For AtheistAlex

[Socrates]

This is pretty much just for the heck of it, but here's a list of questions.

1. What is your position on atheism?

2. What is your position on Catholicism?

3. What is your position on any politician that supports the right to life of all human persons, born and unborn?

4. What is your position on Protestantism?

5. What is your position on non-liberal politics?

6. How do you open yourself to new minds and experiences without changing your atheistic position?

7. Choose: a Catholic friend, or an atheist enemy?

8. Choose: pro-life liberal willing to give reparations, tax breaks to blacks, free immigration to all, etc., or a staunch conservative who supports killing of unborn babies?

9. Choose: Chairman Mao, or Pat Robertson?

10. Choose: Flag burning or a boycott of The Passion of the Christ?

11. Choose: Nazis or Communists?

12. What would you plan to do with four years of Kerry's reign?

[AtheistAlex]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Feb 10 2005, 07:09 PM'] This is pretty much just for the heck of it, but here's a list of questions.

1. What is your position on atheism?

2. What is your position on Catholicism?

3. What is your position on any politician that supports the right to life of all human persons, born and unborn?

4. What is your position on Protestantism?

5. What is your position on non-liberal politics?

6. How do you open yourself to new minds and experiences without changing your atheistic position?

7. Choose: a Catholic friend, or an atheist enemy?

8. Choose: pro-life liberal willing to give reparations, tax breaks to blacks, free immigration to all, etc., or a staunch conservative who supports killing of unborn babies?

9. Choose: Chairman Mao, or Pat Robertson?

10. Choose: Flag burning or a boycott of The Passion of the Christ?

11. Choose: Nazis or Communists?

12. What would you plan to do with four years of Kerry's reign? [/quote]
This is for the "heck" of it? Not an attempt to mock me?
Either way...

1. It is a great position to take for religious matters. You take your life into your own hands.
2. I take the same position as all religions, though not as free as atheism, it has shown to give people generally a greater sense of self and it makes people happy. So that's cool.
3. As long as they are for the freedoms ensured to us all, including women, I just may support them. Depends though.
4. I take the same position as all religions, though not as free as atheism, it has shown to give people generally a greater sense of self and it makes people happy. So that's cool.
5. Depends on the politics. Hard Conservatism is, in my mind a political stance as devoid of nuance as hard liberalism. Radical moderation is another position I have heard of, but it seems to be merely an oxymoron.
6. Can't you see?
7. The friend.
8. The liberal.
9. Neither.
10. Boycott that movie, come on, I love the flag!
11. Neither.
12. Relax....oh well for that...

[Brother Adam]

Alex,

Is there a such thing as right and wrong? Why?

[Socrates]

[quote name='AtheistAlex' date='Feb 10 2005, 09:59 PM'] This is for the "heck" of it? Not an attempt to mock me?
Either way...

1. It is a great position to take for religious matters. You take your life into your own hands.
2. I take the same position as all religions, though not as free as atheism, it has shown to give people generally a greater sense of self and it makes people happy. So that's cool.
3. As long as they are for the freedoms ensured to us all, including women, I just may support them. Depends though.
4. I take the same position as all religions, though not as free as atheism, it has shown to give people generally a greater sense of self and it makes people happy. So that's cool.
5. Depends on the politics. Hard Conservatism is, in my mind a political stance as devoid of nuance as hard liberalism. Radical moderation is another position I have heard of, but it seems to be merely an oxymoron.
6. Can't you see?
7. The friend.
8. The liberal.
9. Neither.
10. Boycott that movie, come on, I love the flag!
11. Neither.
12. Relax....oh well for that... [/quote]
It's cool. This is not attempt to mock you - merely throw back some of the same types of questions you gave us, and maybe make you think a bit (since some of your questions seemed to be worded with a certain bias, or present false dichotomies).

Thanks for answering, though - this actually helps me get a better idea of where you're coming from. You've actually been one of the few atheistic/non-religious types on here who's been cool. I'm actually going to be bedding down soon, but I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have later.

[Socrates]

Oh, by the way, Alex, do you actually support boycotting the Passion, or is it just preferable to flag burning?

(just curious)

[AtheistAlex]

Heh. I'm cool.
I knew what I was doing, I just didn't expect that people would see the Panthers as a racist group, is all.

I don't like using fire much, and I really do like the flag. But, that is the last time I will try to prove my patriotism. It's the Passion that I am not in favor of. No sir.

And Brother Adam, let me say that yes there is right and wrong, but they are subjective. This does not mean one can make up the rules on the fly, there are preset moral sets for different groups, and it is one's responsibility to learn those morals. Understand.

Morals are necessary to preserve tribal order and sustain the tribe's general welfare.

Alright, let me say now, sorry for offending people if I did.

[Socrates]

A couple questions before I hit the sack.

1. No one's questioning your patriotism - I just made a silly "false dichotomy" choice (using "left-wing" examples, rather than "right-wing")
That said, you are against the showing of that movie? Why? Wouldn't that be censorship? (I don't know your personal positions, yet, but I've noticed most secularist liberals have an odd double-standard when it comes to free speech and censorship - basically "Obscenity/blasphemy=free speech-good. Religious speech=bad."

2. If a tribe's "morals" consisted of, say, killing anybody not a member of the tribe, or treating women as property/mutilation of females, etc., would these morals be acceptable for that tribe? Would it be the tribal members' responsiblity to learn and follow these "morals"? Would you say these morals are just as good as anybody else's?

Edited February 11, 2005 by Socrates

[AtheistAlex]

1. You seem to still misunderstand what I am saying. I do not, in any way, like the movie. I am in favor of a boycott, one of the greatest celebrations of our First Amendment rights. (Freedom of speech, petition and assembly) Let them show the movie. Go ahead. I would just, if I could get a large group of people together to just not watch it, that's all. How you got censorship out of that, I'll never understand.

2. For that tribe, unfortunately they would be acceptable. I am not saying we are always moral, or always immoral. I say that morality is always going to be subjective, although that doesn't mean we should just allow others to commit wonton acts of evil. What I think we should do is find a way, any way to come together and conclude on which ideals are okay, and which aren't. Then morals and laws will be the same for all, like most of us really want them to be. That's what I think, we should be in a dialogue with the wicked, continually giving AND taking knowledge so we can come to a consensus.

[Socrates]

1. I get you here. Yeah, Boycotts are great! They were really effective in destroying the financial success of that movie and getting people not to watch it! Seriously, though, why do you find that movie so objectionable? Is it because it is a public profession of Christian faith? Did you actually watch it? (I know I'm a bit odd-topic here. But I'm genuinely curious! The only reason I can figure that secularists hate that movie so much is a hatred of Christianity.)

2. So the holocaust of the Jews and other attrocities were acceptable for the Nazis? I mean they were just following good Nazi "morality"! Get real!

This is a MAJOR flaw of an atheist system of ethics. Communist attrocities were perfectly in tune with their atheistic morality. If there is no God, then people are pretty much free to do what they want, no matter how evil or depraved. Are good and evil , then, according to you, merely the consensus of the people? Compromise always the the way to arive at a moral choice? What if most people decide that killing and rape (or fill in the heinous crime of your choice) is good? Does that make it good and moral?

It seems by your logic, good equals what's popular, and evil what is unpopular.

Edited February 13, 2005 by Socrates

[AtheistAlex]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Feb 13 2005, 12:00 AM'] 1. I get you here. Yeah, Boycotts are great! They were really effective in destroying the financial success of that movie and getting people not to watch it! Seriously, though, why do you find that movie so objectionable? Is it because it is a public profession of Christian faith? Did you actually watch it? (I know I'm a bit odd-topic here. But I'm genuinely curious! The only reason I can figure that secularists hate that movie so much is a hatred of Christianity.)

2. So the holocaust of the Jews and other attrocities were acceptable for the Nazis? I mean they were just following
This is a MAJOR flaw of an atheist system of ethics. Communist attrocities were perfectly in tune with their atheistic morality. If there is no God, then people are pretty much free to do what they want, no matter how evil or good Nazi "morality"! Get real!
depraved. Are good and evil , then, according to you, merely the consensus of the people? Compromise always the the way to arive at a moral choice? What if most people decide that killing and rape (or fill in the heinous crime of your choice) is good? Does that make it good and moral?

It seems by your logic, good equals what's popular, and evil what is unpopular. [/quote]
1. You seem angry..."why do you find that movie to be [u]so[/u] objectionable?" and "only reason I can figure that secularists hate that movie so much is a hatred of Christianity." are statements that illustrate this.

Is it possible that I didn't like the needless blood shed? I watch action movies, but I can only take so much gore. I can't even play Doom 3, it can get to me that much. Even more to the point, the whole "Jews killed Jesus" thing seems anti-Semitic, to me at least. Anti-Semitism is something I don't want to get near. Your idea that "secularists" hate Christianity, shows two things, whether or not they're true.

a. You despise secularism, or at least you cannot understand it.

b. You believe that Christianity, the majority religion in this country, is somehow being waylayed upon by the "evil" atheists, haters of all Christians.

I dunno if they're true, but, that's what came to mind.

2. No, you were not reading what I wrote, I see.

If murder, rape, etc. were popular, we would not have survived, obviously. We would try to be good, and we would kill ourselves off, or we would do such horrible things to each other that we wouldn't be able to reproduce and grow as a species. So, those tribes that decided not to murder would be the ones to survive longer and have descendants, and murder is shunned because of the adverse effects it has. Still the act was decided as evil by the group alone. Comprende?

Live and Learn,

Alex

[Guest]

[quote name='AtheistAlex' date='Feb 13 2005, 10:29 PM'] 1. You seem angry..."why do you find that movie to be [u]so[/u] objectionable?" and "only reason I can figure that secularists hate that movie so much is a hatred of Christianity." are statements that illustrate this.

Is it possible that I didn't like the needless blood shed? I watch action movies, but I can only take so much gore. I can't even play Doom 3, it can get to me that much. Even more to the point, the whole "Jews killed Jesus" thing seems anti-Semitic, to me at least. Anti-Semitism is something I don't want to get near. Your idea that "secularists" hate Christianity, shows two things, whether or not they're true.

a. You despise secularism, or at least you cannot understand it.

b. You believe that Christianity, the majority religion in this country, is somehow being waylayed upon by the "evil" atheists, haters of all Christians.

I dunno if they're true, but, that's what came to mind.

2. No, you were not reading what I wrote, I see.

If murder, rape, etc. were popular, we would not have survived, obviously. We would try to be good, and we would kill ourselves off, or we would do such horrible things to each other that we wouldn't be able to reproduce and grow as a species. So, those tribes that decided not to murder would be the ones to survive longer and have descendants, and murder is shunned because of the adverse effects it has. Still the act was decided as evil by the group alone. Comprende?

Live and Learn,

Alex [/quote]
you say that you cant even play a video game because of the blood shed . Which is cool, in noway am i jokeing about that. But there lies a hidden reason why this bothers you so much. You say you dislike the passion because of the blood shed in it. You also say though, that you dont like any gory movies.

Again cool, the only thing is, "THE PASSION " was a true story. That actually happened to Jesus Christ. This isnt a science fiction movie throwing unnessary blood at you, this actually happened. Mabey the reason you have a hard time watching this is because deep down inside your soul, you fear death. Which is normal, we all fear death. But a person stareing death in the face, would fear it even more if not knowing their soul was saved for eternity from the pitts of hell.
To that you prolly say, "no no i dont fear dieing, it will be notheningness " ok even if this is true, even if God gave you the grace not to have a active memory of what your soul was suffering, it still though doesnt get your soul out of suffering this hell forever. So therefore, deep down in your soul, wether you know it or not, your soul yearns to be saved for eternity, becuz your soul knows what eternity is and knows that heaven and hell exist without a doubt.

So people who dont know God and who go to great lengths to shun him out of society, are actually people liveing in fear becuz they are stareing death right in the face without a gurantee of escapeing hell. They may not know it, but underneath the surface that is whats going on.

Look at people like Bill Mahr, has that show on hbo. He'll tell you the bible is a bunch of fabels. And he's a successful indivigual. But he KNOWS GOD doesnt exist the way the bible presents it. AND A CATHOLIC KNOWS THAT GOD EXIST THE WAY THE BIBLE PRESENTS IT

Becuz God is liveing and will give you signs to prove to you that he exist. But a person not even believing in God and His Son, cant be granted that humble gracious gift of faith. So therefore they go out to destroy anything haveing to do with truth about the ONLY LIVEING God.........and they end up working in vain for the devil...........some aware of it, some sadly blind and deceiced have know idea...

Edited February 14, 2005 by Guest

[Socrates]

[quote name='AtheistAlex' date='Feb 13 2005, 10:29 PM'] 1. You seem angry..."why do you find that movie to be [u]so[/u] objectionable?" and "only reason I can figure that secularists hate that movie so much is a hatred of Christianity." are statements that illustrate this.

Is it possible that I didn't like the needless blood shed? I watch action movies, but I can only take so much gore. I can't even play Doom 3, it can get to me that much. Even more to the point, the whole "Jews killed Jesus" thing seems anti-Semitic, to me at least. Anti-Semitism is something I don't want to get near. Your idea that "secularists" hate Christianity, shows two things, whether or not they're true.

a. You despise secularism, or at least you cannot understand it.

b. You believe that Christianity, the majority religion in this country, is somehow being waylayed upon by the "evil" atheists, haters of all Christians.

I dunno if they're true, but, that's what came to mind.

2. No, you were not reading what I wrote, I see.

If murder, rape, etc. were popular, we would not have survived, obviously. We would try to be good, and we would kill ourselves off, or we would do such horrible things to each other that we wouldn't be able to reproduce and grow as a species. So, those tribes that decided not to murder would be the ones to survive longer and have descendants, and murder is shunned because of the adverse effects it has. Still the act was decided as evil by the group alone. Comprende?

Live and Learn,

Alex [/quote]
1. I have serious doubts that you even watched that movie. You seem to simply be parroting the ludicrous claims the anti-Christian "critics," made, often before the movie was ever shown. There is nothing anti-Semitic about it. With regards to the Jews, the movie simply protrays the events in the Gospels. Jewish leaders called for his death, and the Roman officials condemned him to die. If anything, the sadistic, anti-Semitic Romans came off worse than the Jews. Remember, Jesus and His disciples were Jews, as was His Blessed Mother (portrayed in the movie by a Jewish woman.) As Mel Gibson has said, it was the sins of all of us, not the Jews, that were responsible for the death. The anti-Christian people said the movie should not be shown because it would spark all kinds of anti-Semitic violence. So far, the body count is 0! There has been absolutely no anti-Semitic violence on account of the movie, and various criminals have even repented on account of seeing the film! Those protesters sure made geniuses of themselves! (If you want to argue more about the movie, I can start another thread. There has been plenty of discussion of this movie already on this site, but you are the first on here to give the "anti-Semitic" line.)

2. Your "evolutionary" account of morality is ludicrous to say the least. A "tribe" can quite easily survive with plenty of murder, rape, etc., as history has demonstrated time and time again. (I can give plenty of details later, if you want.)
Your "morality" doesn't even give you a rational basis to condemn the actions of the Nazis, as they used this same Darwinist logic to justify their bloody atrocities. See, they believed it was justifyable to slaughter Jews and others outside their "tribe," the "Aryan master-race"! They saw this as helping their tribe in its quest for world domination. They saw this as Darwinian survival of the fittest, in which the "master-race" could wipe out "inferior" races to ensure its own survival and dominance.
It seems that atheistic theories tend naturally towards atrocities.
(Note, I'm not implying that you're a Nazi or anything, merely pointing out that your basis of "morality" really gives you no reason to say why the Nazis' actions are wrong, other than that you just don't like them.)

Edited February 14, 2005 by Socrates

[J.R.D]

[quote name='AtheistAlex' date='Feb 10 2005, 09:59 PM'] This is for the "heck" of it? Not an attempt to mock me?
Either way...

1. It is a great position to take for religious matters. You take your life into your own hands.
2. I take the same position as all religions, though not as free as atheism, it has shown to give people generally a greater sense of self and it makes people happy. So that's cool.
3. As long as they are for the freedoms ensured to us all, including women, I just may support them. Depends though.
4. I take the same position as all religions, though not as free as atheism, it has shown to give people generally a greater sense of self and it makes people happy. So that's cool.
5. Depends on the politics. Hard Conservatism is, in my mind a political stance as devoid of nuance as hard liberalism. Radical moderation is another position I have heard of, but it seems to be merely an oxymoron.
6. Can't you see?
7. The friend.
8. The liberal.
9. Neither.
10. Boycott that movie, come on, I love the flag!
11. Neither.
12. Relax....oh well for that... [/quote]
1. You as a human being can not steer your life to joyness or happiness. Without God your nobody.
2. There is not just "one" postion os religion. Religion is your knowing of God. Religions have diffrent viewings or positions on how you should know God.
3. Depends on what?
4. Read number 3.
5. How is a oxymoron?
6. see what?
7. good choice.
8. Bad choice.
9. good choice.
10. The passion of the Christ is an awsome movie. Boycotting the One Being that made you is blasphamy.
11. haha
12. Relax????? knowing that someone is killin innocent babbies?????

[HomeTeamFamily]

alex.....what do you believe will happen when you die?

[AtheistAlex]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Feb 14 2005, 05:36 PM'] 1.  I have serious doubts that you even watched that movie.  You seem to simply be parroting the ludicrous claims the anti-Christian "critics," made, often before the movie was ever shown.  There is nothing anti-Semitic about it.  With regards to the Jews, the movie simply protrays the events in the Gospels.  Jewish leaders called for his death, and the Roman officials condemned him to die.  If anything, the sadistic, anti-Semitic Romans came off worse than the Jews.  Remember, Jesus and His disciples were Jews, as was His Blessed Mother (portrayed in the movie by a Jewish woman.)  As Mel Gibson has said, it was the sins of all of us, not the Jews, that were responsible for the death.  The anti-Christian people said the movie should not be shown because it would spark all kinds of anti-Semitic violence.  So far, the body count is 0!  There has been absolutely no anti-Semitic violence on account of the movie, and various criminals have even repented on account of seeing the film!  Those protesters sure made geniuses of themselves! (If you want to argue more about the movie, I can start another thread.  There has been plenty of discussion of this movie already on this site, but you are the first on here to give the "anti-Semitic" line.)

2.  Your "evolutionary" account of morality is ludicrous to say the least.  A "tribe" can quite easily survive with plenty of murder, rape, etc., as history has demonstrated time and time again.  (I can give plenty of details later, if you want.)
Your "morality" doesn't even give you a rational basis to condemn the actions of the Nazis, as they used this same Darwinist logic to justify their bloody atrocities.  See, they believed it was justifyable to slaughter Jews and others outside their "tribe," the "Aryan master-race"!  They saw this as helping their tribe in its quest for world domination.  They saw this as Darwinian survival of the fittest, in which the "master-race" could wipe out "inferior" races to ensure its own survival and dominance.
It seems that atheistic theories tend naturally towards atrocities.
(Note, I'm not implying that you're a Nazi or anything, merely pointing out that your basis of "morality" really gives you no reason to say why the Nazis' actions are wrong, other than that you just don't like them.) [/quote]
1. Okay, I can respect your view. I didn't watch most of it, mainly because my mom was not going to let me. But, now that you said this, I will go and rent it again, and this time, I'll try to watch it all.

Oh and about these "ludicrous claims" you talk about. They, like the many outlandish claims against Michael Moore for Farenheit 9/11, will always seem to be just flat wrong. Religion and politics are very polarizing and divisive issues, and for someone to take any stance, it means others will, undoubtedly attack them. Basically, I ask you to understand that things go both ways, and so you were a prime exmaple of "the pot calling the kettle black".

2. The Germans did think it was okay to slaughter and maim people, but we used force to show them the error of their ways. I agree that the Holocaust was an awful evil we should hope not to revisit, but this call to my emotions will not change my judgement. Morality is a social concept, and that means it is subjective.

Nazis saw the Holocaust as the "Final Solution" to their problems. I disagree and so, I can of course say it is wrong. In fact, it is those who believe in an absolute morality who cannot tell what's wrong and what's right in a given situation, because:
a) they must know what the absolute morality is
b) they would need to know such a moral code for all situations at all times
c) to do such a thing, they would need to have a mind of infinite capacity

If you can prove your mind not only has infinite capacity, but also that you know every correct moral decision for all time, then you can tell [u]anyone[/u] what's always right and wrong based off an absolute value set.

But, things change...the world changes, the people change, society changes, and so we adapt, our set of morals changes as well. Sacrifices used to be commonplace and okay, but now they're not. Sure one can say that it's wrong, without a doubt. But would you have said that in that era? Enslaving a man is awfl now, but a years ago, it was good business. You see, morals are not absolutely black and white, but shades of grey.

<<It seems that atheistic theories tend naturally towards atrocities.>>
You are good at this sort of thing, I see. Taking a discussion and turning it into religion-baiting, where you make seemingly innocent statements with sharp, hateful points at the very end.

Here, your thesis implies that atheists, for some reason or another, are either the reason for atrocities, or wish to commit them. Where did you take this idea from, may I ask?

<<gives you no reason to say why the Nazis' actions are wrong, other than that you just don't like them>>

Ask yourself this, why don't I like it? It's detrimental to the German and world society as whole, it takes millions upon millions of lives away that could've been our world leaders, and it shows to us that some tribes don't understand what's important about life. Last though not least, it is an omen of future violence against us that we cannot ignore.


Here's hoping we can get back to not calling atheists monsters,

Alex

Edited February 15, 2005 by AtheistAlex

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Feb 14 2005, 05:36 PM']

2. Your "evolutionary" account of morality is ludicrous to say the least. A "tribe" can quite easily survive with plenty of murder, rape, etc., as history has demonstrated time and time again. (I can give plenty of details later, if you want.)
Your "morality" doesn't even give you a rational basis to condemn the actions of the Nazis, as they used this same Darwinist logic to justify their bloody atrocities. See, they believed it was justifyable to slaughter Jews and others outside their "tribe," the "Aryan master-race"! They saw this as helping their tribe in its quest for world domination. They saw this as Darwinian survival of the fittest, in which the "master-race" could wipe out "inferior" races to ensure its own survival and dominance.
It seems that atheistic theories tend naturally towards atrocities.
(Note, I'm not implying that you're a Nazi or anything, merely pointing out that your basis of "morality" really gives you no reason to say why the Nazis' actions are wrong, other than that you just don't like them.) [/quote]
I have to interject here because the dribble thats pouring out of your mouth is astounding. First of all about morality. Killing is not bad because its written on some tablet, we know killing is bad because it harms people. We can make a good consensus of whats wrong based on what harms people. If we were to follow the bibles moral code, than it would be ok to kill homosexuals. To kill women who are not virgins on their wedding night. And lets not forget, god created evil:

[i]I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7)[/i]

Or how about Elisha and the bear, we're 42 children were making fun of Elisha for being bald. Elisha got mad, and asked god to punish the kids. god commaned bears to go out and slaughter the kids. Where is the morality in that? There is none, the kids did not deserve to die for something that childish.

Now to address your claims that Atheism and Darwinism is the cause of the Nazis murderous reign. Farthest from the truth. Hitler was far from an athesit. He believed in the occult and he believed heavily in the christian faith. .Here is a quote from Mein Kampf:

[i]"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.[/i]

Finally, Hitler did not kill the jews because of some darwin ideaologies, like alot of christians like to spout. He did it based on his heavy occult beliefs. Mainly a book by H.P Blavatsky called 'The Secret Doctrine'. In this book she talks of root races, and that the aryan race is the most pure and enlighten race while the jew is among the most dirtiest and worthless ones. It inspired him to not only exterminate the jews, but to send teams of his scientist to track down holy relics and to find the last of the true arayans. His belief in the supernatural such as yours is what led him to believe in such absurdities.

And I haven't even gotten to all the atrocities done by the catholic church from killing off some of the greatest scientific minds, to buring people alive for being witches. Religion by nature relies on the irrational, atheism relies on reason , logic and being rational.

[Socrates]

[quote name='AtheistAlex' date='Feb 15 2005, 06:20 AM'] 1. Okay, I can respect your view. I didn't watch most of it, mainly because my mom was not going to let me. But, now that you said this, I will go and rent it again, and this time, I'll try to watch it all.

Oh and about these "ludicrous claims" you talk about. They, like the many outlandish claims against Michael Moore for Farenheit 9/11, will always seem to be just flat wrong. Religion and politics are very polarizing and divisive issues, and for someone to take any stance, it means others will, undoubtedly attack them. Basically, I ask you to understand that things go both ways, and so you were a prime exmaple of "the pot calling the kettle black".

2. The Germans did think it was okay to slaughter and maim people, but we used force to show them the error of their ways. I agree that the Holocaust was an awful evil we should hope not to revisit, but this call to my emotions will not change my judgement. Morality is a social concept, and that means it is subjective.

Nazis saw the Holocaust as the "Final Solution" to their problems. I disagree and so, I can of course say it is wrong. In fact, it is those who believe in an absolute morality who cannot tell what's wrong and what's right in a given situation, because:
a) they must know what the absolute morality is
b) they would need to know such a moral code for all situations at all times
c) to do such a thing, they would need to have a mind of infinite capacity

If you can prove your mind not only has infinite capacity, but also that you know every correct moral decision for all time, then you can tell [u]anyone[/u] what's always right and wrong based off an absolute value set.

But, things change...the world changes, the people change, society changes, and so we adapt, our set of morals changes as well. Sacrifices used to be commonplace and okay, but now they're not. Sure one can say that it's wrong, without a doubt. But would you have said that in that era? Enslaving a man is awfl now, but a years ago, it was good business. You see, morals are not absolutely black and white, but shades of grey.

<<It seems that atheistic theories tend naturally towards atrocities.>>
You are good at this sort of thing, I see. Taking a discussion and turning it into religion-baiting, where you make seemingly innocent statements with sharp, hateful points at the very end.

Here, your thesis implies that atheists, for some reason or another, are either the reason for atrocities, or wish to commit them. Where did you take this idea from, may I ask?

<<gives you no reason to say why the Nazis' actions are wrong, other than that you just don't like them>>

Ask yourself this, why don't I like it? It's detrimental to the German and world society as whole, it takes millions upon millions of lives away that could've been our world leaders, and it shows to us that some tribes don't understand what's important about life. Last though not least, it is an omen of future violence against us that we cannot ignore.


Here's hoping we can get back to not calling atheists monsters,

Alex [/quote]
1. After this, I'll stop discussing movies in this thread (just to keep things simple - if you want to reply, we can start another thread - this is my fault - I started the whole movie thing ) I had never said anything about Michael Moore, though I believe he's a filthy liar. A case could be made against Bush without resorting to Moore's falsehoods. His lies are protected by the first ammendment, though, and I think boycotts, protests, and such give movies free publicity and are counter-productive.

2. Without absolute morality, you still have no reason to condemn anything the Nazis or anybody else did.
Your argument about "absolute morality" makes no sense.
You say simply you "disagree" with the Nazi "final solution" and therefore can say it is wrong. (without giving a reason).
I say torture and murder of innocent people is always absolutely wrong ("Thou shalt not kill") and therefore have a firm basis for condeming the Nazi's "solution."

If the morality of actions is always subjective, there is no basis for condeming any action. It all comes down to people's ever-changing and conflicting feelings. If everything is subjective, people can always find a loophole to justify any atrocity.

Do you imply that slavery was morally good when it existed because it was "good business"? Was slavery morally wrong then, or was it morally right?
If slavery was right then, what makes it wrong now? What is to prevent it from becoming morally right again, if in some future time it becomes "good business"?
In fact, slavery is currently "good business" in some Muslim North African countries? Does mean slavery is morally right for them?
Should we oppose slavery in places where it is practiced?

[Socrates]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Feb 15 2005, 11:21 AM'] I have to interject here because the dribble thats pouring out of your mouth is astounding.  First of all about morality.  Killing is not bad because its written on some tablet, we know killing is bad because it harms people. We can make a good consensus of whats wrong based on what harms people.  If we were to follow the bibles moral code, than it would be ok to kill homosexuals. To kill women who are not virgins on their wedding night. And lets not forget, god created evil:

[i]I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7)[/i]

Or how about Elisha and the bear, we're 42 children were making fun of Elisha for being bald. Elisha got mad, and asked god to punish the kids. god commaned bears to go out and slaughter the kids. Where is the morality in that? There is none, the kids did not deserve to die for something that childish.

Now to address your claims that Atheism and Darwinism is the cause of the Nazis murderous reign. Farthest from the truth. Hitler was far from an athesit. He believed in the occult and he believed heavily in the christian faith. .Here is a quote from Mein Kampf:

[i]"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.[/i]

Finally, Hitler did not kill the jews because of some darwin ideaologies, like alot of christians like to spout. He did it based on his heavy occult beliefs. Mainly a book by H.P Blavatsky called 'The Secret Doctrine'. In this book she talks of root races, and that the aryan race is the most pure and enlighten race while the jew is among the most dirtiest and worthless ones. It inspired him to not only exterminate the jews, but to send teams of his scientist to track down holy relics and to find the last of the true arayans. His belief in the supernatural such as yours is what led him to believe in such absurdities.

And I haven't even gotten to all the atrocities done by the catholic church from killing off some of the greatest scientific minds, to buring people alive for being witches.  Religion by nature relies on the irrational, atheism relies on reason , logic and being rational. [/quote]
I don't claim that atheistic Darwinism is the sole motivation for the Nazis' hateful actions, however they certainly used Darwinistic pseudo-science to justify their murderous racism. They used this pseudoscience to claim that the Jews and other races were biologically inferior or subhuman, while the Aryans were evolutionarily superior, and therefore destined to rule the world.
If "social Darwinism" was not so popular at the time, it is unlikely the Nazi's goals would have been so popular in Germany.

While Hitler was baptized a Christian, he firmly rejected his Faith in his adult life. he was an occultic neo-pagan. He used some Christian rhetoric to win German churches to his political cause, but despised and hated Christianity, especially the Catholic Church. He considered Christianity a weak "Semitic" religion which had weakened the German people. On an earlier thread, someone brought some documented quotes from Hitler expressing hatred and contempt for the Christian religion and the Catholic Church. Hitler's greatest opponents in Germany were Bavarian Catholics.
Hitler's beliefs were not "like mine," but quite opposed. To say Hitler's beliefs were "rooted in Christianity" is complete nonsense. His opinions on Christianity were certainly closer to yours!

Let us not forget also that the world's most murderous sytem of government, Communism, was firmly rooted in atheism. Soviet Communism murdered over 20 million people in the Societ Union alone, not counting China, the unspeakable murders of Pol Pot in Cambodia, and other communist regimes.
Atheism was always part of the communist creed. So much for Atheism being a force of peace, rationality, and tolerance!

I am not claiming that all atheists are Communists or murderers, but this ought to be remebered every time an atheist blames religion for all the world's violence and problems!

The Catholic Chruch rarely burned anyone for being a witch. This is anti-Catholic propaganda. Witch-burning and witch-hunts were a largely Protestant phenomenon. And I challenge you to name one "great scientific mind" who was put to death by the Church!

Edited February 15, 2005 by Socrates

[blovedwolfofgod]

Even though Im just a "Lurker", I think I have a point here for Alex:

On the subject of moral subjectivity:
I have learned through my various history/poli sci classes that the standard of morality is based on the beliefs of the most powerful force. Example: Genocide- before the 1950s, there wasnt a word for this. The Geneva Convention on Genocide wasnt called until Rapheal Lemkin worked his rear off to get delegates to the UN to hold a conference. This convention was made practically null and void when the US signed and wrote its reservation clause. Now countries have no legal recourse to stop genocide. While we dont like it, nobody has to stop it and its sorta ok because the most powerful force on the planet said that they didnt wanna get involved.

That may be a weak example...

Here's my next one. Women's rights... Women's rights picked up in the US and largely is pushed by the US today. Somehow, the feminists got enough power here to effect foriegn policy and national opinions. Yeah, forcible removal of the clitoris is bad... but why? Their purpose is to stop their women from being promiscuous. Im not going to argue that it actually stops that... I have no idea. But now its a world issue and its in the UN in the GA 6th commitee because the US decided to ennact legislation that the rest of the world saw, went somewhere, some journalists wrote about it, thought it was bad because of their western mentality and the US applied pressure to raise its profile and try to stop the badness.

This is just to try to illustrate that human morality isnt universal. The US went from slavery to massive war to anti-slavery (except in the deep south). South America doesnt have slavery because they needed money from Europe and the great powers there didnt like it. Power affects human morality. There can be no consensus because power changes hands frequently and everyone wants it. The weak go with the strong, the stronger oppose the opposition, a fight breaks out and the winner imposes that morality on the new territory and sphere of influence.

The one thing that is seemingly unchanging is the teachings of the Church. Again, Im not here to debate the actions of the Church, but the teachings really have remained consistent. And it wasnt necessarily through who had power. Since the beginning, homosexuality was bad. Romans and the greeks before them practised it. Granted, it was regulated and usually only accepted if you had children already or were younger (16-25ish). But the Church set up the morality from a weak power, maintained it, maintained it during power, and now as a passive force, still keeps it. There is something to be said for that.

Sidenote: to the person who was talking about bible morality, the one who said we would kill homos and women who werent virgins prior to marriage... son, that was the old testament. Theres a new one. You should read it. Good stuff. Says the new law is mercy and love, the justice will come soon enough.

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Feb 15 2005, 01:34 PM']



The Catholic Chruch rarely burned anyone for being a witch. This is anti-Catholic propaganda. Witch-burning and witch-hunts were a largely Protestant phenomenon. And I challenge you to name one "great scientific mind" who was put to death by the Church! [/quote]
[quote]I don't claim that atheistic Darwinism is the sole motivation for the Nazis' hateful actions, however they certainly used Darwinistic pseudo-science to justify their murderous racism.  They used this pseudoscience to claim that the Jews and other races were biologically inferior or subhuman, while the Aryans were evolutionarily superior, and therefore destined to rule the world.
If "social Darwinism" was not so popular at the time, it is unlikely the Nazi's goals would have been so popular in Germany.[/quote]

You dont get it at all. Hitler believed in 'divine right'. The german race, (aryans), were the master race not because they had evolved into a higher form. Or because other races have de-evoled. But rather that, it was the purest and best from the start. That god had intended them to be the most powerful race. And that all races were under them. And that the reason those races lived was because the aryans carried them along. You need to read on the volk movement and what was going on in germany at the time. Not spew out some stuff that seems to make sense to you, but its not acurate at all and not the truth.

[quote]
While Hitler was baptized a Christian, he firmly rejected his Faith in his adult life.  he was an occultic neo-pagan.  He used some Christian rhetoric to win German churches to his political cause, but despised and hated Christianity, especially the Catholic Church.  He considered Christianity a weak "Semitic" religion which had weakened the German people.  On an earlier thread, someone brought some documented quotes from Hitler expressing hatred and contempt for the Christian religion and the Catholic Church.  Hitler's greatest opponents in Germany were Bavarian Catholics.
Hitler's beliefs were not "like mine," but quite opposed.  To say Hitler's beliefs were "rooted in Christianity" is complete nonsense.  His opinions on Christianity were certainly closer to yours![/quote]

What you mention is a book written by the supposed secretary of hitler. None of these anti-christian quotes were ever recorded or written down by hitler. They all came second hand. Towards the end alot of the current german philosophers wanted to move away from christianity because of its jewish roots. But the religious mentality was still very prevalent.

[quote]Let us not forget also that the world's most murderous sytem of government, Communism, was firmly rooted in atheism.  Soviet Communism murdered over 20 million people in the Societ Union alone, not counting China, the unspeakable murders of Pol Pot in Cambodia, and other communist regimes.
Atheism was always part of the communist creed.  So much for Atheism being a force of peace, rationality, and tolerance[/quote]

This only shows you how much you truly do not know. Religion was not banned in russia during those times. You could believe what you wanted and even churhces were built during that era. THe difference is that the state had no religion. It was a complete seperation. If you want to blame atheisism for communism, not the system itself than thats your perogative. Basiclly your argument is that the reason those people were bad was that they were atheist. I would say the totalitarian aspects of communism is the root of the evil, not atheisism. Also Stalin during his time, restore the Orthodox Church hierarchy to serve russia, not a very atheistisc thing to do.


[quote]I am not claiming that all atheists are Communists or murderers, but this ought to be remebered every time an atheist blames religion for all the world's violence and problems![/quote]

Would there be a middle east conflict witout religion? There would be no islamic militants without a religion? Would the hindus and muslims be fighting over kashmir without a religion? Would the crusades have occured? How many religious wars have been waged over history compared to how many have been waged over atheism?

[quote]The Catholic Chruch rarely burned anyone for being a witch.  This is anti-Catholic propaganda.  Witch-burning and witch-hunts were a largely Protestant phenomenon.  And I challenge you to name one "great scientific mind" who was put to death by the Church![/quote]

Propaganda. Open your eyes. Ever heard of the Inquisitions. It is said that somewhere between 1-9 million people were killed throughout this time. It took the vatican until this century to issue a statement of regret about the inquistions. And to clear Gailleo's name. Giordano Bruno died during the inqusistions, he was an astronomer. Now factor in the crusades, and you got yourself a heavy death toll of millions.