and actually “condoning” that behavior. You have provided me no verse that condones slavery, the verses I appealed to just set up a structure in which the behavior would exist, a structure that was far more civil than any other nation at the time mind you.

Owning slaves is morally wrong because we as a human race have evolved to the point where we realize that other humans have feeling and emotions and we should probably treat everyone equally. My God. Common sense. You dont need a book for that.

Again, this is just the is/ought fallacy. So when humans actually owned slaves it was morally right because they had evolved to the point to where they could force another human being to work for them and own that individual? Your odd definition of morality could be used to justify any behavior humans have done in their history because it banks on the argument that the way things are now are the way they ought to be, that’s why it’s a fallacy.

And Im sure those virgins were falling all over themselves to **** the people that just took over their land and killed their family. Common sense isnt a logical fallacy. Its common sense. Im applying it here. Youre not.

That verse never says anything about sex, why do you keep assuming it does? Looks more like arranged marriages to me.

Lastly, an appeal to common sense IS logically fallacious because it’s an appeal to popularity, that the popular belief is true. You need to brush up on your logic my friend.

“Common Sense Fallacy: an argument is held to be true because of practical truths and common sense. Common sense is sometimes correct, but all too many times all too commonly incorrect.

We all know if it looks bad, it tastes bad. It's just common sense.”


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

How do you think the people came up with those moral commandments? It's through experience.. we know it sucks to have stuff stolen from you, we know it sucks to fear you might be murdered, we know it sucks to have your wife cheat on you, you really should treat other people nice.. those aren't cast down from God.. those are just things we've found to be true throughout human experience. The Bible is an antiquated book with a few good points. We'd know that those things suck with or without any bible.

Your whole argument banks on the premise that we should treat others how we would want to be treated, where do you get this rule from?

Lots of animals seemingly figured out a lot of the same stuff by themselves.

You can’t be serious? Animals kill one another, rape one another, wage war, and steal from one another. Saying humans should behave in a particular manner simply because you view us as herd animals is so absurd, male lions will kill any offspring that are not their own, do you therefore support men running around killing other men’s children?

[tylerdolphin]

You can’t be serious? Animals kill one another, rape one another, wage war, and steal from one another.

OH! You mean exactly like humans!

My apologies, I assumed you knew the difference between giving regulations on a necessary but undesirable behavior and actually “condoning” that behavior. You have provided me no verse that condones slavery, the verses I appealed to just set up a structure in which the behavior would exist, a structure that was far more civil than any other nation at the time mind you.

So your argument is that slavery was necessary? I suppose you would have supported slavery during the civil war because slaves were vital to the cotton industry. Holy ****. You cant even see how stupid that is?

[JCane]

OH! You mean exactly like humans!

Goddamnit.

Now you're just making ****ing sense.