James Holmes confirmed to be an atheist

[tylerdolphin]

Multiple passages have been posed that condone rape.

[JamesBW43]

How do you even quantify that? Many species can survive in far more extreme environments than Humans, why are they not the most advanced species then? Even your claims about these matters are completely arbitrary.

I don't think you know what the definition of arbitrary is. You chose a single characteristic and used it to try to argue that humans may not be the most advanced species. THAT is arbitrary.


Humans have conquered the planet. Humans have created art and technology, discovered math and science, traveled to space, cured diseases, and built for themselves societies that transcend nature. No other species on the planet comes remotely close to our achievements, abilities, and capabilities.

Again, completely arbitrary. So then under your definition above a person from one society can murder a person from another society? Why is morality defined as what is best for a society? Why not what is best for a single individual? Or how about a family? Or how about a race? Or how about a hair color? Or how about an age group? Or how about a species? Or how about just organic life in general? Your standards are completely arbitrary and therefore completely meaningless!

I said nothing of the merit of murder outside of one society. I said nothing of morality, nor of its relationship to society, family, and the individual. I only said that murder goes against the nature of a functioning society.

A society, or social contract, is a collection of individuals who submit to a certain authority or guideline in exchange for protection. If an atheist were to decide to murder another person, then he or she has broken his or her contract, and thus forfeits his or her own protection from the rest of society. A far from meaningless act.

[irish fin fan]

No, I believe that the accounts in the OT are completely true and that it is God’s word. However, as a Christian I am not bound by certain laws that were established under the Mosaic Covenant because we are living under the New Covenant established by Christ (Book of Hebrews). The Bible never condones rape though, whether in the Old or New Testament, so when someone says it does of course I am going to refute their claim using the Bible as a whole.




Assertions such as this don’t prove anything.



Scripture says there is an afterlife and scripture is the infallible word of God so that actually is irrefutable proof that there is indeed an afterlife.




See above.

So you literally believe the earth was created in 6 days?

[Statler Waldorf]

Multiple passages have been posed that condone rape.

Nope, putting a rapist to death for raping someone is condemning rape not condoning it.

I don't think you know what the definition of arbitrary is. You chose a single characteristic and used it to try to argue that humans may not be the most advanced species. THAT is arbitrary.

That was my point!! You did the exact same thing when you asserted humans were the most advanced species (by cognitive ability), so the way you refute an arbitrary argument is by just postulating a different arbitrary argument since it has the same logical merit as the first, so that’s what I did.

Humans have conquered the planet.

Bacteria did so first, and in greater numbers.

Humans have created art and technology, discovered math and science, traveled to space, cured diseases, and built for themselves societies that transcend nature.

So? That’s still all a result of our cognitive ability which you have arbitrarily chosen as the standard of species advancement. Why did you choose that and not physical ability? Or how about survivability? Or something else completely arbitrary such as greatest number of cells in the organism?

No other species on the planet comes remotely close to our achievements, abilities, and capabilities.

Which evolutionarily makes zero sense.

I said nothing of the merit of murder outside of one society. I said nothing of morality, nor of its relationship to society, family, and the individual. I only said that murder goes against the nature of a functioning society.

Yes, it does, and so what? How does that make it morally wrong?

A society, or social contract, is a collection of individuals who submit to a certain authority or guideline in exchange for protection. If an atheist were to decide to murder another person, then he or she has broken his or her contract, and thus forfeits his or her own protection from the rest of society. A far from meaningless act.

Ok, please elaborate…how does someone agree to this contract? When do they agree to it? So then by your definition a person who is under contract with one society can kill someone from a different society and no action should be taken against them because their contract only applies to their own society right? Are their contracts we agree to for living in a family? How about a neighborhood?

So you literally believe the earth was created in 6 days?

Uh no.

[JamesBW43]

That was my point!! You did the exact same thing when you asserted humans were the most advanced species (by cognitive ability), so the way you refute an arbitrary argument is by just postulating a different arbitrary argument since it has the same logical merit as the first, so that’s what I did.

You are mistaken. I gave you an argument with several pieces of supporting evidence. The cumulative effect, or which, is the basis of my argument. It is for those reasons (and many more) combined that we are the most advanced species.

Your attempt to rebut it is akin to saying that Football Team A is not the best team in the league because Football Team B has a better quarterback, Football Team C has a better running back, Football Team D is faster, and Football Team E is tougher.

To put it another way, there is no argument to be made that a species other than human beings is the most advanced on the planet.

Yes, it does, and so what? How does that make it morally wrong?

Ok, please elaborate…how does someone agree to this contract? When do they agree to it? So then by your definition a person who is under contract with one society can kill someone from a different society and no action should be taken against them because their contract only applies to their own society right? Are their contracts we agree to for living in a family? How about a neighborhood?

Again, I said nothing of morality. My point is that an atheist can view the destruction of a human life as a negative thing because it is incompatible with a functioning society.

And going out on a tangent about things outside of society is a different can of worms that is irrelevant to my point. As per your question about other contracts, yes, some neighborhoods and families can be considered to be governed by a social contract. However, the contract with society supersedes the others because they are a subset of society.

[Statler Waldorf]

You are mistaken. I gave you an argument with several pieces of supporting evidence. The cumulative effect, or which, is the basis of my argument. It is for those reasons (and many more) combined that we are the most advanced species.

I am sorry but having multiple arbitrary arguments isn’t any more logically valid than one single arbitrary argument. I would completely agree with you, Humans are far more advanced than other animals, but so what? How do you get from that conclusion to a defensible definition of morality? That seems to be a complete non-sequitur.

Your attempt to rebut it is akin to saying that Football Team A is not the best team in the league because Football Team B has a better quarterback, Football Team C has a better running back, Football Team D is faster, and Football Team E is tougher.

We’re supposed to be talking about your definition of morality here.

To put it another way, there is no argument to be made that a species other than human beings is the most advanced on the planet.

Why not?

Ok, please elaborate…how does someone agree to this contract? When do they agree to it? So then by your definition a person who is under contract with one society can kill someone from a different society and no action should be taken against them because their contract only applies to their own society right? Are their contracts we agree to for living in a family? How about a neighborhood?

Again, I said nothing of morality. My point is that an atheist can view the destruction of a human life as a negative thing because it is incompatible with a functioning society.

Sure he can, but that doesn’t prove anything because that same atheist can arbitrarily view the destruction of a human life as a positive thing because it reduces competition for recourses and enhances his chances of survival. You see, when you leave these sorts of standards up to humans they become utterly meaningless and our entire sense of morality and justice implodes.

And going out on a tangent about things outside of society is a different can of worms that is irrelevant to my point.

It is completely relevant to your point because you are trying to assert that humans can have morality without God, and yet you have not provided a definition that would even make murder outside of a society morally wrong even though I am sure you think it’s wrong.

As per your question about other contracts, yes, some neighborhoods and families can be considered to be governed by a social contract. However, the contract with society supersedes the others because they are a subset of society.

So then would the contract that all humans share as a species supersede even a society’s contract? Would the contract that all living animals share then supersede the human contract since humans are merely a subset of life? Interesting discussion though.

[JamesBW43]

I am sorry but having multiple arbitrary arguments isn’t any more logically valid than one single arbitrary argument.

I'm not making multiple arbitrary arguments. I'm providing multiple pieces of evidence, which by themselves could be considered arbitrary, but combined create a platform upon which a single argument stands.

I would completely agree with you, Humans are far more advanced than other animals, but so what? How do you get from that conclusion to a defensible definition of morality? That seems to be a complete non-sequitur.

We’re supposed to be talking about your definition of morality here.

It is completely relevant to your point because you are trying to assert that humans can have morality without God, and yet you have not provided a definition that would even make murder outside of a society morally wrong even though I am sure you think it’s wrong.

Again, I'm not talking about morality. My argument is that an atheist can view the destruction of human life as a negative thing through pure reason alone, through the idea that any such destruction is contrary to a functioning society.

Sure he can, but that doesn’t prove anything because that same atheist can arbitrarily view the destruction of a human life as a positive thing because it reduces competition for recourses and enhances his chances of survival. You see, when you leave these sorts of standards up to humans they become utterly meaningless and our entire sense of morality and justice implodes.

If the atheist is using reason he can't view it as a positive thing because he is breaking his contract with society and therefore losing his protection from it. That amounts to a far bigger decrease in his chance of survival than the gain from eliminating a single source of competition for resources.

So then would the contract that all humans share as a species supersede even a society’s contract? Would the contract that all living animals share then supersede the human contract since humans are merely a subset of life? Interesting discussion though.

If all humans shared a single contract, that would be a single society unto itself. However, that is currently not the case. Consent is required for a social contract to exist. Animals are thus incapable of being a part of one.

[Statler Waldorf]

I'm not making multiple arbitrary arguments. I'm providing multiple pieces of evidence, which by themselves could be considered arbitrary, but combined create a platform upon which a single argument stands.

That’s logically fallacious though, arbitrary arguments don’t become objective like that when they are combined to together. Where do you get that idea from?

Again, I'm not talking about morality. My argument is that an atheist can view the destruction of human life as a negative thing through pure reason alone, through the idea that any such destruction is contrary to a functioning society.

That’s not pure reason though; in fact it’s not valid reasoning at all because it is completely arbitrary. Why can’t the same atheist view the destruction of human life as a positive thing?

If the atheist is using reason he can't view it as a positive thing because he is breaking his contract with society and therefore losing his protection from it.

That’s my point though, why does his contract with society suddenly trump his contract with himself? Or his contract with his family? Or his species? Your standards are completely subjective.

That amounts to a far bigger decrease in his chance of survival than the gain from eliminating a single source of competition for resources.

How do you know that? Why is survival the ultimate measure? Why isn’t it happiness? Or some other measure? Again, more arbitrariness.

If all humans shared a single contract, that would be a single society unto itself. However, that is currently not the case. Consent is required for a social contract to exist.

I don’t ever remember consenting to this contract, when did this happen? How do I know what it says?

Animals are thus incapable of being a part of one.

So humans abusing or killing animals is never morally wrong?

[JamesBW43]

That’s logically fallacious though, arbitrary arguments don’t become objective like that when they are combined to together. Where do you get that idea from?

Again, one argument is being made on this point. One. The characteristics and accomplishments of humans mentioned are evidentiary support for that one argument. They are not separate arguments being combined.

That’s not pure reason though; in fact it’s not valid reasoning at all because it is completely arbitrary. Why can’t the same atheist view the destruction of human life as a positive thing?

Which part is not reason, which part is not valid reasoning, and which part is arbitrary? Also, my argument is that an atheist CAN view destruction of life as a negative thing. This does not preclude the possibility that an atheist CAN also view destruction of life as a neutral or even positive thing.

That’s my point though, why does his contract with society suddenly trump his contract with himself? Or his contract with his family? Or his species? Your standards are completely subjective.

No it's not. A family is a subset of society. It is part of a whole.

How do you know that? Why is survival the ultimate measure? Why isn’t it happiness? Or some other measure? Again, more arbitrariness.

I know that because there are billions of people on the planet competing for resources and that breaking one's contract with society not only means that you lose the benefits of being a part of society but that society will also be seeking retribution. And you're the one who brought up survival.

I don’t ever remember consenting to this contract, when did this happen?

June 21, 1788.

How do I know what it says?

You read the law.

So humans abusing or killing animals is never morally wrong?

This question is completely unrelated to my statement that animals cannot be a part of a social contract. It is further unrelated to our discussion because, again, I am not discussing morality.

[Statler Waldorf]

Again, one argument is being made on this point. One. The characteristics and accomplishments of humans mentioned are evidentiary support for that one argument. They are not separate arguments being combined.

Wait, I lost track, which argument are we even talking about? Humans being the superior species? I already told you that I’d agree with that point, I want to know how you get from that to your concept of morality, how do you connect those dots?

Which part is not reason, which part is not valid reasoning, and which part is arbitrary? Also, my argument is that an atheist CAN view destruction of life as a negative thing. This does not preclude the possibility that an atheist CAN also view destruction of life as a neutral or even positive thing.

Well then that’s not morality; morality is a system of “ought” and “should” statements that people adhere to. If a person is allowed to arbitrarily view any act as positive or negative then that person has no ground to stand on when they turn that into an “ought” or “should” statement. You couldn’t form the moral law that murder is wrong then since one person could view it as wrong and one could view it as right. Your whole concept of “different strokes for different folks” utterly renders morality meaningless which was my original point- atheistic concepts of morality actually destroy morality. Now contrast that concept with the Christian concept of a personal creator God who lays down laws of behavior for His creatures to follow and you suddenly resolve the problem of arbitrariness.

No it's not. A family is a subset of society. It is part of a whole.

Sure, but what happens when the greater good of the family suddenly is in opposition with the greater good of the society? What do you do then? Do you choose what is best for the family or what is best for the society?

I know that because there are billions of people on the planet competing for resources and that breaking one's contract with society not only means that you lose the benefits of being a part of society but that society will also be seeking retribution. And you're the one who brought up survival.

I only brought it up because that seems to be your standard, so what if someone says, “I believe morality is whatever is best for black people, so I support killing all other races.” How are you in position to argue with them? Their standard “morality is determined by what is best for our race.” Is just as arbitrary as yours, “morality is whatever is best for the society we live in.” That’s my point, there is no way to prove any of this, so anyone can just postulate a different view of morality and it would hold just as much water as yours.

June 21, 1788.

How could I consent to a contract before I was even born? I thought you said that people had to agree to such a contract in order for it to be binding?

You read the law.

So when American law allowed slavery that meant slavery was morally acceptable? What about where different states have different laws? Does that mean it is morally wrong to drive above 55 mph in Oregon but morally acceptable in California?

This question is completely unrelated to my statement that animals cannot be a part of a social contract. It is further unrelated to our discussion because, again, I am not discussing morality.

How can something that doesn’t fall under the social contract be protected under that same contract? Additionally, if you’re not talking about morality then what on earth are you talking about? You’ve lost me.