Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
usafjay1976

Atheists: Is Murder Acceptable With You?

Recommended Posts

 

 

Not to start an argument, but I've always believed that the "Christians" who committed those horrible acts were not really born-again, Bible-believing, saved Christians. How could they be? Truth is there are many, many who think they are Christians of whom Jesus will say, "I never knew you."

I concede that if limiting Christians to a very specific definition, including aspects of morality, you'll have morally good people only. But to who do these apply?

 

Some points to consider:

 

First - Nobody but God himself knows what is truly in someone's heart. Christians refrain from passing judgment on who is or is not actually a saved Christian. Non-believers in no way, shape or form are in the least qualified to say whether someone is or is not a Christian.

You cannot at the same time declare "I've believed those "Christians" were not really born-again, Bible-believing, saved Christians" and "I refrain from passing judgment on who is or is not actually a saved Christian". Its called having cake and eating it too (or something). 

 

I don't care what label you use. If you call yourself a Christian, a Muslim, a hypertheist, a flubberpup, I don't care. But if you specify a definition to be used, and you don't qualify for it, I'll point it out for you. You've drawn conclusions based on the definition with regard to yourself. If the definition doesn't apply, the conclusions will be flawed as well.

 

Second - A person is not defined as a Christian solely by his works ... going to church, giving to the poor, being a "good" person do not make someone a Christian.

Yet some of these seem to the minimum requirements... to be a Christian.

 

Third - A person is not a Christian just because of cultural or social attachments, allegiances or involvements.

Endorsing people acting immoral by supporting them financially, politically is immoral by my book. Perhaps that's not in the Bible and the Catholics are all fine?

 

Fourth - A true Christian will have evidence in his life of his being saved ... outwardly in the form of good works.

How is this not contradiction your "first" and "second"?

-> passing judgement on those lacking evidence

-> good works are part of defining a Christian

 

Fifth - Scripture is very clear that a true Christian is someone who has placed his faith in Christ, repented of his sins, accepted Christ's gift of salvation by his death on the cross, and who strives to have the mind of Christ. Jesus himself acknowledges that there will be many who say they are Christians, but who are not.

 

The book of 1John is God's test for individuals to examine their walk with the Lord. This test is for the individual, not for others who want to determine if someone else is a true Christian.

 

I submit that there will be many surprises at who we meet in Heaven. Some who we expect to see there may not be. Some who we never guessed would be there will be. But God knows, and that's what's important.

Sure, I can agree with this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

...

–Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 288

–Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 88

–Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 59

–Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 393

–Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 393

–Hitler’s Table Talk, pp. 58-59

 

Its like you've quoted all from the same source... Which turns out to be a fraudulent translation...

Example:

Published translation:

"I realize that humans can commit countless mistakes in their imperfection, but willingly commit to mistakes is something that I cannot do. I will never be able to reconcile myself with the Christian lie. ...

Original:

Ich weiß, dass der Mensch in seiner Fehlerhaftigkeit tausend Dinge falsch machen wird. Aber entgegen dem eigenen Wissen etwas falsch tun, das kommt nicht in Frage! Man darf sich persönlich einer solchen Lüge niemals fügen....

Correct translation:

I know that people fail to do a thousand things in their shortcomings. But doing something wrong willingly is something that I cannot do! One should never personally accept such a lie.

 

These are all RECORDED comments from Hitler's  OWN MOUTH..

I didn't know Hitler spoke English in his table talks?

 

Hitler's table talks were arranged meetings where he knew that the words were being recorded. Were recorded in German and noted down in German.

These were after the war translated to French and suddenly included a lot of references to Christianity in a negative way. They were subsequently translated to English (from the French translation).

 

 

 

 

According to evolution, humans are just accidents of nature and are no more important than rocks; in fact, humans don't even need to exist.  So genocide is neither moral nor immoral; it's just irrelevant.  If it is not immoral to kill 6 million bacteria, why should it be immoral to kill 6 million humans?  How can an atheist prove that - contrary to what "science" implies - the life of a human is worth more than the life of a bacterium?

 

Important to whom? Irrelevant to whom? Worth more to whom? These are all subjective questions that evolution can't really speak to, other than possibly to explain how we as humans came to consider other humans more important than rocks.

Because humans tend to think of individual humans as worth more than most bacteria, we construct our morality on that basis. Bacteria might disagree if they had the capacity to do so, and if they did we wouldn't really be able to resolve that disagreement with proof, since it's a conflict that goes down to fundamentally subjective questions about what we value and why.

 

"Because humans tend to think of individual humans as worth more than most bacteria, we construct our morality on that basis. Bacteria might disagree if they had the capacity to do so, and if they did we wouldn't really be able to resolve that disagreement with proof, since it's a conflict that goes down to fundamentally subjective questions about what we value and why. "

 

 

INTERESTING  ANALYSIS....

 

So if Bacteria were able to disagree with Humans, We wouldn't be able to prove that we are worth more than they are..

 

 

How about Insects, Plants, and Fish? They aren't able to disagree with us either..

 

HOWEVER

 

Evolutionists have already Declared that Man is NOT worth more than a plant, a fish or an insect...

Correct, yet what we feel and what is, can differ can it not?

People feel more closely related to other "things" they have more in common with. As Popoi nicely explained to you.

..

 

 

"I didn't know Hitler spoke English in his table talks?"

 

I thought everyone aready knew that.. That is why I used the word MISTRANSLATION after EVERY ONE of the provided quotes... If he "Spoke in English" why would I need to mention anything about MISTRANSLATION?

As someone who speaks a few languages myself, I am familiar with how that kind of thing works.. ... SI ME EXPLICO? O TODAVIA TE ENCUENTRAS CONFUNDIDO.. HASTA AHORITA DESCONOZCO LA RESPUESTA...

 

 

 

"Hitler's table talks were arranged meetings where he knew that the words were being recorded. Were recorded in German and noted down in German."

 

CORRECTO..

 

These were after the war translated to French and suddenly included a lot of references to Christianity in a negative way.

 

QUIEN TE DIJO TALES TONTERIAS? TALK ORIGINS? Y PORQUE TE DEJAS ENGANAR UNA Y OTRA VEZ CON LAS MENTIRAS DEL DIABLO? NO ERES SIMIO.. ERES MUCHO MAS QUE ESO, Y ESTAS AVENTANDO A LA BASURA LA UNICA OPORTUNIDAD QUE VAYAS A TENER DE CONOCER AL VERDADERO DIOS QUIEN TE AMA

 

SIN EMBARGO

 

QUE TIENE QUE VER LA TRADUCCIÓN DE ALEMÃN AL FRANCES? NADA EN ABSOLUTO!!.. ESTAS HABLANDO DE DOS COSAS TOTALMENTE DISTINCTAS!!. O ES POR LO DE LA TRADUCCIÓN AL FRANCES? O POR AGREGAR CITACIÓNES QUE HITLER JAMÃS DIJO... CUAL ES?

 

 

They were subsequently translated to English (from the French translation).

 

OBVIAMENTE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I didn't know Hitler spoke English in his table talks?"

I thought everyone aready knew that.. That is why I used the word MISTRANSLATION after EVERY ONE of the provided quotes... If he "Spoke in English" why would I need to mention anything about MISTRANSLATION?

As someone who speaks a few languages myself, I am familiar with how that kind of thing works.. ... SI ME EXPLICO? O TODAVIA TE ENCUENTRAS CONFUNDIDO.. HASTA AHORITA DESCONOZCO LA RESPUESTA...

LOL

Now I know you're trying to pull my leg. Nobody's gonna take you serious from now on. 

 

Also: Ik denk dat er een probleem is met uw toetsenbord, je lijkt me net iets meer hoofdletters te gebruiken dan nodig is. Grappig dat je spreekt over meerdere talen te kunnen gebruiken en daardoor weet hoe vertalingsfouten werken. Ikzelf ben afkomstig uit een land waar drie talen spreken zo een beetje de norm is. Ikzelf kan er vijf.

 

 

These were after the war translated to French and suddenly included a lot of references to Christianity in a negative way.

QUIEN TE DIJO TALES TONTERIAS? TALK ORIGINS? Y PORQUE TE DEJAS ENGANAR UNA Y OTRA VEZ CON LAS MENTIRAS DEL DIABLO? NO ERES SIMIO.. ERES MUCHO MAS QUE ESO, Y ESTAS AVENTANDO A LA BASURA LA UNICA OPORTUNIDAD QUE VAYAS A TENER DE CONOCER AL VERDADERO DIOS QUIEN TE AMA

 

SIN EMBARGO

 

QUE TIENE QUE VER LA TRADUCCIÓN DE ALEMÃN AL FRANCES? NADA EN ABSOLUTO!!.. ESTAS HABLANDO DE DOS COSAS TOTALMENTE DISTINCTAS!!. O ES POR LO DE LA TRADUCCIÓN AL FRANCES? O POR AGREGAR CITACIÓNES QUE HITLER JAMÃS DIJO... CUAL ES?

 

 

They were subsequently translated to English (from the French translation).

 

OBVIAMENTE

The part of the German to French is not so important, apart from the fact that it shows I've done my home work. Speaking about homework. I used a grammar checker on your Spanish (I'm not so fluent in it to correct everything myself) http://spanishchecker.com/en/It gave you a score of 1/10. Please do a better job next time.

 

I don't usually go to talk origins. I think I've visited it maybe twice in my entire life. The information I got here was purely from other sources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You cannot at the same time declare "I've believed those "Christians" were not really born-again, Bible-believing, saved Christians" and "I refrain from passing judgment on who is or is not actually a saved Christian". Its called having cake and eating it too (or something).

 

Fjuri, you make the same error that many who read the Bible, especially skeptics, make. You take one statement, don't consider the context, and then make doctrine from it.

 

The context of the several points of my explanation is that only God knows whether someone is truly saved (a Christian). Scripture tells us that a Christian will have evidence in his life of being saved.

 

This is important! I am not saying that someone without evidence of good works is not saved. Nor am I saying that all those who have evidence of good works in their lives are truly saved.

 

Let that soak in.

 

OK. An example:

 

Let's say someone claims to be a Christian and wakes up one morning and decides to systematically murder 6 million Jews, a couple more million Christians and others, and even a smattering of h*m*sexuals. Who in their right mind would say, "Yup, that's a good Christian all right."

 

Obviously I am referring to Hitler.

 

Having said that, it is possible that Hitler repented, and made a decision for Christ in that bunker just before his death. Personally, I believe it is highly improbable because there are instances in the Bible where God gave unrepentant reprobates over to their evil desires and basically gave up on them. Pharaoh during the Moses episode is one example.

 

Was the Nazi reich evil to its core and as anti-Christian as they come? You bet. Do I believe there might be some former Nazis in Heaven? Yup. Could happen.

 

Similarly, although the Mormon faith is at its core a non-Christian cult, I do believe there will be some Mormons in heaven. Not because they are good tithing Mormons, but because they followed the steps I outlined earlier and are truly saved (but confused) Christians, despite what the Mormon faith teaches.

 

My point is that, no, I absolutely cannot judge an individual's status with God as far as being saved. But, I can say I personally believe that when someone, or a lot of someones, claim to be Christian and they wreak havoc, murder, mayhem and genocide they do not show the evidence of being a Christian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fjuri, you make the same error that many who read the Bible, especially skeptics, make. You take one statement, don't consider the context, and then make doctrine from it.

I think you can give me a bit more credit, if its one thing I do is considering context. Of course I can still be missing something.

 

The context of the several points of my explanation is that only God knows whether someone is truly saved (a Christian). Scripture tells us that a Christian will have evidence in his life of being saved.

 

This is important! I am not saying that someone without evidence of good works is not saved. Nor am I saying that all those who have evidence of good works in their lives are truly saved.

This I understand, and this was already incorporated in my posts. Never, at any point did I intent to make a judgement whether or not someone would be saved or not.

 

OK. An example:

 

Let's say someone claims to be a Christian and wakes up one morning and decides to systematically murder 6 million Jews, a couple more million Christians and others, and even a smattering of h*m*sexuals. Who in their right mind would say, "Yup, that's a good Christian all right."

 

Obviously I am referring to Hitler.

 

Having said that, it is possible that Hitler repented, and made a decision for Christ in that bunker just before his death. Personally, I believe it is highly improbable because there are instances in the Bible where God gave unrepentant reprobates over to their evil desires and basically gave up on them. Pharaoh during the Moses episode is one example.

Would you agree that the justice you spoke of earlier is solely towards God, but not among humans? eg. If Hitler sincerely repented and was saved right before his death, there would still be no justice for the 6 million Yews? (prob a different topic if you disagree, just a question)

The pharaoh's hearth was hardened though, but that's a different topic.

 

My point is that, no, I absolutely cannot judge an individual's status with God as far as being saved. But, I can say I personally believe that when someone, or a lot of someones, claim to be Christian and they wreak havoc, murder, mayhem and genocide they do not show the evidence of being a Christian.

And that I understand and agree with. Apart that I think that "I personally believe" and "I judge" are very closely related and in the context of this conversation, they can be interchanged.

 

As I saw the conversation: (T: Theists ; A:Atheists)

A: Was genocide moral in the past? And now?

T: Any action done or demanded by God is moral. Be it ugly, sad, ... there's a huge list.

A: So the violent actions in the Bible are a representation of moral behavior?

T: Well, The Jewish law was guided by: "An eye for an eye."  Christian teaching is ruled by: "Turn the other cheek" and "Love thy neighbor as thyself."

T: People that act immoral likely aren't Christian.
A: So person X, Y, Z aren't Christian?
T: You can't make that judgement.
 
Now if you notice, there's a small change from "likely aren't" to "aren't", but that's a nuance. I surely will take a step back and make a "likely aren't" evaluation if that would remove our differences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if Bacteria were able to disagree with Humans, We wouldn't be able to prove that we are worth more than they are..

 

How about Insects, Plants, and Fish? They aren't able to disagree with us either..

Think of it this way: If an alien showed up that was much smarter than you, would they be able to prove to you that meant they were worth more, morally speaking? Let's assume for the sake of the argument that they also have a book that says they are very important.

 

Evolutionists have already Declared that Man is NOT worth more than a plant, a fish or an insect...

Worth more to whom?

 

Is evolution progressive?

 

This is not an easy question to answer. From a plant's perspective, the best measure of progress might be photosynthetic ability; from a spider's it might be the efficiency of a venom delivery system.

 

What is progress?

 

The problem is that we humans are hung up on ourselves. We often define progress in a way that hinges on our view of ourselves, a way that relies on intellect, culture, or emotion. But that definition is anthropocentric.

 

It is tempting to see evolution as a grand progressive ladder with Homo sapiens emerging at the top. But evolution produces a tree, not a ladder — and we are just one of many leaves on the tree.

So on the one hand we have the claim that evolution says everything is morally equivalent, and on the other we have the idea that Hitler used evolution to justify the idea that some humans are morally inferior to others and be exterminated. How do those two fit together?
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So if Bacteria were able to disagree with Humans, We wouldn't be able to prove that we are worth more than they are..How about Insects, Plants, and Fish? They aren't able to disagree with us either..

Think of it this way: If an alien showed up that was much smarter than you, would they be able to prove to you that meant they were worth more, morally speaking? Let's assume for the sake of the argument that they also have a book that says they are very important. 

Evolutionists have already Declared that Man is NOT worth more than a plant, a fish or an insect...

Worth more to whom? 

Is evolution progressive?This is not an easy question to answer. From a plant's perspective, the best measure of progress might be photosynthetic ability; from a spider's it might be the efficiency of a venom delivery system.What is progress?The problem is that we humans are hung up on ourselves. We often define progress in a way that hinges on our view of ourselves, a way that relies on intellect, culture, or emotion. But that definition is anthropocentric.It is tempting to see evolution as a grand progressive ladder with Homo sapiens emerging at the top. But evolution produces a tree, not a ladder — and we are just one of many leaves on the tree.

So on the one hand we have the claim that evolution says everything is morally equivalent, and on the other we have the idea that Hitler used evolution to justify the idea that some humans are morally inferior to others and be exterminated. How do those two fit together?

 

"So on the one hand we have the claim that evolution says everything is morally equivalent, and on the other we have the idea that Hitler used evolution to justify the idea that some humans are morally inferior to others and be exterminated. How do those two fit together?"

 

NO

 

For one thing,.Hitler regarded the Jews as “parasitic vermin†worthy only of eradication... Not just "Morally inferior" as you editorialized..

 

THEREFORE

 

According to the "Correct" Evolutionary ladder from Cal State University Evolution 101 website.. Man is NOT on the top rung of the ladder compared to Insects, Fish, And Plants.. He is EQUAL in stature, and is NOT special at all.. And it is wrong to think that he is..

(As Can CLEARLY be seen by "Wrong" with man on the top rung of the ladder with a crown on his head, and "Right" by Man with NO crown and at the same level on the tree with all of the other living creatures..

 

 

CONSEQUENTLY

 

Killing other beings for convenience or embetterment to the majority, whether mowing the lawn, Pulling weeds, spraying insecticide, gutting fish, stepping on cockroaches or gassing jews, killing cripples, murdering innocent defenseless young humans, or anything else that the majority decides is perfectly fine....IS PERFECTLY FINE..

 

 

YOU SEE..

 

If "Evolution" WERE TO BE true (Thank God it is False) then there is ZERO differerence between stepping on a slug on purpose or running over a human on purpose.. Except for man's subjective laws that are merely a deterrent (except for our youngest ones who get Nero's thumbs down these days) but NOTHING MORE THAN THAT..

 

 

The truth about the Mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth is Certainly Ugly when we analyze it critically without the beneficial influence of Judeo Christian values of the isnt it?

 

 

"If nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such cases all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile"

 

(Adolph Hitler, "Mein Kampf" 1924)

 

"The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consistently sought to make the practices of Germany conform to the theory of evolution."

 

(Sir Arthur Keith, physical anthropologist)

 

 

"The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world." (Charles Darwin, 1881, 3 July,)

 

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world."

 

(Charles Darwin, The descent of Man,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just so you know:

Neither Darwin nor Hitler would be considered experts on the theory of evolution nowadays...

And I don't think Hitler ever was...

 

(one of them would make sure to become an expert I bet though...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just so you know:

Neither Darwin nor Hitler would be considered experts on the theory of evolution nowadays...

And I don't think Hitler ever was...

 

(one of them would make sure to become an expert I bet though...)

"Neither Darwin nor Hitler would be considered experts on the theory of evolution nowadays.

 

Hahah... You still dont get it do you.. There IS NO SUCH THING as an "Expert" in the "Theory of Evolution" because THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS EVOLUTION"!!! (Merely Variation and Adaptation followed by mass amounts extrapolation and imagination..)

 

That is like claiming one can be an "Expert" in the benefits of Eating Dogmess or an "Expert" in Santa's Methodology for delivering presents to all on Christmas eve or an "Expert" in how the Terminator was able to travel back in time to save Sarah Connor..

 

 

There are a many "Experts" on the fraud of Darwin's Mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth, but they all have one thing in common.. They all know that there is NO SUCH THING AS EVOLUTION.. You have merely been brainwashed and indoctrinated into believing that there is..

 

Don't you remember the name of this website you are on now?

 

Snap out if it..!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the "Correct" Evolutionary ladder from Cal State University Evolution 101 website.. Man is NOT on the top rung of the ladder compared to Insects, Fish, And Plants.. He is EQUAL in stature, and is NOT special at all.. And it is wrong to think that he is..

(As Can CLEARLY be seen by "Wrong" with man on the top rung of the ladder with a crown on his head, and "Right" by Man with NO crown and at the same level on the tree with all of the other living creatures..

Hitler was all about the German people being special. Which according to your own argument, is not a concept that fits with the theory of evolution.

 

Not that I buy that interpretation, mind you. The part I quoted indicates it's specifically about the notion of evolution as progress. Humans aren't special by virtue of being the most or best evolved, but that doesn't mean you can't decide we're special for other reasons. Evolution isn't in the business of telling you what you should value.

Killing other beings for convenience or embetterment to the majority, whether mowing the lawn, Pulling weeds, spraying insecticide, gutting fish, stepping on cockroaches or gassing jews, killing cripples, murdering innocent defenseless young humans, or anything else that the majority decides is perfectly fine....IS PERFECTLY FINE..

Perfectly fine according to whom? People keep throwing subjective statements around with no subject like they expect them to mean something.

 

If "Evolution" WERE TO BE true (Thank God it is False) then there is ZERO differerence between stepping on a slug on purpose or running over a human on purpose.. Except for man's subjective laws that are merely a deterrent (except for our youngest ones who get Nero's thumbs down these days) but NOTHING MORE THAN THAT..

So except for the differences, there is ZERO difference. I'm starting to question whether you understand the concept of zero.

 

The truth about the Mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth is Certainly Ugly when we analyze it critically without the beneficial influence of Judeo Christian values of the isnt it?

I guess it is if you're a sociopath? This is the part of the discussion that makes me very concerned when religious people imply that the only reason they can think of not to go out and do horrible things is that their book tells them not to.

 

"If nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such cases all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile"

 

(Adolph Hitler, "Mein Kampf" 1924)

Note the use of the faulty concept of a "higher state of being". Remember, there is no higher or lower in evolution, there are only branches. Also nature doesn't wish anything.

 

"The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consistently sought to make the practices of Germany conform to the theory of evolution."

 

(Sir Arthur Keith, physical anthropologist)

The idea of conforming to a scientific theory makes no sense. Scientific theories are descriptive, not prescriptive. You'd make just as much sense trying to justify throwing things on the floor by claiming you're conforming to the theory of gravity.

 

"The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world." (Charles Darwin, 1881, 3 July,)

 

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world."

 

(Charles Darwin, The descent of Man,

Note again the incorrect ideas of higher and lower races.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Popoi: I guess it is if you're a sociopath? This is the part of the discussion that makes me very concerned when religious people imply that the only reason they can think of not to go out and do horrible things is that their book tells them not to.

 

So your argument is that we should remain Christians because if we don't we might end up acting like non-Christians. (serial killing, raping, theft, abortion, etc...) Meaning you tacitly admit that it takes non-Christians to do these things.

 

So then, aren't the ones doing those things guilty, rather than the ones not doing them? :gotcha: 

 

Think about your argument - you are blaming Christians for NOT doing immoral things, while venerating atheists for doing them, because they can create a moral system without God. But Hitler and those like him created their own moral systems, without God. Saying atheists can be moral without God, doesn't mean they really are being moral if those atheists are defining their own morality, because immoral actions aren't inconsistent with atheism.

 

This argument is a very popular atheist argument - but think it through properly, if we don't do Christian things and become atheist, then we are free to steal, rape, kill, etc...as those things are not inconsistent with atheism. So then you imply that we are morally guilty for choosing to not be immoral, and that atheists, (the ones that practice those things) are actually moral, because they don't need God in order to be, "moral", because they can rape and kill and abort and simply name-tag it, "moral".

 

Oh my goodness.

 

 

 

Popoi: This is the part of the discussion that makes me very concerned when religious people imply that the only reason they can think of not to go out and do horrible things is that their book tells them not to

 

But doesn't that mean we are, "NOT doing horrible things" then? You're concerned that we are NOT doing those things but COULD if we weren't Christian?

 

So then, who is doing them if you admit this?

 

Answer; non-Christians.

 

Yet you blame us, and are, "concerned". Shouldn't you be concerned with the atheists that ARE doing those horrible things?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you have to understand Mike the Wiz how the moral system is experienced by everyone. You cannot deny that each individual has a slightly different moral evaluation system. Yours is different from mine, but also from Blitzkings for example (as is demonstrated by his moral declaration for genocide nowadays).

The foundation of each individuals morality is twofold. A part that is inherited genetically (or "imprinted by God") and a part that is cultural. That's why people of different cultural background have slightly different moral standards.

 

The part that is imprinted by God is fixed for life. That's unchanging.

The part that is cultural is changing depending on life experiences. For example, before you were re-born in Christ, you would experience yourself as a moral being while hinsight reveals some errors you might have made.

 

Another cultural change can be going from theist to atheist. For each individual this is different and some don't actually change a lot with regard to their morals.

 

A common theistic argument is that they would commit horrible things if they should turn away from their Bible. That's more often than not a lie. If it is true, then that means they do have sociopathic tendencies. (And I'd prefer they keep following their book that says to keep away from me.)

Edit: And btw, when we state we are concerned you can't think of any other reason not to do horrible things apart from your book, we're not saying you're not already doing horrible things now. We're saying we're concerned you be doing more of them...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But doesn't that mean we are, "NOT doing horrible things" then? You're concerned that we are NOT doing those things but COULD if we weren't Christian?

I’m concerned when people seem to want to. If a book telling you not to is literally the only reason you wouldn’t murder someone that’s certainly better than nothing, but it seems like you’re one crisis of faith away from a bloodbath. I’m way more concerned about someone like that than someone with no particularly well defined moral code but a functioning sense of empathy.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Everyone.  If life is the result of a series of mindless, random accidents, then it cannot have meaning.  If you believe it can, then I suggest you are suffering from some kind of delusion.

 

Please demonstrate that it cannot have meaning. If not you're presenting a bare assessment fallacy.
How is this thought?: If you come from nothing and go back to nothing, you are nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just so you know:

Neither Darwin nor Hitler would be considered experts on the theory of evolution nowadays...

And I don't think Hitler ever was...

(one of them would make sure to become an expert I bet though...)

"Neither Darwin nor Hitler would be considered experts on the theory of evolution nowadays.

Hahah... You still dont get it do you.. There IS NO SUCH THING as an "Expert" in the "Theory of Evolution" because THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS EVOLUTION"!!! (Merely Variation and Adaptation followed by mass amounts extrapolation and imagination..)

That is like claiming one can be an "Expert" in the benefits of Eating Dogmess or an "Expert" in Santa's Methodology for delivering presents to all on Christmas eve or an "Expert" in how the Terminator was able to travel back in time to save Sarah Connor..

There are a many "Experts" on the fraud of Darwin's Mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth, but they all have one thing in common.. They all know that there is NO SUCH THING AS EVOLUTION.. You have merely been brainwashed and indoctrinated into believing that there is..

Don't you remember the name of this website you are on now?

Snap out if it..!!

I once met someone who claimed to be an expert on the Tooth Fairy, but I didn't believe him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Everyone.  If life is the result of a series of mindless, random accidents, then it cannot have meaning.  If you believe it can, then I suggest you are suffering from some kind of delusion.

Please demonstrate that it cannot have meaning. If not you're presenting a bare assessment fallacy.
How is this thought?: If you come from nothing and go back to nothing, you are nothing.

 

If you come from nothing and go back to nothing, by definition you can't be nothing in between those two events.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the "Correct" Evolutionary ladder from Cal State University Evolution 101 website.. Man is NOT on the top rung of the ladder compared to Insects, Fish, And Plants.. He is EQUAL in stature, and is NOT special at all.. And it is wrong to think that he is..(As Can CLEARLY be seen by "Wrong" with man on the top rung of the ladder with a crown on his head, and "Right" by Man with NO crown and at the same level on the tree with all of the other living creatures..

Hitler was all about the German people being special. Which according to your own argument, is not a concept that fits with the theory of evolution.Not that I buy that interpretation, mind you. The part I quoted indicates it's specifically about the notion of evolution as progress. Humans aren't special by virtue of being the most or best evolved, but that doesn't mean you can't decide we're special for other reasons. Evolution isn't in the business of telling you what you should value.

 

Killing other beings for convenience or embetterment to the majority, whether mowing the lawn, Pulling weeds, spraying insecticide, gutting fish, stepping on cockroaches or gassing jews, killing cripples, murdering innocent defenseless young humans, or anything else that the majority decides is perfectly fine....IS PERFECTLY FINE..

Perfectly fine according to whom? People keep throwing subjective statements around with no subject like they expect them to mean something.

 

If "Evolution" WERE TO BE true (Thank God it is False) then there is ZERO differerence between stepping on a slug on purpose or running over a human on purpose.. Except for man's subjective laws that are merely a deterrent (except for our youngest ones who get Nero's thumbs down these days) but NOTHING MORE THAN THAT..

So except for the differences, there is ZERO difference. I'm starting to question whether you understand the concept of zero.

 

The truth about the Mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth is Certainly Ugly when we analyze it critically without the beneficial influence of Judeo Christian values of the isnt it?

I guess it is if you're a sociopath? This is the part of the discussion that makes me very concerned when religious people imply that the only reason they can think of not to go out and do horrible things is that their book tells them not to.

 

"If nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such cases all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile"(Adolph Hitler, "Mein Kampf" 1924)

Note the use of the faulty concept of a "higher state of being". Remember, there is no higher or lower in evolution, there are only branches. Also nature doesn't wish anything.

 

"The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consistently sought to make the practices of Germany conform to the theory of evolution."(Sir Arthur Keith, physical anthropologist)

The idea of conforming to a scientific theory makes no sense. Scientific theories are descriptive, not prescriptive. You'd make just as much sense trying to justify throwing things on the floor by claiming you're conforming to the theory of gravity.

 

"The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world." (Charles Darwin, 1881, 3 July,)"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world."(Charles Darwin, The descent of Man,

Note again the incorrect ideas of higher and lower races.

 

"Hitler was all about the German people being special"

 

Yes indeed, And if he tried to create a master race of intellectually and physically superior human beings by eliminating all of the "Substandard" races..(Anyone not Germanic) shouldn't mankind be grateful for his endeavors? Think of the superior beings that would eventually predominate the Earth? Who are YOU to say that isn't a good thing?

 

 

 

"Evolution isn't in the business of telling you what you should value"

 

"Evolution" isnt "in the business" of ANYTHING...(Another Blatant Logical Fallacy of Reification) "Evolution" is an invention of God Haters and Atheists where they have imagined that variation and adaptation means that warm pond scum can turn into a Frog that can turn into a price slowly even though there exists (up intil now) ZERO Empirical Evidence to support it..

 

"Perfectly fine according to whom?"

 

The Supreme Court if the USA... They have ruled, in 1973 it is perfectly fine for a person to conspire with a paid assasin to murder a defenseless and innocent human being for convenience, In fact, if it weren't for ths Lie of "Evolution" being shoved down every persons throat from the age of 6 with nonsense like "Embryonic Recapitulation" Abortion would be illegal... Oh the joys of Darwinism..

 

ALSO

 

 

Whomever else may deems it to be so... You keep forgetting that Atheists ABANDON THE AUTHORITY to tell anyone what is "Right" and What is "Wrong" You merely rely on Man made Laws and constructs as deterrents..

 

 

"The idea of conforming to a scientific theory makes no sense. Scientific theories are descriptive, not prescriptive. You'd make just as much sense trying to justify throwing things on the floor by claiming you're conforming to the theory of gravity."

 

MORE IGNORANCE

 

Throwing things on the floor is a PERFECT EXAMPLE of utilizing the Empirical Scientific Method to determine if a hypothesis conforms to the rigors of Scientific inquiry or not.. You DO rememebr the Scientific Method dont you? The theory of Gravity is Observable, testable, repeatable falisifiable, Etc.. Your MYO Mindless Mud to Man Myth is NONE OF THOSE has ZERO to do with ANYTHING scientific..

 

 

 

"I guess it is if you're a sociopath? This is the part of the discussion that makes me very concerned when religious people imply that the only reason they can think of not to go out and do horrible things is that their book tells them not to."

 

NONSENSICAL..and

 

????

 

There are PLENTY of "Religious" people that go around doing the most horrible things imaginable.. Let me remind you of Islam, the Religion of peace" www.thereligionofpeace.com. I feel like I am debating with kids sometimes.. If this debate were a boxing match, the ref would have stopped it long ago..

 

 

"Note the use of the faulty concept of a "higher state of being".

 

LOL...

 

According to WHOM??? .. YOU?? In case you have forgotten, you have ABANDONED the authority to decide what is a "higher state of being" and what isnt...

 

 

"Note again the incorrect ideas of higher and lower races."

 

AGAIN..

 

"Incorrect according to WHOM exactly"??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you have to understand Mike the Wiz how the moral system is experienced by everyone. You cannot deny that each individual has a slightly different moral evaluation system. Yours is different from mine, but also from Blitzkings for example (as is demonstrated by his moral declaration for genocide nowadays).

The foundation of each individuals morality is twofold. A part that is inherited genetically (or "imprinted by God") and a part that is cultural. That's why people of different cultural background have slightly different moral standards.

The part that is imprinted by God is fixed for life. That's unchanging.

The part that is cultural is changing depending on life experiences. For example, before you were re-born in Christ, you would experience yourself as a moral being while hinsight reveals some errors you might have made.

Another cultural change can be going from theist to atheist. For each individual this is different and some don't actually change a lot with regard to their morals.

A common theistic argument is that they would commit horrible things if they should turn away from their Bible. That's more often than not a lie. If it is true, then that means they do have sociopathic tendencies. (And I'd prefer they keep following their book that says to keep away from me.)

Edit: And btw, when we state we are concerned you can't think of any other reason not to do horrible things apart from your book, we're not saying you're not already doing horrible things now. We're saying we're concerned you be doing more of them...

 

"A common theistic argument is that they would commit horrible things if they should turn away from their Bible"

 

WRONG..

 

We DONT say that we WOULD commit horrible things if we were to suddenly decide to reject God's Truth of the Bible..

 

BUT

 

We DO say that would no longer have any reason NOT to commit horrible things.. See the difference?

 

 

"Blitzkings for example (as is demonstrated by his moral declaration for genocide nowadays)"

 

WHAT NONSENSE..

 

God CANNOT commit Genocide... But he does have the right to shorten people's lives if he decides to.. Like I said before, people like you are ALREADY DEAD to God... How many breaths do you think you have left before you have to face the music?

 

 

"For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that everyone who believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

According to evolution, humans are just accidents of nature and are no more important than rocks; in fact, humans don't even need to exist.  So genocide is neither moral nor immoral; it's just irrelevant.  If it is not immoral to kill 6 million bacteria, why should it be immoral to kill 6 million humans?  How can an atheist prove that - contrary to what "science" implies - the life of a human is worth more than the life of a bacterium?

Important to whom? Irrelevant to whom? Worth more to whom? These are all subjective questions that evolution can't really speak to, other than possibly to explain how we as humans came to consider other humans more important than rocks.Because humans tend to think of individual humans as worth more than most bacteria, we construct our morality on that basis. Bacteria might disagree if they had the capacity to do so, and if they did we wouldn't really be able to resolve that disagreement with proof, since it's a conflict that goes down to fundamentally subjective questions about what we value and why.
As far as I can ascertain, evolution implies that the only difference between a human being and a bug is functional complexity.  The fact that humans can imagine that their lives are meaningful doesn't change the evolutionary "fact" that they are just a more complex version of a bug.

 

As one "clear-thinking" atheist once told me, "We're just grubs."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God did what he did because he had a good reason, and he had the right to do it. Then you make the huge leap to Christians today believing in genocide. Others here have pointed out your fallacy, but I don't believe you have actually justified your erroneous belief.

Atheists are experts at making huge leaps - that's how they can accept the absurdly massive extrapolations that Darwinism depends on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Blitzking: We DONT say that we WOULD commit horrible things if we were to suddenly decide to reject God's Truth of the Bible..

 

BUT

 

We DO say that would no longer have any reason NOT to commit horrible things.. See the difference?

 

This is correct Fjuri, we are saying that horrible things aren't inconsistent with an atheist position. 

 

Of course you are probably not doing horrible things, in the sense of extremely bad things we would usually define that way and neither am I, but we have to ask the correct question; who is? And it's not going to be those Christians genuinely following the Lord.

 

So Popoi was just trying to put the, "horrible things" on to us - as though everyone that does horrible things is someone who would have been Christian, a kind of madman that only has a Christian creed holding him back. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Still waiting for a theist to answer:

Is it your position that genocide is moral?

Is it your position that genocide was moral in the past, but it isn't now anymore?

Of course genocide is STILL moral IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS..

...

 

 

 

"Blitzkings for example (as is demonstrated by his moral declaration for genocide nowadays)"

 

WHAT NONSENSE..

 

God CANNOT commit Genocide... But he does have the right to shorten people's lives if he decides to.. Like I said before, people like you are ALREADY DEAD to God... How many breaths do you think you have left before you have to face the music?

 

When are you start being consistent? Also, read the context of the quote, if you cut a sentence in half you might miss the meaning...

 

So far this topic we have you claiming:

- Hitler spoke English with his confidants.

- No experts exist with regard to the theory of evolution, but Hitler's and Darwin's quotes show how to interpret it.

- Genocide is moral, but God didn't commit genocide.

 

I thought you were a high IQ person? You do know the range of IQ scores is not 0-70 right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Blitzking: We DONT say that we WOULD commit horrible things if we were to suddenly decide to reject God's Truth of the Bible..

 

BUT

 

We DO say that would no longer have any reason NOT to commit horrible things.. See the difference?

 

This is correct Fjuri, we are saying that horrible things aren't inconsistent with an atheist position. 

I already stated that everything apart from "belief in God" is not inconsistent with an atheist position... That statement is rather empty.

Horrible things aren't inconsistent with people genuinely trying to be a Christian either...

 

So Popoi was just trying to put the, "horrible things" on to us - as though everyone that does horrible things is someone who would have been Christian, a kind of madman that only has a Christian creed holding him back. 

He wasn't. He saying those people exist, madmen who are only having a Christian creed holding them back. And when theists argue they are such a person, its kind of logical to point they are saying such a thing.

 

Please read this post, it answers your concerns:

 

What you have to understand Mike the Wiz how the moral system is experienced by everyone. You cannot deny that each individual has a slightly different moral evaluation system. Yours is different from mine, but also from Blitzkings for example (as is demonstrated by his moral declaration for genocide nowadays).

The foundation of each individuals morality is twofold. A part that is inherited genetically (or "imprinted by God") and a part that is cultural. That's why people of different cultural background have slightly different moral standards.

 

The part that is imprinted by God is fixed for life. That's unchanging.

The part that is cultural is changing depending on life experiences. For example, before you were re-born in Christ, you would experience yourself as a moral being while hinsight reveals some errors you might have made.

 

Another cultural change can be going from theist to atheist. For each individual this is different and some don't actually change a lot with regard to their morals.

 

A common theistic argument is that they would commit horrible things if they should turn away from their Bible. That's more often than not a lie. If it is true, then that means they do have sociopathic tendencies. (And I'd prefer they keep following their book that says to keep away from me.)

Edit: And btw, when we state we are concerned you can't think of any other reason not to do horrible things apart from your book, we're not saying you're not already doing horrible things now. We're saying we're concerned you be doing more of them...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Fjuri: I thought you were a high IQ person? You do know the range of IQ scores is not 0-70 right?

 

This seems pretty unprovoked, BK did make a clever delineation and is pretty sharp when it comes to cutting through the flak. IQ only measures academic intelligence doesn't it? 

 

 I prefer Goku's signature, there is more to intelligence than IQ, IMHO. It would be limited to say that only a big IQ is all that counts. Sometimes it's about intellectual laziness/ignorance.

 

But if you have a learning difficulty that slows you down, I was told by a fellow that gave me a dyslexia test that it is a mistake to infer that I am less intelligent, because he said that I got the questions correct the same as anyone else. If that had been an IQ test I guess I would get a low IQ because I may not have finished the test in time.

 

I also notice with those tests, sometimes they don't even test a big range of abilities, at least the fake IQ tests online anyway. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Fjuri: Horrible things aren't inconsistent with people genuinely trying to be a Christian either...

 

 

Popoi: that makes me very concerned when religious people imply that the only reason they can think of not to go out and do horrible things is that their book tells them not to

 

Doing horrible things, in this context, is something genuine Christians can't do because it leads to a breaking of the law of non-contradiction. if you read the New Testament, it doesn't matter what the thing is you come up with which is, "horrible", the NT will contradict that, because it gives a full description of how a Christian should seek to be and what a Christian should pursue.

 

The only way you can say genuine Christians do horrible things, is if you try to make certain things which aren't really, "horrible", horrible.

 

Disclaimer; I am not saying a Christian can't ever sin, but it's clear that Popoi WAS tacitly admitting that the religious people he is, "concerned" about, aren't doing horrible things because our book tells us not to.

 

So he must believe we aren't doing horrible things if he is concerned that we will do them, meaning he admits he believes that we aren't, for how could he be concerned about us doing them if he already believed we were doing them? That would be like saying to you, "Fjuri, I am concerned you may create posts at EFF forum if you stop being an atheist."

 

But you are already creating posts at EFF forum!

 

My point is this; atrocities are inconsistent with Christianity, which Popoi admits by telling us he is concerned we may turn atheist to Christianity and start doing them - a mendacious and pretentious position, which assumes Christians are on the brink of immense immorality, which we aren't, because he misrepresents us as BK said. So then, the predicate, "atrocities" (such as genocide) contradicts the definition of "Christianity", meaning we have a genuine contradiction.

 

For example the predicate, "putting sugar on one's porridge" would NOT contradict the definition of what it means to be from Scotland.

 

But the predicate, "atrocities" doesn't contradict the definition of "atheist" or, "agnost". This does not mean that if you are atheist to Christianity you are committing atrocities, it means if you are committing atrocities you are atheist to Christianity. I would also concede that this bares no relation to you as an atheist, BUT, as BK astutely delineated, it is all to do with potentialities. Potentially, there is nothing stopping an atheist from inventing a moral which says it's okay to murder Jews like Hitler did. But this simply isn't possible with genuine Christianity.

 

I'm leaving this topic here now, sometimes they go on and on. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms