A New Start
- Thread starter Andrew111
- Start date
If you hate evil then the hate is "good". If you are justifiably angry then the anger is okay. This isn't complicated.
It isn't complicated from a two-dimensional point of view. This is a classic 'chicken and the egg' scenario which you seemed to have missed altogether. Which came first, the hatred or the evil ? Your religion would indicate it was the hatred which came first since your god has the ability to hate. Where would evil have spawned if not for the hatred passed down from your god to man ? If your god had not passed this trait to man, there would be no evil in the world and therefore nothing to hate. The entire concept of sin would be moot. I submit your god is illogical and his reasoning flawed for allowing man to inherit his hatred and anger.
Besides, there is no such thing as "good" hatred or justifiable anger. That is a double-edged sword kept well hidden around the back of religion.
Your question implies hatred applied willy nilly to whatever one feels hatred for. It is all about "justifiable" wrath.
You mean like an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life. That is an ends to a means and does not solve anything. Religions have a tendency to sweep problems under the carpet by simply balancing the books. They ignore the root of the problem and continue to appease their justice with continued hatred and anger.
And another thing, as an atheist what business is it of yours telling anyone what is irrational or futile?
It is not only my business but it is my obligation, especially when religion makes it their business to spread lies, deceit and a way of life short of a fantasy on wheels. I am opposed to decisions being made by people who trust their gods for guidance when those decisions affect my way of life.
From what moral standpoint do you state this?
From a moral standpoint void of hatred, anger and fantasy.
Your "claim" has no more or less value than any other atheist's definition of what is "irrational".
If theists understood the concept of rationality and used it to make decisions, they would become atheists.
So it's no use getting on a high horse about right and wrong. Cuz you have no authority to proclaim anything.
What gives theists the authority to proclaim what's right and wrong ? Their gods ? How convenient.
We're all just animals remember?
Perhaps, but animals don't believe in gods.
It isn't complicated from a two-dimensional point of view. This is a classic 'chicken and the egg' scenario which you seemed to have missed altogether. Which came first, the hatred or the evil ? Your religion would indicate it was the hatred which came first since your god has the ability to hate. Where would evil have spawned if not for the hatred passed down from your god to man ? If your god had not passed this trait to man, there would be no evil in the world and therefore nothing to hate. The entire concept of sin would be moot. I submit your god is illogical and his reasoning flawed for allowing man to inherit his hatred and anger.
Besides, there is no such thing as "good" hatred or justifiable anger. That is a double-edged sword kept well hidden around the back of religion.
Your question implies hatred applied willy nilly to whatever one feels hatred for. It is all about "justifiable" wrath.
You mean like an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life. That is an ends to a means and does not solve anything. Religions have a tendency to sweep problems under the carpet by simply balancing the books. They ignore the root of the problem and continue to appease their justice with continued hatred and anger.
And another thing, as an atheist what business is it of yours telling anyone what is irrational or futile?
It is not only my business but it is my obligation, especially when religion makes it their business to spread lies, deceit and a way of life short of a fantasy on wheels. I am opposed to decisions being made by people who trust their gods for guidance when those decisions affect my way of life.
From what moral standpoint do you state this?
From a moral standpoint void of hatred, anger and fantasy.
Your "claim" has no more or less value than any other atheist's definition of what is "irrational".
If theists understood the concept of rationality and used it to make decisions, they would become atheists.
So it's no use getting on a high horse about right and wrong. Cuz you have no authority to proclaim anything.
What gives theists the authority to proclaim what's right and wrong ? Their gods ? How convenient.
We're all just animals remember?
Perhaps, but animals don't believe in gods.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q wrote:
It isn't complicated from a two-dimensional point of view. This is a classic 'chicken and the egg' scenario which you seemed to have missed altogether. Which came first, the hatred or the evil ? Your religion would indicate it was the hatred which came first since your god has the ability to hate. Where would evil have spawned if not for the hatred passed down from your god to man ? If your god had not passed this trait to man, there would be no evil in the world and therefore nothing to hate. The entire concept of sin would be moot. I submit your god is illogical and his reasoning flawed for allowing man to inherit his hatred and anger.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What you have done, through ignorance or deliberate guile, is construct a false dilemna. You have portrayed this scenario:
1. God has the ability to hate.
2. Man is created in God's image.
3. Man hates because he is like God.
4. Therefore God is bad because he created hateful man.
What you fail to distinguish is the "hatred" of sin by a sovereign Holy God (one of the attributes of God), as it compares to the sin-driven vindictive hate of "fallen" mankind (a sin).
You also fail to mention that the Bible clearly forbids hate by anyone who claims to be of God. We are commanded to LOVE not HATE. You are drawing a false correlation between God's sovereign hatred of sin, and the hatred of humans toward one another. The Bible speaks very clearly against one person hating another. (see Leviticus 19:17, Prov. 10:12, Prov. 26:24, Mat. 5:43-44, Gal. 5:19-21, Col. 3:8, 1 John 4:20)
This kind of clear misunderstanding of theology is WHY you are an atheist... It is often a result of misunderstanding, miscommunication, and selective hearing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q wrote:
Besides, there is no such thing as "good" hatred or justifiable anger.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me ask you this. Do you hate the practice of necrophilia (for instance)? Do you hate the idea of your family being murdered? Do you hate the pain you experience when you are badly injured?
Would you be angry if your neighbor punched one of your loved ones in the face? Would you be angry if someone raped your wife/sister/daughter/mother/friend? Would you be angry if the government took everything you had in some moving trucks? Would you be angry if your child fell into the hands of a pedophile?
Let me see you answer these honestly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q wrote:
You mean like an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is an old testament teaching written specifically to and for the Jewish people. In the New Testement, we are commanded to forgive others (see Mat 5:44-45).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q wrote:
That is an ends to a means and does not solve anything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually it worked great for the Jews. It's called "punishment".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q wrote:
Religions have a tendency to sweep problems under the carpet by simply balancing the books.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have no idea... please explain what you mean here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q wrote:
They ignore the root of the problem and continue to appease their justice with continued hatred and anger.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is a vapid and groundless mischaracterization. I could cite numerous scripture passages that declare the root of problems is "SIN". (I love it when NON-religious people tell me what I believe.) Once again you are speaking to me as if I am a Jew. I do NOT follow Mosaic Law and do not HATE anyone!!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ekimklaw wrote:
And another thing, as an atheist what business is it of yours telling anyone what is irrational or futile?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q wrote:
It is not only my business but it is my obligation,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You missed my point. You have no moral authority by which to declare anything. If you DO have a moral authority, please cite it for me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q wrote:
...especially when religion makes it their business to spread lies, deceit and a way of life short of a fantasy on wheels.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What does your prejudiced opinion of religion have to do with your lack of moral authority?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q wrote:
I am opposed to decisions being made by people who trust their gods for guidance when those decisions affect my way of life.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your opposed? So what? Where I come from that is called "an opinion".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ekimklaw wrote:
From what moral standpoint do you state this?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q wrote:
From a moral standpoint void of hatred, anger and fantasy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sir, you CANNOT claim a moral authority and be an atheist. The two are mutually exclusive. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't condemn me for claiming moral authority, while at the same time claiming a moral authority to condemn me. That's bad logic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ekimklaw wrote:
Your "claim" has no more or less value than any other atheist's definition of what is "irrational".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q wrote:
If theists understood the concept of rationality and used it to make decisions, they would become atheists.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once again you misunderstood my point and then muddied the water with a false conclusion.
Using what you say your definition of a "theist" is anyone who misunderstands the concept of rationality.
Ergo = All theists are irrational. All atheists are rational.
You must be religious then, because that is one of the most irrational lines of bad logic I have recently seen. And a terrible definition of "irrational".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q wrote:
What gives theists the authority to proclaim what's right and wrong ? Their gods ? How convenient.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You got it. I am a Christian. Therefore you can assume since I am religious, there must be a deity involved. From said deity I probably get my theological instructions, and look to said deity for "moral authority". That's what religion is, sir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ekimklaw wrote:
We're all just animals remember?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q wrote:
Perhaps, but animals don't believe in gods.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, then you've drawn a clear definition between yourself and me. One of us is an animal...
Thanks,
-Mike
Q wrote:
It isn't complicated from a two-dimensional point of view. This is a classic 'chicken and the egg' scenario which you seemed to have missed altogether. Which came first, the hatred or the evil ? Your religion would indicate it was the hatred which came first since your god has the ability to hate. Where would evil have spawned if not for the hatred passed down from your god to man ? If your god had not passed this trait to man, there would be no evil in the world and therefore nothing to hate. The entire concept of sin would be moot. I submit your god is illogical and his reasoning flawed for allowing man to inherit his hatred and anger.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What you have done, through ignorance or deliberate guile, is construct a false dilemna. You have portrayed this scenario:
1. God has the ability to hate.
2. Man is created in God's image.
3. Man hates because he is like God.
4. Therefore God is bad because he created hateful man.
What you fail to distinguish is the "hatred" of sin by a sovereign Holy God (one of the attributes of God), as it compares to the sin-driven vindictive hate of "fallen" mankind (a sin).
You also fail to mention that the Bible clearly forbids hate by anyone who claims to be of God. We are commanded to LOVE not HATE. You are drawing a false correlation between God's sovereign hatred of sin, and the hatred of humans toward one another. The Bible speaks very clearly against one person hating another. (see Leviticus 19:17, Prov. 10:12, Prov. 26:24, Mat. 5:43-44, Gal. 5:19-21, Col. 3:8, 1 John 4:20)
This kind of clear misunderstanding of theology is WHY you are an atheist... It is often a result of misunderstanding, miscommunication, and selective hearing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q wrote:
Besides, there is no such thing as "good" hatred or justifiable anger.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me ask you this. Do you hate the practice of necrophilia (for instance)? Do you hate the idea of your family being murdered? Do you hate the pain you experience when you are badly injured?
Would you be angry if your neighbor punched one of your loved ones in the face? Would you be angry if someone raped your wife/sister/daughter/mother/friend? Would you be angry if the government took everything you had in some moving trucks? Would you be angry if your child fell into the hands of a pedophile?
Let me see you answer these honestly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q wrote:
You mean like an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is an old testament teaching written specifically to and for the Jewish people. In the New Testement, we are commanded to forgive others (see Mat 5:44-45).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q wrote:
That is an ends to a means and does not solve anything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually it worked great for the Jews. It's called "punishment".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q wrote:
Religions have a tendency to sweep problems under the carpet by simply balancing the books.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have no idea... please explain what you mean here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q wrote:
They ignore the root of the problem and continue to appease their justice with continued hatred and anger.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is a vapid and groundless mischaracterization. I could cite numerous scripture passages that declare the root of problems is "SIN". (I love it when NON-religious people tell me what I believe.) Once again you are speaking to me as if I am a Jew. I do NOT follow Mosaic Law and do not HATE anyone!!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ekimklaw wrote:
And another thing, as an atheist what business is it of yours telling anyone what is irrational or futile?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q wrote:
It is not only my business but it is my obligation,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You missed my point. You have no moral authority by which to declare anything. If you DO have a moral authority, please cite it for me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q wrote:
...especially when religion makes it their business to spread lies, deceit and a way of life short of a fantasy on wheels.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What does your prejudiced opinion of religion have to do with your lack of moral authority?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q wrote:
I am opposed to decisions being made by people who trust their gods for guidance when those decisions affect my way of life.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your opposed? So what? Where I come from that is called "an opinion".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ekimklaw wrote:
From what moral standpoint do you state this?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q wrote:
From a moral standpoint void of hatred, anger and fantasy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sir, you CANNOT claim a moral authority and be an atheist. The two are mutually exclusive. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't condemn me for claiming moral authority, while at the same time claiming a moral authority to condemn me. That's bad logic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ekimklaw wrote:
Your "claim" has no more or less value than any other atheist's definition of what is "irrational".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q wrote:
If theists understood the concept of rationality and used it to make decisions, they would become atheists.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once again you misunderstood my point and then muddied the water with a false conclusion.
Using what you say your definition of a "theist" is anyone who misunderstands the concept of rationality.
Ergo = All theists are irrational. All atheists are rational.
You must be religious then, because that is one of the most irrational lines of bad logic I have recently seen. And a terrible definition of "irrational".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q wrote:
What gives theists the authority to proclaim what's right and wrong ? Their gods ? How convenient.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You got it. I am a Christian. Therefore you can assume since I am religious, there must be a deity involved. From said deity I probably get my theological instructions, and look to said deity for "moral authority". That's what religion is, sir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ekimklaw wrote:
We're all just animals remember?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q wrote:
Perhaps, but animals don't believe in gods.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, then you've drawn a clear definition between yourself and me. One of us is an animal...
Thanks,
-Mike
Rrrrrrwwwwwwwwllllll. Whoever it is, I sure do hope he's single.
Oh yes he can. Morality (if you believe in morality, but that's a different subject) can and should be the result of applied reason. Since anyone, except perhaps an insane person, can apply reason, anyone can be moral.
4. Therefore God is bad because he created hateful man.
What you have done, through ignorance or deliberate guile, is twisted my words. My conclusion was that your god is illogical and flawed.
You also fail to mention that the Bible
I fail to mention the Bible because it was written by men. It is for the most part a book of fairy tales and cannot be taken seriously in any discussion. Those that wrote it knew very little of the real world.
We are commanded to LOVE not HATE....This kind of clear misunderstanding of theology is WHY you are an atheist... It is often a result of misunderstanding, miscommunication, and selective hearing.
If "commanded" to love, why the necessity for hatred ? Why did not your god simply instill love in man ? Why bother giving him both love and hate ? He gives us both and then "commands" us not to choose. Again, illogical and flawed.
If "commanded" to love, given both love and hate, man must fear the wrath of their god if they choose anything but love. I would draw a conclusion that to believe in your god is to follow a path of fear. Why should we live in fear ? Illogical and flawed reasoning.
Let me ask you this. Do you hate the practice of necrophilia (for instance)? Do you hate the idea of your family being murdered? Do you hate the pain you experience when you are badly injured?
Would you be angry if your neighbor punched one of your loved ones in the face? Would you be angry if someone raped your wife/sister/daughter/mother/friend? Would you be angry if the government took everything you had in some moving trucks? Would you be angry if your child fell into the hands of a pedophile?
Your examples show the flaw in your argument. Your god instills love, hatred and anger into all men and then "commands" us to love, yet all men feel anger and hatred experiencing any one of your examples. And although you've explained that man should forgive those that do these wrongs, that is not the reality. They've learned from their god they MUST fear, and to do otherwise will have serious retributions. So instead, they act on their anger and hatred "in the name of their god." They act, not of their own choosing, but because they are "commanded" to do so.
Reasonable men know they are moral through their own choosing. They need not fear to choose between love and hate. They know these are traits all humans possess, not by an act of a god, but by their own set of morals instilled as a result of their own evolution. They will experience the anger and hatred represented in your examples because they know these are normal sets of emotions all humans possess. The reasonable man will not choose anger and hatred as a way of life and will have controlled these emotions by his own reasoning and not because he is "commanded" to do so.
It is simple human nature men will never follow a path they are "commanded" to follow because they were never allowed to choose it for themselves. If their god allowed them to choose between love and hatred by reasoning which would be the logical path to follow, men would not choose hatred and anger. Big flaw.
That is an old testament teaching written specifically to and for the Jewish people. In the New Testement, we are commanded to forgive others...Actually it worked great for the Jews. It's called "punishment".
Again, "commanded" to forgive is illogical. There is no choice for a reasonable man to make. He will not accept to be commanded to do anything. It goes against his will to choose and he will ultimately not follow the command.
And why should he follow the command. He will reason that his god is allowed to punish all those who sin, yet he must forgive. Illogical.
That is a vapid and groundless mischaracterization. I could cite numerous scripture passages that declare the root of problems is "SIN". (I love it when NON-religious people tell me what I believe.) Once again you are speaking to me as if I am a Jew. I do NOT follow Mosaic Law and do not HATE anyone!!
Please don't cite scripture, think for yourself and explain to me in your own words. That is what reasonable men do.
Did I call you a Jew ? Did I claim you hated everyone ? How can you hate, you were never given that choice. You are "commanded" to love and you will fear to do otherwise. I have chosen of my own free will and do not fear.
You missed my point. You have no moral authority by which to declare anything. If you DO have a moral authority, please cite it for me.
My moral authority is the same as all reasonable men, the choice and the will to do so. That is enough for all men. No one entity has the authority to decide what is moral and what is not. All men should have the choice to decide for themselves and live by their own convictions. And as I stated before, a reasonable man will not choose anger and hatred. His choice, made through his own rationale, will strengthen his resolve to choose his own path without any fear of retribution.
What does your prejudiced opinion of religion have to do with your lack of moral authority?
Prejudiced is not a concept I would use in formulating an opinion. Reasonable men are not prejudiced. If they were, they would not be reasonable. If you've been following my line of reasoning, you would already know the answer to this question. I don't think I need to repeat myself.
Your opposed? So what? Where I come from that is called "an opinion".
Sorry, I don't get your point. I'm opposed because the decisions of men guided by their religion are not decisions made of their own free will and good judgment. As you've stated before, they are "commanded" to do so. They need not think for themselves.
Sir, you CANNOT claim a moral authority and be an atheist. The two are mutually exclusive. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't condemn me for claiming moral authority, while at the same time claiming a moral authority to condemn me. That's bad logic.
Hmmm.. I'm not sure how you gleaned that conclusion from my statement. I can certainly choose a set of morals without the need of Devine intervention. Besides, I don't condemn you, I merely submit your god is illogical and flawed for claiming moral authority. I submit you are illogical for following this set of moral codes not of your own choosing. Instead, you must live in fear and not allow yourself to make your own choices. You are commanded to obey. You have no willpower of your own. Illogical.
Once again you misunderstood my point and then muddied the water with a false conclusion.
Using what you say your definition of a "theist" is anyone who misunderstands the concept of rationality.
Ergo = All theists are irrational. All atheists are rational.
You're right, I should clarify. If theists used rationality to determine if a god exists, they would become atheist. If they used rationality to make their own choices as opposed to living a life of fear, they would become atheist. If they used rationality to understand that to be "commanded" is not the way to choose between what is right and wrong, they would become atheist.
Therefore, all theists are irrational if they choose to believe in gods and live in fear. All atheists are rational if they choose for themselves by their own free will. Clear enough.
You got it. I am a Christian. Therefore you can assume since I am religious, there must be a deity involved. From said deity I probably get my theological instructions, and look to said deity for "moral authority". That's what religion is, sir.
How unfortunate. I, on the other hand, think for myself. That is why we have brains. I need not look to the sky and ask for guidance. I find it myself through logic and reason. If I make a mistake, I will learn. If you make a mistake, you'll not learn because you didn't use your brain to begin with, you simply followed instructions. You will therefore make the same mistakes.
Well, then you've drawn a clear definition between yourself and me. One of us is an animal
Neither of us are animals, we are both humans with the ability to think for ourselves and not be guided by imaginary entities and fantasy. Our choice to do so is what differentiates us from the animals. But if we choose not to think for ourselves and follow a set of instructions based on fear and fantasy, then it is the animals who should be considered rational.
What you have done, through ignorance or deliberate guile, is twisted my words. My conclusion was that your god is illogical and flawed.
You also fail to mention that the Bible
I fail to mention the Bible because it was written by men. It is for the most part a book of fairy tales and cannot be taken seriously in any discussion. Those that wrote it knew very little of the real world.
We are commanded to LOVE not HATE....This kind of clear misunderstanding of theology is WHY you are an atheist... It is often a result of misunderstanding, miscommunication, and selective hearing.
If "commanded" to love, why the necessity for hatred ? Why did not your god simply instill love in man ? Why bother giving him both love and hate ? He gives us both and then "commands" us not to choose. Again, illogical and flawed.
If "commanded" to love, given both love and hate, man must fear the wrath of their god if they choose anything but love. I would draw a conclusion that to believe in your god is to follow a path of fear. Why should we live in fear ? Illogical and flawed reasoning.
Let me ask you this. Do you hate the practice of necrophilia (for instance)? Do you hate the idea of your family being murdered? Do you hate the pain you experience when you are badly injured?
Would you be angry if your neighbor punched one of your loved ones in the face? Would you be angry if someone raped your wife/sister/daughter/mother/friend? Would you be angry if the government took everything you had in some moving trucks? Would you be angry if your child fell into the hands of a pedophile?
Your examples show the flaw in your argument. Your god instills love, hatred and anger into all men and then "commands" us to love, yet all men feel anger and hatred experiencing any one of your examples. And although you've explained that man should forgive those that do these wrongs, that is not the reality. They've learned from their god they MUST fear, and to do otherwise will have serious retributions. So instead, they act on their anger and hatred "in the name of their god." They act, not of their own choosing, but because they are "commanded" to do so.
Reasonable men know they are moral through their own choosing. They need not fear to choose between love and hate. They know these are traits all humans possess, not by an act of a god, but by their own set of morals instilled as a result of their own evolution. They will experience the anger and hatred represented in your examples because they know these are normal sets of emotions all humans possess. The reasonable man will not choose anger and hatred as a way of life and will have controlled these emotions by his own reasoning and not because he is "commanded" to do so.
It is simple human nature men will never follow a path they are "commanded" to follow because they were never allowed to choose it for themselves. If their god allowed them to choose between love and hatred by reasoning which would be the logical path to follow, men would not choose hatred and anger. Big flaw.
That is an old testament teaching written specifically to and for the Jewish people. In the New Testement, we are commanded to forgive others...Actually it worked great for the Jews. It's called "punishment".
Again, "commanded" to forgive is illogical. There is no choice for a reasonable man to make. He will not accept to be commanded to do anything. It goes against his will to choose and he will ultimately not follow the command.
And why should he follow the command. He will reason that his god is allowed to punish all those who sin, yet he must forgive. Illogical.
That is a vapid and groundless mischaracterization. I could cite numerous scripture passages that declare the root of problems is "SIN". (I love it when NON-religious people tell me what I believe.) Once again you are speaking to me as if I am a Jew. I do NOT follow Mosaic Law and do not HATE anyone!!
Please don't cite scripture, think for yourself and explain to me in your own words. That is what reasonable men do.
Did I call you a Jew ? Did I claim you hated everyone ? How can you hate, you were never given that choice. You are "commanded" to love and you will fear to do otherwise. I have chosen of my own free will and do not fear.
You missed my point. You have no moral authority by which to declare anything. If you DO have a moral authority, please cite it for me.
My moral authority is the same as all reasonable men, the choice and the will to do so. That is enough for all men. No one entity has the authority to decide what is moral and what is not. All men should have the choice to decide for themselves and live by their own convictions. And as I stated before, a reasonable man will not choose anger and hatred. His choice, made through his own rationale, will strengthen his resolve to choose his own path without any fear of retribution.
What does your prejudiced opinion of religion have to do with your lack of moral authority?
Prejudiced is not a concept I would use in formulating an opinion. Reasonable men are not prejudiced. If they were, they would not be reasonable. If you've been following my line of reasoning, you would already know the answer to this question. I don't think I need to repeat myself.
Your opposed? So what? Where I come from that is called "an opinion".
Sorry, I don't get your point. I'm opposed because the decisions of men guided by their religion are not decisions made of their own free will and good judgment. As you've stated before, they are "commanded" to do so. They need not think for themselves.
Sir, you CANNOT claim a moral authority and be an atheist. The two are mutually exclusive. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't condemn me for claiming moral authority, while at the same time claiming a moral authority to condemn me. That's bad logic.
Hmmm.. I'm not sure how you gleaned that conclusion from my statement. I can certainly choose a set of morals without the need of Devine intervention. Besides, I don't condemn you, I merely submit your god is illogical and flawed for claiming moral authority. I submit you are illogical for following this set of moral codes not of your own choosing. Instead, you must live in fear and not allow yourself to make your own choices. You are commanded to obey. You have no willpower of your own. Illogical.
Once again you misunderstood my point and then muddied the water with a false conclusion.
Using what you say your definition of a "theist" is anyone who misunderstands the concept of rationality.
Ergo = All theists are irrational. All atheists are rational.
You're right, I should clarify. If theists used rationality to determine if a god exists, they would become atheist. If they used rationality to make their own choices as opposed to living a life of fear, they would become atheist. If they used rationality to understand that to be "commanded" is not the way to choose between what is right and wrong, they would become atheist.
Therefore, all theists are irrational if they choose to believe in gods and live in fear. All atheists are rational if they choose for themselves by their own free will. Clear enough.
You got it. I am a Christian. Therefore you can assume since I am religious, there must be a deity involved. From said deity I probably get my theological instructions, and look to said deity for "moral authority". That's what religion is, sir.
How unfortunate. I, on the other hand, think for myself. That is why we have brains. I need not look to the sky and ask for guidance. I find it myself through logic and reason. If I make a mistake, I will learn. If you make a mistake, you'll not learn because you didn't use your brain to begin with, you simply followed instructions. You will therefore make the same mistakes.
Well, then you've drawn a clear definition between yourself and me. One of us is an animal
Neither of us are animals, we are both humans with the ability to think for ourselves and not be guided by imaginary entities and fantasy. Our choice to do so is what differentiates us from the animals. But if we choose not to think for ourselves and follow a set of instructions based on fear and fantasy, then it is the animals who should be considered rational.
==============================================
Q wrote:
My conclusion was that your god is illogical and flawed.
==============================================
Your opinion.
==============================================
Q wrote:
I fail to mention the Bible because it was written by men. It is for the most part a book of fairy tales and cannot be taken seriously in any discussion. Those that wrote it knew very little of the real world.
==============================================
Well, that lets YOU off the hook doesn't it?
==============================================
Q wrote:
If "commanded" to love, why the necessity for hatred ? Why did not your god simply instill love in man ? Why bother giving him both love and hate ? He gives us both and then "commands" us not to choose. Again, illogical and flawed.
==============================================
It's called free will. We are commanded to love because that is what God wants us to CHOOSE! You once again have displayed "Atheist Logic" to a simple religious idea.
==============================================
Q wrote:
If "commanded" to love, given both love and hate, man must fear the wrath of their god if they choose anything but love. I would draw a conclusion that to believe in your god is to follow a path of fear. Why should we live in fear ? Illogical and flawed reasoning.
==============================================
It is illogical to you and flawed because you refuse to understand the sovereignty of God. Furthermore, you are free to reject God. If you don't believe in God why would you fear his wrath for rejecting him.
Also, "fear" means "respectful awe" or "reverence". I have said this ad mauseum and "atheistic listening" refuses to understand.
==============================================
Q wrote:
Your examples show the flaw in your argument.
==============================================
Your "answer" shows a reluctance to answer my question.
==============================================
Q wrote:
Your god instills love, hatred and anger into all men and then "commands" us to love, yet all men feel anger and hatred experiencing any one of your examples.
==============================================
I asked a simple question and I get this?
==============================================
Q wrote:
And although you've explained that man should forgive those that do these wrongs, that is not the reality.
==============================================
I didn't say anything about man forgiving anyone. You said anger was NEVER justified. I proved otherwise. You said there was no such thing as justified hate, I proved otherwise. It is up to GOD to forgive. Not me.
==============================================
Q wrote:
They've learned from their god they MUST fear, and to do otherwise will have serious retributions.
==============================================
You're right we MUST "respect" (fear) God. That is what I said.
==============================================
Q wrote:
So instead, they act on their anger and hatred "in the name of their god."
They act, not of their own choosing, but because they are "commanded" to do so.
==============================================
Above you said "Your god instills love, hatred and anger into all men and then "commands" us to love...", now you say something else. So, which is it are we commanded to love or commanded to "act on [our] hatred". You're all over the road here.
==============================================
Q wrote:
Reasonable men know they are moral through their own choosing.
==============================================
Okay, now... define "reasonable men".
==============================================
Q wrote:
They need not fear to choose between love and hate.
==============================================
Exactly, meaning "no moral authority". If a person has no "fear" of consequences choosing to hate, what's to keep him from choosing hate? A Christian chooses not to hate because he must answer to someone if he does. The atheist doesn't. If you disagree and you say an atheist DOES HAVE someone or something to answer to for his evil actions, then please tell me what that is.
I'm sorry the atheist has no moral authority. You simply cannot argue that he/she does.
==============================================
Q wrote:
They know these are traits all humans possess, not by an act of a god, but by their own set of morals instilled as a result of their own evolution.
==============================================
Precisely. 250 million people in the U.S. all with their own standard of morals and to the atheist all of them correct. Right? So where does the "moral authority" come in.
"Moral authority" provides a framework of proper behavior within a society, not just in each individual.
Unless you live by yourself, you must exist "morally" in a society.
==============================================
Q wrote:
They will experience the anger and hatred represented in your examples because they know these are normal sets of emotions all humans possess.
==============================================
So do you wish to retract your statement that there are NO good reasons for anger, and no justifiable hate. Since you're a "normal" human you agree with my examples.
==============================================
Q wrote:
The reasonable man will not choose anger and hatred as a way of life and will have controlled these emotions by his own reasoning and not because he is "commanded" to do so.
==============================================
You are commanded. It is called civil law. The police enforce it in the community don't they? What happens if you do not obey? You are punished. So, where did the concept of civil laws come from? Monkeys?
==============================================
Q wrote:
It is simple human nature men will never follow a path they are "commanded" to follow because they were never allowed to choose it for themselves. If their god allowed them to choose between love and hatred by reasoning which would be the logical path to follow, men would not choose hatred and anger. Big flaw.
==============================================
The big flaw here is that your paragraph is so obtuse it is undescernable what you mean. Could you rephrase it. Clearly this time? Thanks.
==============================================
Q wrote:
Again, "commanded" to forgive is illogical. There is no choice for a reasonable man to make. He will not accept to be commanded to do anything. It goes against his will to choose and he will ultimately not follow the command.
==============================================
So you don't live according to the laws in your state then? I'm glad I'm not YOUR neighbor.
==============================================
Q wrote:
And why should he follow the command. He will reason that his god is allowed to punish all those who sin, yet he must forgive. Illogical.
==============================================
Your statement makes no sense. Please clarify.
==============================================
Q wrote:
Please don't cite scripture, think for yourself and explain to me in your own words. That is what reasonable men do.
==============================================
I didn't "cite scripture". You said religions don't deal with the root of problems, and I replied that The Bible calls the root of problems "sin" and deals very specifically with it.
==============================================
Q wrote:
Did I call you a Jew?
==============================================
My point was that I am not an Old Testement theologian. If you want to nitpick the Old Testement, let a Jew defend it. That is his religious Book.
==============================================
Q wrote:
Did I claim you hated everyone?
==============================================
Since you wrote:
"Where would evil have spawned if not for the hatred passed down from your god to man ? If your god had not passed this trait to man, there would be no evil in the world and therefore nothing to hate. The entire concept of sin would be moot. I submit your god is illogical and his reasoning flawed for allowing man to inherit his hatred and anger."
... I was making it clear that I do not hate.
Furthermore, I refrain from hate because it is the right thing to do, not because I'm terrified of God's wrath. I love him and he told (commanded) me NOT to hate. Since I respect him, I obey him.
==============================================
Q wrote:
How can you hate, you were never given that choice. You are "commanded" to love and you will fear to do otherwise.
==============================================
I choose to obey the one I love.
==============================================
Q wrote:
I have chosen of my own free will and do not fear.
==============================================
What is the atheist hang up about fear? How many times must I explain that "fear" means "reverence" not "terror".
==============================================
Q wrote:
My moral authority is the same as all reasonable men, the choice and the will to do so. That is enough for all men.
==============================================
I'm waiting for your definition of "reasonable men".
==============================================
Q wrote:
No one entity has the authority to decide what is moral and what is not.
==============================================
So then how can any one man claim "moral authority"? This is precisely the whole point of our discussion. YOU have NO moral authority. You finally admitted it.
==============================================
Q wrote:
All men should have the choice to decide for themselves and live by their own convictions.
==============================================
So each human being has his own "moral authority"? So then, what right do you have to tell me what I should think is right and wrong.
You have made may point here.
==============================================
Q wrote:
And as I stated before, a reasonable man will not choose anger and hatred.
==============================================
In a perfect world, you are right. But i think you'd agree this world is FAR from perfect.
==============================================
Q wrote:
His choice, made through his own rationale, will strengthen his resolve to choose his own path without any fear of retribution.
==============================================
So he is free to choose love or hate. Evil men will choose hate, and they seem to be able to rationalize any abhorrant behavior. If he does, who are you to say he is wrong and you are right if each individual is responsible for his own "moral authority"?
==============================================
Q wrote:
Prejudiced is not a concept I would use in formulating an opinion.
==============================================
Good.
==============================================
Q wrote:
I'm opposed because the decisions of men guided by their religion are not decisions made of their own free will and good judgment. As you've stated before, they are "commanded" to do so. They need not think for themselves.
==============================================
If you think I (and Religious people) do not have a free will, then you are sadly mistaken. If that was the case I would be perfect because God would force me to be good.
I don't feel like hashing through the rest.
Look, I have no beef with you personally. You seem like a good-natured person. Originally I wrote:
"...as an atheist what business is it of yours telling anyone what is irrational or futile? From what moral standpoint do you state this? Your "claim" has no more or less value than any other atheist's definition of what is "irrational"... you have no authority to proclaim anything."
Finally You admitted that:
"No one entity has the authority to decide what is moral and what is not."
which was my original assertion.
So after all this, we agree.
Have a nice day
-Mike
Q wrote:
My conclusion was that your god is illogical and flawed.
==============================================
Your opinion.
==============================================
Q wrote:
I fail to mention the Bible because it was written by men. It is for the most part a book of fairy tales and cannot be taken seriously in any discussion. Those that wrote it knew very little of the real world.
==============================================
Well, that lets YOU off the hook doesn't it?
==============================================
Q wrote:
If "commanded" to love, why the necessity for hatred ? Why did not your god simply instill love in man ? Why bother giving him both love and hate ? He gives us both and then "commands" us not to choose. Again, illogical and flawed.
==============================================
It's called free will. We are commanded to love because that is what God wants us to CHOOSE! You once again have displayed "Atheist Logic" to a simple religious idea.
==============================================
Q wrote:
If "commanded" to love, given both love and hate, man must fear the wrath of their god if they choose anything but love. I would draw a conclusion that to believe in your god is to follow a path of fear. Why should we live in fear ? Illogical and flawed reasoning.
==============================================
It is illogical to you and flawed because you refuse to understand the sovereignty of God. Furthermore, you are free to reject God. If you don't believe in God why would you fear his wrath for rejecting him.
Also, "fear" means "respectful awe" or "reverence". I have said this ad mauseum and "atheistic listening" refuses to understand.
==============================================
Q wrote:
Your examples show the flaw in your argument.
==============================================
Your "answer" shows a reluctance to answer my question.
==============================================
Q wrote:
Your god instills love, hatred and anger into all men and then "commands" us to love, yet all men feel anger and hatred experiencing any one of your examples.
==============================================
I asked a simple question and I get this?
==============================================
Q wrote:
And although you've explained that man should forgive those that do these wrongs, that is not the reality.
==============================================
I didn't say anything about man forgiving anyone. You said anger was NEVER justified. I proved otherwise. You said there was no such thing as justified hate, I proved otherwise. It is up to GOD to forgive. Not me.
==============================================
Q wrote:
They've learned from their god they MUST fear, and to do otherwise will have serious retributions.
==============================================
You're right we MUST "respect" (fear) God. That is what I said.
==============================================
Q wrote:
So instead, they act on their anger and hatred "in the name of their god."
They act, not of their own choosing, but because they are "commanded" to do so.
==============================================
Above you said "Your god instills love, hatred and anger into all men and then "commands" us to love...", now you say something else. So, which is it are we commanded to love or commanded to "act on [our] hatred". You're all over the road here.
==============================================
Q wrote:
Reasonable men know they are moral through their own choosing.
==============================================
Okay, now... define "reasonable men".
==============================================
Q wrote:
They need not fear to choose between love and hate.
==============================================
Exactly, meaning "no moral authority". If a person has no "fear" of consequences choosing to hate, what's to keep him from choosing hate? A Christian chooses not to hate because he must answer to someone if he does. The atheist doesn't. If you disagree and you say an atheist DOES HAVE someone or something to answer to for his evil actions, then please tell me what that is.
I'm sorry the atheist has no moral authority. You simply cannot argue that he/she does.
==============================================
Q wrote:
They know these are traits all humans possess, not by an act of a god, but by their own set of morals instilled as a result of their own evolution.
==============================================
Precisely. 250 million people in the U.S. all with their own standard of morals and to the atheist all of them correct. Right? So where does the "moral authority" come in.
"Moral authority" provides a framework of proper behavior within a society, not just in each individual.
Unless you live by yourself, you must exist "morally" in a society.
==============================================
Q wrote:
They will experience the anger and hatred represented in your examples because they know these are normal sets of emotions all humans possess.
==============================================
So do you wish to retract your statement that there are NO good reasons for anger, and no justifiable hate. Since you're a "normal" human you agree with my examples.
==============================================
Q wrote:
The reasonable man will not choose anger and hatred as a way of life and will have controlled these emotions by his own reasoning and not because he is "commanded" to do so.
==============================================
You are commanded. It is called civil law. The police enforce it in the community don't they? What happens if you do not obey? You are punished. So, where did the concept of civil laws come from? Monkeys?
==============================================
Q wrote:
It is simple human nature men will never follow a path they are "commanded" to follow because they were never allowed to choose it for themselves. If their god allowed them to choose between love and hatred by reasoning which would be the logical path to follow, men would not choose hatred and anger. Big flaw.
==============================================
The big flaw here is that your paragraph is so obtuse it is undescernable what you mean. Could you rephrase it. Clearly this time? Thanks.
==============================================
Q wrote:
Again, "commanded" to forgive is illogical. There is no choice for a reasonable man to make. He will not accept to be commanded to do anything. It goes against his will to choose and he will ultimately not follow the command.
==============================================
So you don't live according to the laws in your state then? I'm glad I'm not YOUR neighbor
.==============================================
Q wrote:
And why should he follow the command. He will reason that his god is allowed to punish all those who sin, yet he must forgive. Illogical.
==============================================
Your statement makes no sense. Please clarify.
==============================================
Q wrote:
Please don't cite scripture, think for yourself and explain to me in your own words. That is what reasonable men do.
==============================================
I didn't "cite scripture". You said religions don't deal with the root of problems, and I replied that The Bible calls the root of problems "sin" and deals very specifically with it.
==============================================
Q wrote:
Did I call you a Jew?
==============================================
My point was that I am not an Old Testement theologian. If you want to nitpick the Old Testement, let a Jew defend it. That is his religious Book.
==============================================
Q wrote:
Did I claim you hated everyone?
==============================================
Since you wrote:
"Where would evil have spawned if not for the hatred passed down from your god to man ? If your god had not passed this trait to man, there would be no evil in the world and therefore nothing to hate. The entire concept of sin would be moot. I submit your god is illogical and his reasoning flawed for allowing man to inherit his hatred and anger."
... I was making it clear that I do not hate.
Furthermore, I refrain from hate because it is the right thing to do, not because I'm terrified of God's wrath. I love him and he told (commanded) me NOT to hate. Since I respect him, I obey him.
==============================================
Q wrote:
How can you hate, you were never given that choice. You are "commanded" to love and you will fear to do otherwise.
==============================================
I choose to obey the one I love.
==============================================
Q wrote:
I have chosen of my own free will and do not fear.
==============================================
What is the atheist hang up about fear? How many times must I explain that "fear" means "reverence" not "terror".
==============================================
Q wrote:
My moral authority is the same as all reasonable men, the choice and the will to do so. That is enough for all men.
==============================================
I'm waiting for your definition of "reasonable men".
==============================================
Q wrote:
No one entity has the authority to decide what is moral and what is not.
==============================================
So then how can any one man claim "moral authority"? This is precisely the whole point of our discussion. YOU have NO moral authority. You finally admitted it.
==============================================
Q wrote:
All men should have the choice to decide for themselves and live by their own convictions.
==============================================
So each human being has his own "moral authority"? So then, what right do you have to tell me what I should think is right and wrong.
You have made may point here.
==============================================
Q wrote:
And as I stated before, a reasonable man will not choose anger and hatred.
==============================================
In a perfect world, you are right. But i think you'd agree this world is FAR from perfect.
==============================================
Q wrote:
His choice, made through his own rationale, will strengthen his resolve to choose his own path without any fear of retribution.
==============================================
So he is free to choose love or hate. Evil men will choose hate, and they seem to be able to rationalize any abhorrant behavior. If he does, who are you to say he is wrong and you are right if each individual is responsible for his own "moral authority"?
==============================================
Q wrote:
Prejudiced is not a concept I would use in formulating an opinion.
==============================================
Good.
==============================================
Q wrote:
I'm opposed because the decisions of men guided by their religion are not decisions made of their own free will and good judgment. As you've stated before, they are "commanded" to do so. They need not think for themselves.
==============================================
If you think I (and Religious people) do not have a free will, then you are sadly mistaken. If that was the case I would be perfect because God would force me to be good.
I don't feel like hashing through the rest.
Look, I have no beef with you personally. You seem like a good-natured person. Originally I wrote:
"...as an atheist what business is it of yours telling anyone what is irrational or futile? From what moral standpoint do you state this? Your "claim" has no more or less value than any other atheist's definition of what is "irrational"... you have no authority to proclaim anything."
Finally You admitted that:
"No one entity has the authority to decide what is moral and what is not."
which was my original assertion.
So after all this, we agree.
Have a nice day
-Mike