Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
AJ777,
"Doesn’t it actually say you shall not murder?"
What says that "you shall not murder"?
Some versions say murder, some say kill (yet another reason why it will never be objective).
When a soldier kills another soldier, is that a violation of the morality presented in the bible?
AJ777 "The correspondence view of truth is it is that which corresponds to reality. The statement “objective truth does not exist”, is itself an objective truth claim, and self defeating. Some societies love their neighbors, others kill them, others eat them. Which society is right. Sheldon, you’re right sir, Isaac was not killed. Why would it be wrong if he was though?"
Who claimed objective truth doesn't exist? I certainly didn't. Have you changed from objective morality to objective truth on purpose and dishonestly?
"Some societies love their neighbors, others kill them, others eat them. Which society is right. Sheldon, "
I give up which? Please offer objective evidence for your answer? I have maintained from the every first that morality is subjective, thus your question makes no sense, unless your asking my opinion, in which case I already answer this, as my morality is based on the idea that causing unnecessary suffering is wrong and should wherever possible be avoided. Paradoxically you have made claims about what is moral yet refuse to tell us why you think this?
***Why is wrong in your opinion to torture a child? Why does answering this scare you so much? You already admitted it is just your opinion, do you usually offer opinions without any reason for them?
"Isaac was not killed. Why would it be wrong if he was though?"
You mean why do I think it would be wrong, and again I already said why right at the start, do you think your dishonest lawyer trick of asking an inaccurate question will trap me? I already stated morals are subjective there is no absolute right and wrong, that does not mean I don't think things are right and wrong, or that i can't reason why I think this and offer evidence to support my conclusion.
None of which you can do apparently, just endlessly repeat your subjective claims that absolute morality exists and is exemplifies in a book filled with acts of barbaric cruelty, performed and condoned by a deity in it that you claim is real and is perfectly moral. The fact I don't believe it real doesn't alter the fact you do. or very tellingly that you have been very careful to dishonesty answer questions about it's actions depicted in the bible.
Like torturing King David's newborn baby to death for instance, which you claimed was immoral. So is your deity immoral when it did this, or are you wrong about torturing and murdering babies being immoral?
AJ777
You claimed it was your opinion that torturing children was morally wrong. Why is it morally wrong? Or are you claiming your opinion is infallible? What objective evidence can you demonstrate it is morally wrong?
Or have you finished preaching to us and moved on without any intention of honestly addressing the flaws we have pointed out in your claims and beliefs?
@ AJ777
You still around? Licking your wounds? Why are you so cowardly refusing to answer our questions to your hypotheses?
Is it objectively moral to terrorize and torture children to believe the Bible?
rmfr
I don’t understand the question arakish, should children not be warned about the dangers of crossing the street, should we not terrorize them to believe they could be killed or hurt by a car or truck if they’re not aware of the danger?
@AJ777: should children not be warned about the dangers of crossing the street
My parents terrorized me about the dangers of cars to keep me safe. When I was five years old, my first primary school teacher in London sadistically terrorized me and every other first-born son in our class about the Angel of Death sweeping over Egypt.
Which of these actions was appropriate and useful? How likely are we to be attacked by death angels or sent to hell in 2019?
@ AJ777
And what do you not understand? I used plain English. “Is it objectively moral to terrorize and torture children to believe the Bible?”
The only message of ALL Christendom is, “You are condemned to Hell forever unless you believe as WE tell you to believe and do as WE tell you to do and think only what WE tell you to think.”
If that ain't terrorism, then what is it?
To convince ANY child that they are born evil/sinful, born of evil/sin, born into evil/sin, born from an evil/sinful act is terrorism and torture and is immoral in any moral landscape.
Both of these are simply a form of child abuse utilizing mental rape, emotional molestation, and psychological terrorism.
I could go further into even more details, but if you cannot see these for what they truly are, then you are not only a Religious Absolutist, you are also a megalomaniacal psychotic sociopath.
Yes they should be warned...
...and no. There is no need to terrorize children for any reason.
You, my friend, are traveling a very dark path. Unplug and see reality for what truly is.
rmfr
Explaining the dangers of crossing the street doesn't need terrorising, that's asinine. It needs to be reinforced slowly over time with facts like all human learning, especially for children, and we need to monitor them for their own safety until they grasp it. Terrorising children is cruel and barbaric.
Now was it immoral for your deity to torture king David's newborn baby to death in the bible? If so why? Or do you believe the bible isn't real?
AJ777:
If you look back at history, you'll find countless societies trying to create "objective" morality. The ancient Jews were just one example, and they plagiarized their morality from many other sources, such as Egypt and Babylon.
There have been many societies that we would consider immoral from our 21st century perspective. Our antecedents in the West include the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Celts, the Germanic tribes, the Vikings, and of course the Christians. All of these societies had morals and customs that disgust us, such as human sacrifice, gladiatorial games, slavery, torture... Yet we have also learned morality from all of them. Our contemporary morality in the West includes elements of Roman law, Greek philosophy, Christian teachings, and many other sourcse. We use our judgment as a society to choose what to keep and what reject. And that's as close we can get to "objective morality".
Not once in all of history has there been a society with objective morality. Nowhere is there any sign that a divine lawgiver ever existed. We just have to muddle along on our own.
If you look at morality as innate genetic coding within humans (highly likely), honed by well being of our species, through long evolutionary progression...it may be clearer for you to conclude that religious doctrines, are an outside force, affecting normal innate moral behavior of all humans, and perverting it. This is exactly what we find. We find humans acting generally good with respect to moral decisions affecting species well being. We also find outside forces that affect that decision making in negative ways. Religious doctrine being one. Introducing the concept of evil, sin and punishment. The religious humans now have a bypass for their innate genetic coding, to perform immoral acts...as said doctrine will absolve sin of each religious human whom repents...for all evil they do...thus bypassing innate genetic morality. This is how religion creates the narrative, defines it, initiates the term evil, thusly promoting sin and then pardons that evil sin for believing in, and repenting to, a god. If you bypass that outside source, religion...you avoid evil, and avoid making evil choices, and make decisions solely based on well being of our species. We now know that homosexuality, as part of sexual orientation, is a genetic trait encoded in our DNA, and initiated in utero, prior to birth. A distinct blow for certain religious doctrines, obviously. NIH funded studies are also being performed in search of truths with respect to moral behaviour being a genetic trait as well. All evidence points to this being highly likely presently...Just like sexual orientation being highly likely a genetic trait, prior to its validation. So religion being evil? There is an explanation that religion promotes evil, or more accurately, immorality. You know the old adage, you have to be religious to be immoral. That actually is likely true.
“You know the old adage, you have to be religious to be immoral. That actually is likely true.” Would you say then that since religion is based upon the premise that a deity exists, that for absolute immorality to exist God or a deity must exist?
No, morality is based on choice, and for humans that choice is intrinsically linked to reason. Nothing about the concept requires anything supernatural to explain it, and since nothing supernatural has been evidenced there is no reason to believe it is either needed or exists, in order to fully explain why humans are capable of morality, anymore than we need invoked unevidenced supernatural claims to explain why chimpanzees are capable of morality, or anything other animal that evolved to live in societal groups. Without morality they couldn't live in such a way.
You offered an opinion that torturing a child was immoral, if you really has access to objective morality you wouldn't need to have offered an opinion. You have yet to say why you think it is immoral though?
Sheldon, again, torturing a child for fun cannot be immoral unless God exists, because in order to have an objective standard of morality, an objective moral law must exist. An objective moral law is not a possibility based on evolution, society, majority, or any other natural principal. If morality can change over time it is not objective, different societies disagree on what is moral, majorities are often incorrect. If you believe anything is evil, you’re using Gods objective moral law to stand on as a basis for this belief.
Not what I asked at all, I asked that since you claimed it was your opinion that torturing children was immoral, why do you hold that opinion?
You have simply ignored my question yet again, and repeated your original unevidenced claim. I don't care to be preached at, and this is a debate forum not a church or a pulpit, so please do me the courtesy that I have done you and give a candid answer.
Why are you scared to tell us why you hold the opinion that it is immoral to torture children? Is it a secret, or do you expect us to believe you don't know why?Since it is immoral to torture children in your opinion, perhaps you can explain why your opinion so clearly differs from the deity of the bible you claim is true?
@aj777
Morality is subjective, it is treating people how you want to be treated and laws from society.
If morals come from a god, then they are subjective, not objective.
Objective morals would have to exist without a god giving them to us.
So what objective evidence do you have that objective morals exist?
Understanding more clearly the concept of God in the Christian worldview at least helps here. Since God is unchanging, perfect in all ways, necessarily good and just, otherwise He would not be God, His moral laws are unchanging and perfect. So in the Christian view they are objective.
"Since God is unchanging, perfect in all ways, necessarily good and just, otherwise He would not be God, His moral laws are unchanging and perfect."
A mass murderer, who condones rape and slavery, and the sex trafficking of girls after their people have been ethnically cleansed? A deity who tortured a newborn baby for 7 days until it died. How is any of that moral, let alone perfectly moral, it doesn't even match your own opinion on morality you have offered here that torturing children is ok.
You have been told this repeated;y throughout this thread, and have no credible answer, the best you have managed is a lawyers dodge claiming the people who ask you don't believe the bible as if that makes any difference to the fact you believe it, and are still contradicting yourself as you have done here again.
It goes without saying you can demonstrate no evidence for this raft of claims you make here again.
AJ777, then I think you misunderstand the meaning of the word objective.
This has been abundantly clear from the start to be honest. What is with theists and not understanding dictionary definitions.
@aj777
You failed to understand that morals coming from a god are subjective, not objective. Objective morals would exist without a god, outside of our minds.
@AJ777
You really painted yourself into a corner here. "Perfect in all ways." Anyone not blinded by the indoctrination religion does to people from a young age would be able to easily and quickly realize any god concept is not perfect in all ways, not even close. For one: any "all powerful god" concept is completely powerless capable of doing absolutely nothing except "supposedly" through people. And the work this supposed all powerful all knowing god does through people is also incredibly FLAWED.
"his" moral laws are unchanging and perfect??" They are both constantly changing, and demonstrably quite NOT perfect. How can you not see this? How can you even have confidence to say this, the opposite is demonstrably provable. All I have to do is pick up one of many different christian bibles to show how flawed the god concept is as well as how much morals change. Seriously it is almost as if you want to point out to us atheist just how incredibly flawed all the base concepts of religion are. We already know this, why cant you read and comprehend what you write? You should be more atheist then us, being so closely involved with religion and seeing all it's horrors first hand. But then I probably perhaps again underestimate the power of indoctrination by all peers including parents from a young age, it is truly impressive how well it can subvert even basic normal rational logical reasonable thinking.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮ I am an atheist that always likes a good debate. ▮
▮ Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me. ▮
▮ Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016. ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Nailed it, every word is precisely and accurately what it wrong not just with AJ777's post, but his whole religious belief and vapid claims for objective morality. He simply keeps repeating what he can demonstrate no evidence for, and keeps contradicting his claims. What's more he knows this else he would not avoid answering questions where he realises there is no answer he can give that won't further demonstrate that contradiction and destroy his unevidenced claims about objective morality.
AJ777,
Which religion isn't evil?
AJ777,
The original question had to do with how can religion be evil? So, based on what you know about various religions do you consider all of them to be good and without fault?
AJ777
You claimed torturing children was in your opinion immoral. why do you think this? Or is it based on pure caprice that can disappear on a whim?
“You know the old adage, you have to be religious to be immoral. That actually is likely true.” Would you say then that since religion is base do upon the premise that a deity exists, that for immorality to exist God or a deity must exist?
AJ777,
You originally asked how religion could be evil. I clearly stated how, and why religion can be evil. However evil as a word, has its conceptualization within religious context only...so I replaced it with a more suitable word for discussion...immorality. Out of my initial response, where did I discuss the existence of a god? I did not. I do not see how innate genetic morality within the human species, has anything to do with the existence of a god. Now, when genetic based morality is proven, it will neither prove or disprove the existence of a god...so your questions are moot. It will just make many religions that co-opted morality within its doctrine, that much more ridiculous. You would be better off asking me why I personally believe a god does not exist, if you would like to know that, because there is no logic or reason within your above question.
Isn’t your argument like science of the gaps. You have faith that science will prove what you currently believe without evidence.
The scientific method has strict principles of validation, that have been objectively demonstrated to work.
The BEST PIECE OF EVIDENCE you could offer when asked was a fallacious and archaic first cause argument, that doesn't even argue for a deity. As the title of that argument clearly shows, now that's a God of the gaps argument.
It's like comparing the designs for a nuclear power plant with a child's drawing of magic unicorns.
One is based on sound objective evidence, so faith is the wrong word, the other is based on nothing but faith.
I also find it very ironic that after centuries of claiming faith was all that Christians needed, faith can move mountains etc, they're now trying woefully to completely changing positions, what does this say about their beliefs.
The limits of science will be the limits of the natural physical universe and of human imagination. However it is not unevidenced hubris to imagine science will increase our knowledge of reality, as it has been doing at an exponential rate.
Science has enabled us to learn more in the last few hundred years than all religions in the entirety of human history. Indeed I'm struggling to think of one objective fact religions have taught mankind that science cannot.
Science fills gaps in our knowledge, then theists and apologists move their deity into the gaps either side of it.
Why do you think it immoral to torture babies? I'm still waiting and wondering why you refuse to answer this after claiming it was your opinion?
@AJ777: You have faith that science will prove what you currently believe without evidence.
Science just as often disproves what we currently believe, with or without evidence. We used to believe, on the evidence of our eyes, that the Sun and Moon revolved around a flat Earth, and more recently, that the universe consisted solely of the Milky Way. We also believed, based on development levels, that whites were more intelligent than every other ethnic group. Science has overturned all of these cherished notions.
Pages