Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.



VIP Members don't see these ads. Join VIP Now
Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567891011 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 103

Thread: James Holmes confirmed to be an atheist

  1. -71
    irish fin fan's Avatar
    Pro Bowler

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2010
    Posts:
    1,158
    vCash:
    1203
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Statler Waldorf View Post

    You see, youíve totally missed the points Iíve madeÖ

    1. As a non-believer you cannot even define a logically defensible definition of what makes an act right or wrong, so pointing to acts and calling them ďwrongĒ is utterly meaningless and only refutes your own position.
    2. The fact that any professing Christian has done something wrong in their life is completely irrelevant. Christianity can be absolutely true and there can be professing Christians making mistakes at the same time, they are not mutually exclusive events.

    The truth of the matter is that youíd rather discuss such an irrelevant point than actually attempt to defend your stance as a non-believer, I donít blame you one bit, if I were a non-believer Iíd be trying to do the same thing because itíd be the only card I could play.
    The arrogance of stating that unless you believe in the drivel you are preaching you can't know right from wrong is quite astounding. Obviously by that statement you condone the rape of children since I obviously must be wrong in assuming that is an heinous act.

    Then we go to state that of course Christians make mistakes. Of course only Christians can make mistakes, everyone else is condemned to hell.

    Show me some proof and make me a believer. I've listened to all the indoctrination when I was a kid. The one thing that always stood to me was listening to priests say you need to believe without the proof. How very convenient that turns out to be. Of course there is no proof just some loud mouthed holier than thou clowns.
    Quote Quote  

  2. -72
    irish fin fan's Avatar
    Pro Bowler

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2010
    Posts:
    1,158
    vCash:
    1203
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Statler Waldorf View Post
    So in Saudi Arabia where they feel it is just to kill a homosexual for being gay we are seeing justice in action?
    How about burning "witches" at the stake?
    Quote Quote  

  3. -73
    tylerdolphin's Avatar
    More Smug than Birthday Dog

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Sep 2005
    Posts:
    12,286
    vCash:
    3832
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Cam Wake 91
    Quote Originally Posted by irish fin fan View Post
    How about burning "witches" at the stake?
    Thats cool with Statler:

    "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." - Exodus 22:18 KJV

    No out of context BS there either. The context is even better.




    Quote Quote  

  4. -74
    Statler Waldorf's Avatar
    Bench Warmer

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jun 2005
    Posts:
    1,260
    vCash:
    1253
    Loc:
    Oregon
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Interesting argument, considering that Saudi Arabia is one of the most devout countries in the middle east...


    So you’re going to dodge the question? Figured as much.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    Can poop be empirically said to smell bad? Yes or no.


    So you’re not going to answer the question either? Figured as much.

    You made a general statement about theism and how it affects a person's viewpoint in order to make your claim about Stalin.


    Yup.

    How do I determine whether something is just or not? I use reason.

    How do you use reason to determine whether something is just or not?

    You're implying that it is a causal relationship, but let me rephrase my point. You claim that atheists view humans as just another animal. And thus the destruction of one animal by another is meaningless.


    If they are consistent in their view of reality, yes atheists will view humans as merely another animal.

    Firstly, your premise is questionable because one can view human life as more valuable than others without the presence of religion.


    Sure they can, but that is merely an arbitrary view then and has no more logical merit than someone else who views say tadpole life as more valuable than human life, or bacterial life as more valuable than any other life. That’s why arbitrariness is never allowed in proper reasoning, because someone can easily postulate an opposing arbitrary view and neither view trumps the other. Given their view of reality, there is no non-arbitrary reason for atheists to view human life as more valuable than any other form of life.

    Attributes such as sentience and reason distinguish humans from animals.


    So? Many animals have completely unique attributes, why does this one magically make humans more valuable than any other animal? Again, you’re being completely arbitrary.

    But even if we accept your premise that doesn't mean an atheist must view the destruction of a person (or animal) as meaningless.


    He doesn’t have to (although he probably should if he wants to be consistent in his view of reality), but he is in no place to admonish anyone else who disagrees with him since they have just as much logical right to hold a different view since all of your standards are now arbitrary. Therefore murder would no longer be a crime, or any other act for that matter.
    He/she can view destruction of any life as a generally negative thing. Or he/she can hold the destruction of other people as something that is incompatible with a functioning society.


    Sure, but he can also view murder as a generally positive thing and completely compatible with society. Once you open the door up to arbitrariness, you toss out all ability to reason. Interesting conversation though, kudos.

    I suppose in their mind its just, but its definitely against my moral code and many others who dont subscribe to their muslim laws.


    So there really is no such thing as justice then? The Nazis at the Nuremburg Trials really received injustice since they were merely executing justice how they saw fit in their own society and then we came in and forced our own concept of justice upon them? Or is forcing your morals upon someone else completely acceptable in your view? Thanks for actually answering the question though!

    Way to make your point though about how we need religion for morals.


    I never said you needed religion, I said you need the Christian God, which you do. Christians can logically condemn the beheading of homosexuals in Saudi Arabia, as you have demonstrated the atheist is in no position to do the same because it really is just different strokes for different folks in his view. I choose door number one please.

    The arrogance of stating that unless you believe in the drivel you are preaching you can't know right from wrong is quite astounding.


    It’s not arrogance, its confidence in my position. I never said you can’t know right from wrong, I said you don’t have a definition of right and wrong that is defensible within the framework of your view of reality. You know right and wrong because you are a moral creature who was created in the image of God.

    Obviously by that statement you condone the rape of children since I obviously must be wrong in assuming that is an heinous act.


    What a non-sequitur. You know raping children is wrong because you’re a creation of God, I know rape is wrong because I am a creation of God. I can postulate a reason as to why rape is wrong that is completely consistent with my Christianity. However, you cannot postulate a reason as to why rape is wrong that is consistent with your view of reality. You have to borrow from my concept of morality because your worldview cannot consistently define morality.

    Of course only Christians can make mistakes, everyone else is condemned to hell.


    Huh?

    Show me some proof and make me a believer.


    Only God can make you a believer. As for the proof, we are discussing that right now in the Dawkins thread.

    I've listened to all the indoctrination when I was a kid. The one thing that always stood to me was listening to priests say you need to believe without the proof.

    Well all I can say is I am sorry you didn’t receive better spiritual leadership as a child.

    Quote Originally Posted by irish fin fan View Post
    How about burning "witches" at the stake?


    So you’re not going to answer the question either? Figured as much. I am tossing out major kudos to Tyler for actually having the stones to answer my question. What about burning witches? If they started burning witches in Saudi Arabia would you say that was morally wrong?
    Quote Originally Posted by tylerdolphin View Post
    Thats cool with Statler:

    "
    Quote Originally Posted by tylerdolphin View Post
    Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." - Exodus 22:18 KJV

    No out of context BS there either. The context is even better.


    Apparently it’s cool with you too since according to you it all depends on when and where you live. I feel bad for those witches that just happen to live in the wrong society given your definition of morality. Oh well, according to you they get what they deserve right?
    As a Christian I have a reason why it’s wrong to kill witches under the New Covenant, as an atheist you are still pinned down on your belief that if a society today wants to burn witches then more power to them. You just can’t win.
    Total Depravity
    Unconditional Election
    Limited Atonement
    Irresistible Grace
    Perseverance of the Saints
    Quote Quote  

  5. -75
    irish fin fan's Avatar
    Pro Bowler

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2010
    Posts:
    1,158
    vCash:
    1203
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Statler Waldorf View Post

    So youíre going to dodge the question? Figured as much.



    So youíre not going to answer the question either? Figured as much.



    Yup.


    How do you use reason to determine whether something is just or not?



    If they are consistent in their view of reality, yes atheists will view humans as merely another animal.



    Sure they can, but that is merely an arbitrary view then and has no more logical merit than someone else who views say tadpole life as more valuable than human life, or bacterial life as more valuable than any other life. Thatís why arbitrariness is never allowed in proper reasoning, because someone can easily postulate an opposing arbitrary view and neither view trumps the other. Given their view of reality, there is no non-arbitrary reason for atheists to view human life as more valuable than any other form of life.



    So? Many animals have completely unique attributes, why does this one magically make humans more valuable than any other animal? Again, youíre being completely arbitrary.



    He doesnít have to (although he probably should if he wants to be consistent in his view of reality), but he is in no place to admonish anyone else who disagrees with him since they have just as much logical right to hold a different view since all of your standards are now arbitrary. Therefore murder would no longer be a crime, or any other act for that matter.


    Sure, but he can also view murder as a generally positive thing and completely compatible with society. Once you open the door up to arbitrariness, you toss out all ability to reason. Interesting conversation though, kudos.



    So there really is no such thing as justice then? The Nazis at the Nuremburg Trials really received injustice since they were merely executing justice how they saw fit in their own society and then we came in and forced our own concept of justice upon them? Or is forcing your morals upon someone else completely acceptable in your view? Thanks for actually answering the question though!



    I never said you needed religion, I said you need the Christian God, which you do. Christians can logically condemn the beheading of homosexuals in Saudi Arabia, as you have demonstrated the atheist is in no position to do the same because it really is just different strokes for different folks in his view. I choose door number one please.



    Itís not arrogance, its confidence in my position. I never said you canít know right from wrong, I said you donít have a definition of right and wrong that is defensible within the framework of your view of reality. You know right and wrong because you are a moral creature who was created in the image of God.



    What a non-sequitur. You know raping children is wrong because youíre a creation of God, I know rape is wrong because I am a creation of God. I can postulate a reason as to why rape is wrong that is completely consistent with my Christianity. However, you cannot postulate a reason as to why rape is wrong that is consistent with your view of reality. You have to borrow from my concept of morality because your worldview cannot consistently define morality.



    Huh?



    Only God can make you a believer. As for the proof, we are discussing that right now in the Dawkins thread.


    Well all I can say is I am sorry you didnít receive better spiritual leadership as a child.



    So youíre not going to answer the question either? Figured as much. I am tossing out major kudos to Tyler for actually having the stones to answer my question. What about burning witches? If they started burning witches in Saudi Arabia would you say that was morally wrong?


    Apparently itís cool with you too since according to you it all depends on when and where you live. I feel bad for those witches that just happen to live in the wrong society given your definition of morality. Oh well, according to you they get what they deserve right?
    As a Christian I have a reason why itís wrong to kill witches under the New Covenant, as an atheist you are still pinned down on your belief that if a society today wants to burn witches then more power to them. You just canít win.
    Yeah, if you were a Christian hundreds of years ago I'm sure you would be first in line to light the fire. Oh and just to spell it out for you I don't believe in killing in witches any more than the killing that takes place anywhere else. But let's just forget about the churches past when it's convienent right?

    You are the one saying that there is a god so go prove it. Show me some evidence. I'm sure I will read plenty of moralizing bulls?$& from you but when it comes to evidence of what you believe in, nothing.
    Quote Quote  

  6. -76
    tylerdolphin's Avatar
    More Smug than Birthday Dog

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Sep 2005
    Posts:
    12,286
    vCash:
    3832
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Cam Wake 91
    Quote Originally Posted by Statler Waldorf View Post
    Apparently it’s cool with you too since according to you it all depends on when and where you live. I feel bad for those witches that just happen to live in the wrong society given your definition of morality. Oh well, according to you they get what they deserve right?
    As a Christian I have a reason why it’s wrong to kill witches under the New Covenant, as an atheist you are still pinned down on your belief that if a society today wants to burn witches then more power to them. You just can’t win.
    Way to misrepresent my argument and conveniently gloss over the fact that your holy book not only condoned killing witches, it commanded it.

    My view is that when you dig deep philosophically, everyone has their own morals. From a practical, non-philosophical perspective there are simply things you do not do as a civilized society and burning witches is one of those things. If everyone's morality was based more on common sense than religious zealotry, witches wouldnt be burned.
    Quote Quote  

  7. -77
    Statler Waldorf's Avatar
    Bench Warmer

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jun 2005
    Posts:
    1,260
    vCash:
    1253
    Loc:
    Oregon
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by irish fin fan View Post
    Yeah, if you were a Christian hundreds of years ago I'm sure you would be first in line to light the fire.


    So now you’re basing your arguments on meaningless speculation?

    Oh and just to spell it out for you I don't believe in killing in witches any more than the killing that takes place anywhere else.


    Good for you, me either. What about someone who does believe in killing witches though? Are they wrong to believe this? If so, why?

    You are the one saying that there is a god so go prove it. Show me some evidence. I'm sure I will read plenty of moralizing bulls?$& from you but when it comes to evidence of what you believe in, nothing.


    Well I don’t really view discussing how we define morality as just “b.s.”, that being said I already told you we are discussing God’s existence in the Dawkins thread, there’s no need to duplicate the discussion in this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by tylerdolphin View Post
    Way to misrepresent my argument and conveniently gloss over the fact that your holy book not only condoned killing witches, it commanded it.


    How did I misrepresent your argument? You said that if people in Saudi Arabia viewed killing homosexuals as just then in a way it would be justice. Isn’t justice getting what you deserve? If these same people viewed burning witches as just, wouldn’t you have to agree then that was also justice?

    From a practical, non-philosophical perspective there are simply things you do not do as a civilized society and burning witches is one of those things.


    Where do you get this notion? There were many civilized societies in the 15th and 16th century who burned witches all the time. The Nazis were a civilized society and they massacred Jews. The Soviets were a civilized society and they tried breeding apes with women.

    If everyone's morality was based more on common sense than religious zealotry, witches wouldnt be burned.


    An appeal to common sense is still a logical fallacy today, and I am not seeing that change anytime in the near future. So your only definition of morality is based solely on fallacious logic? You’ve got nothing better to offer?
    Quote Quote  

  8. -78
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    8,109
    vCash:
    29331
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Statler Waldorf View Post
    So you’re not going to answer the question either? Figured as much.
    The ****? I have already stated more than once that I accept the notion that one cannot have "Godly" morality without God. However, that does not make all moral viewpoints arbitrary (unless you are so narrow minded as to only view Godly morality as morality, which if that's your definition prejudices the argument). My question about the smell of **** -- which, ironically, you avoided -- is part of how I explain my own morality.

    I know rape is wrong because I am a creation of God. I can postulate a reason as to why rape is wrong that is completely consistent with my Christianity. However, you cannot postulate a reason as to why rape is wrong that is consistent with your view of reality. You have to borrow from my concept of morality because your worldview cannot consistently define morality.


    Nope.

    Here's a passage from Numbers (slighted edited for brevity):

    "Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals...

    Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves."

    Defend the morality of raping virgins, big guy.

    Here's another from Deuteronomy:

    "As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you."

    So God says, if the people you want to conquer will not agree to be slaves, you must kill the men but can keep women and children as spoils of war. What a guy.

    Deuteronomy also has a charming "law" regarding rape:

    "If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."

    Watching you defend that should be amusing. Along with this:

    "If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife."

    Indeed, a woman who doesn't cry out loudly enough while she's being raped needs to be killed. A Law and Order episode written by God would have a hell of a different flavor, wouldn't it?

    In 2 Samuel (I'm not quoting it here since the wording is sort of convoluted), God punishes David first by sending his wives to be raped by David's neighbor, and then by killing David's child.

    Here's one of my favorites, this one from Exodus:

    "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment."

    Ok, now explain to me how Christianity is consistent with believing rape is wrong again.
    Last edited by TheWalrus; 08-24-2012 at 04:31 PM.
    Quote Quote  

  9. -79
    tylerdolphin's Avatar
    More Smug than Birthday Dog

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Sep 2005
    Posts:
    12,286
    vCash:
    3832
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Cam Wake 91
    Quote Originally Posted by Statler Waldorf View Post
    An appeal to common sense is still a logical fallacy today, and I am not seeing that change anytime in the near future. So your only definition of morality is based solely on fallacious logic? You’ve got nothing better to offer?
    No, I dont. Sorry. As far as I can see it beats the hell out of some the morals in the Bible though.
    Quote Quote  

  10. -80
    Locke's Avatar
    They looked like strong hands.

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Aug 2008
    Posts:
    8,767
    vCash:
    4636
    Loc:
    Albuquerque, NM
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    The ****? I have already stated more than once that I accept the notion that one cannot have "Godly" morality without God. However, that does not make all moral viewpoints arbitrary (unless you are so narrow minded as to only view Godly morality as morality, which is an incorrect definition of the term). My question about the smell of **** -- which, ironically, you avoided -- is part of how I explain my own morality.



    Nope.

    Here's a passage from Numbers (slighted edited for brevity):

    "Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals...

    Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves."

    Defend the morality of raping virgins, big guy.

    Here's another from Deuteronomy:

    "As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you."

    So God says, if the people you want to conquer will not agree to be slaves, you must kill the men but can keep women and children as spoils of war. What a guy.

    Deuteronomy also has a charming "law" regarding rape:

    "If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."

    Watching you defend that should be amusing. Along with this:

    "If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife."

    Indeed, a woman who doesn't cry out loudly enough while she's being raped needs to be killed. A Law and Order episode written by God would have a hell of a different flavor, wouldn't it?

    In 2 Samuel (I'm not quoting it here since the wording is sort of convoluted), God punishes David first by sending his wives to be raped by David's neighbor, and then by killing David's child.

    Here's one of my favorites, this one from Exodus:

    "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment."

    Ok, now explain to me how Christianity is consistent with believing rape is wrong again.
    Boom. Roasted...

    If I could take your pain and frame it, and hang it on my wall,
    maybe you would never have to hurt again...

    Quote Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. Atheist Eschatology
    By Eli_Manning in forum Religion Forum
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 08-07-2012, 11:16 PM
  2. Atheist Spirituality
    By rob19 in forum Religion Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-22-2011, 01:15 PM
  3. Roport: 4 game suspension for Holmes confirmed
    By bpackers13 in forum Beasts of the AFC East
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-12-2010, 06:59 PM
  4. The Atheist
    By PHANTASTIC 13 in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-17-2006, 10:49 AM
  5. James Jackson Mini Update/DE Holmes now a Packer
    By Nublar7 in forum Miami Dolphins Forum
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 08-25-2004, 09:21 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •