Why are atheists on this website always attacking Christianity? (1 Viewer)

[alisondance]

You say that as though the homosexuality is an additional indictment upon their character, beyond just the child abuse. Why does it matter if they were homosexual or not?

It is quite revolting that someone such as yourself could even defend such a vile practice, what grotesque plays you must be wickedly cheering in that fowl Cartesian theater of yours.

i detest such a statement and request that you re read my post as no where within it do i defend such behavior rather bring forth the idea that attacking ones religion in regards to statutory rape, when similar sexual abuse is occuring in their own religion is hypocritical.
will be awaiting your apology for a revolting and undeserved accusation. very disappointed in personal attack as opposed to a general discussion.

 

[David Spade]

which church leaders are openly homosexual lol

 

[ad infinitum]

i detest such a statement and request that you re read my post as no where within it do i defend such behavior rather bring forth the idea that attacking ones religion in regards to statutory rape, when similar sexual abuse is occuring in their own religion is hypocritical.
will be awaiting your apology for a revolting and undeserved accusation. very disappointed in personal attack as opposed to a general discussion.

I am an atheist. Most people that commented are atheists.
Just because the Catholic church contains pedophiles does not make the relationship between the prophet (an old business man) and a 6 year old girl OK.
I can not even imagine the warped quasi-logic you must employ in order to make such an absurd conclusion. You are a pedophilia apologist. That's just not on. Please either condemn Islam or admit to being a pedophilia apologist. Nauseating.

 

[alisondance]

Again where exactly in my post did i claim that the actions of Mohammed is acceptable? Please clarify and find specific supporting evidence within my post which you claim defines we as a 'pedophilia apologist' as opposed to your personal incorrect interpretation of my post before you make personal attacks, accusations and assumptions.

 

[alisondance]

I am an atheist. Most people that commented are atheists. Please either condemn Islam or admit to being a pedophilia apologist. Nauseating.

fool i state that they are both disgusting in my post! how on earth are you coming to such ridiculous conclusions? Re read my post! no where do i support pedophilia! rather i suggest that both religions have faults in this area - faults which are WRONG!

thankyou that is all, i dont expect an apology as you seem unable to grasp the meaning of my words and instead choose to warp them to create a personal attack. Fight the real issue, not the individuals you MISINTERPRET.

clearly i made an error in saying you 'own' religion which i retract though my point that sexual abuse is occuring in both religions still stands. see how i can admit i misinterpreted things and fix my error?

 

[SnowFox]

The stupidity of Mirakon astounds me, then again hes only 16 and probably has not finished puberty.

 

[PhilosopherKing]

Religious morals are absolute, they are either absolutely right or absolutely wrong. The whole point of following a religious text that's thousands of years old, is that the morals in it are supposed to be unchanging and absolutely correct from the beginning to the end of history.

If the qur'an can be wrong about the appropriateness of sex with children in contemporary society, why would you trust it as an authority on anything else?

Morality is defined by god alone, and god's morals never change, sin is always sin.

Whilst I'm sympathetic to the religious need for "moral closure" (certainty, per se), I always find it difficult to accept the proposition that "god" alone defines morality. I'd argue that "divine command theory" fails to support the notion of absolute morality. If you posit god as the final frontier and creator of all, it follows that this entity (by common definition) decided on morality, quite arbitarily. If god did have a choice in deciding these moral facts, for example, we ought not to kill each other, it then would logically follow that god had an infinite set of possibilities to choose from: in sum, "divine commands" must be relative at least to other contingencies.

The theist when faced with this relativism (and often disappointed) is allowed the luxury of saying that god did not have a choice when deciding these laws; but then we must question the necessary components of this "god": omnipotence etc? Does this new entity fit the definition at all? If we reject relativism and imply that god had no choice we are left with two logical possibilities:

1) Moral facts exist beyond the realm of god, making the only thing special about god his ability to know these facts (from a further unknown source), not god himself.

2) "Divine commands" are not moral facts, as none such exist. This moral nihilism can lead to a well-supported position of atheism with careful contemplation.

I tend to lean towards the later, but am sympathetic to those who require moral certainty. After all, as a species, the one thing we love more then discovering patterns is feeling that our pattern is, above all else, correct.

 

[L]

The stupidity of Mirakon astounds me, then again hes only 16 and probably has not finished puberty.

shut up asian stop playing halo and go back to cs

 

[PhilosopherKing]

I'm new to the thread but it is certainly a vibrant discussion.

Deligating from the topic, I was interested in seeing if all theists/deists or any morphed form of "supernaturlist" believes that logic/reasoning is outside the providence of "god"- that they operate and necessarily exist independently?

 

[ad infinitum]

@alisondance, your original post smelt of an Islam apologist (i.e Christianz do itz, do not attack Islam!!). It could have done with a bit more clarity. But I apologize if I misrepresented you.

Whilst I'm sympathetic to the religious need for "moral closure" (certainty, per se), I always find it difficult to accept the proposition that "god" alone defines morality. I'd argue that "divine command theory" fails to support the notion of absolute morality. If you posit god as the final frontier and creator of all, it follows that this entity (by common definition) decided on morality, quite arbitarily. If god did have a choice in deciding these moral facts, for example, we ought not to kill each other, it then would logically follow that god had an infinite set of possibilities to choose from: in sum, "divine commands" must be relative at least to other contingencies.

The theist when faced with this relativism (and often disappointed) is allowed the luxury of saying that god did not have a choice when deciding these laws; but then we must question the necessary components of this "god": omnipotence etc? Does this new entity fit the definition at all? If we reject relativism and imply that god had no choice we are left with two logical possibilities:

1) Moral facts exist beyond the realm of god, making the only thing special about god his ability to know these facts (from a further unknown source), not god himself.

2) "Divine commands" are not moral facts, as none such exist. This moral nihilism can lead to a well-supported position of atheism with careful contemplation.

I tend to lean towards the later, but am sympathetic to those who require moral certainty. After all, as a species, the one thing we love more then discovering patterns is feeling that our pattern is, above all else, correct.

Why one earth would you lean towards the second option when the first is so obviously correct. The first point is simply a long and obscure way of stating that 'Morals' are free floating rationals; quite self evident I would havve thought. Nothing to do with 'moral certainy'.

 

[mirakon]

The stupidity of Mirakon astounds me, then again hes only 16 and probably has not finished puberty.

Yeah probably.... But I'm happy that unlike some people you have the maturity not to give me neg rep just because you disagree with me so thanks.

 

[SnowFox]

Yeah probably.... But I'm happy that unlike some people you have the maturity not to give me neg rep just because you disagree with me so thanks.

Just pay attention to the posts.

 

[PhilosopherKing]

@alisondance, your original post smelt of an Islam apologist (i.e Christianz do itz, do not attack Islam!!). It could have done with a bit more clarity. But I apologize if I misrepresented you.




Why one earth would you lean towards the second option when the first is so obviously correct. The first point is simply a long and obscure way of stating that 'Morals' are free floating rationals; quite self evident I would havve thought. Nothing to do with 'moral certainy'.

Well firstly I was discussing general thoughts of ethics under the blanket of god's existence (assumption).

I'd be cautious in your confidence as to the "self-evident" nature of moral facts.

We could bring to end the longevity of philosophical enquiry into ethics if you had certain proof of their existence?

Other then descriptive observation, ie person A decided not to kill person B, which is largely unsatisfying as evidence for a universal ought, I'd dare say it would be challenging, if not impossible, to derive prescriptions with certainty.

To the question of certainty, are you certain as to the non-existence of the set of known gods { Zeus, Allah, Yaweh...} or even the complete possibility of a god altogether?

 

[ad infinitum]

Well firstly I was discussing general thoughts of ethics under the blanket of god's existence (assumption).

I'd be cautious in your confidence as to the "self-evident" nature of moral facts.

We could bring to end the longevity of philosophical enquiry into ethics if you had certain proof of their existence?

Other then descriptive observation, ie person A decided not to kill person B, which is largely unsatisfying as evidence for a universal ought, I'd dare say it would be challenging, if not impossible, to derive prescriptions with certainty.

To the question of certainty, are you certain as to the non-existence of the set of known gods { Zeus, Allah, Yaweh...} or even the complete possibility of a god altogether?

Your babble really deserves no response. Get read-up on Popper's 'Logic of Scientific discovery' before trying to address your intellectual superiors (i.e me).

 

[PhilosopherKing]

Your babble really deserves no response. Get read-up on Popper's 'Logic of Scientific discovery' before trying to address your intellectual superiors (i.e me).

Thanks for saying:

"I don't understand what you said, so I'll hit the ad hominem button".

In fact, a quick review of your posts seems to suggest a most dangerous fundamentalism. Speaking of back to basics, I'd suggest Baggini's A Philosopher's Toolkit: A Compendium of Philosophical Concepts and Methods.

http://www.amazon.com/Philosophers-Toolkit-Compendium-Philosophical-Concepts/dp/0631228748

Good day!

 

[ad infinitum]

Thanks for saying:

"I don't understand what you said, so I'll hit the ad hominem button".

In fact, a quick review of your posts seems to suggest a most dangerous fundamentalism. Speaking of back to basics, I'd suggest Baggini's A Philosopher's Toolkit: A Compendium of Philosophical Concepts and Methods.

Amazon.com: The Philosophers Toolkit: A Compendium of Philosophical Concepts and Methods (9780631228745): Julian Baggini, Peter S. Fosl: Books

Good day!

Haha, I understood what you wrote. Your obviously oblivious to current thinking, probably stuck somewhere in the 17th centuary. Furthermore what you wrote was a complete non sequitur to my response. The existence of free floating rationals, has nothing to do with a 'not believing in god' (which in turn has nothing to do with 'being certain'). So please, go read Popper, and Dennet, and then, like the infant your are, present an apology to your parent; me.

 

[PhilosopherKing]

Haha, I understood what you wrote. Your obviously oblivious to current thinking, probably stuck somewhere in the 17th centuary. Furthermore what you wrote was a complete non sequitur to my response. The existence of free floating rationals, has nothing to do with a 'not believing in god' (which in turn has nothing to do with 'being certain'). So please, go read Popper, and Dennet, and then, like the infant your are, present an apology to your parent; me.

If I bow down now, will you at least have mercy?

 

[PhilosopherKing]

Also still waiting for the "proof" of moral facts...?

Why is nihilism incorrect>?

And I'm not asking for a book list. I want YOU to explain it to me.

 

[John McCain]

Also still waiting for the "proof" of moral facts...?

Why is nihilism incorrect>?

And I'm not asking for a book list. I want YOU to explain it to me.

Find a brick wall, you'll have a more fruitful discussion.

http://community.boredofstudies.org/214/news-current-affairs-politics/224647/moral-relativity.html

 

[g-bee]

Christians like to force their beliefs down our throats.

that's true really. you don't see other faiths try to force the belief down your throat and they don't have as much of a history, both negative and postive, as christians do.

and everyone is entitled to their own opinions.