The person I was debating with brought up many whom I do not consider Christians before I brought up Stalin and Mao. He even tried to claim that Hitler and the Nazis were Christians, when Hitler's (and many other Nazi's) writings were very contemptuous of Christianity.
So, I don't think in this discussion I could avoid being asked to take that responsibility by not bringing up Stalin and Mao.
Why would an atheist need justification to take any action they please? Why does it matter? They are just acting according to the way the random Universe caused them to be.
You repeatedly talk about how hateful Christian morals all, yet all of your posts drip with anger and condemnation of anyone who disagrees with you. You have no understanding of Christian morals. Why would I hate someone whom Jesus Christ suffered and died to redeem? The basis of Christian morals is to act according to the model laid out by Jesus, which was to lay down His life for others.
There is a true story from my religious tradition about Dirk Willems who was being pursued by the authorities for his religious beliefs. He fled across a frozen river. One of his pursuers fell through the ice and was drowning. Dirk returned and pulled the man from the water even though it meant his arrest and death by torture. Dirk Wilems by this act summed up Christian morals. Would you have done the same? Do you even believe that you should do the same? I believe that I should strive to follow Dirk Willems example.
And that proves what? If life requires a creator, how did the first life come to be? If life doesn't require a creator, why has no one ever seen life appear from non-life (there are many possible explanations, but until someone shows it, we have no scientific explanation for the origin of life)?
They are bullies, haters, and cruel when derived from the bible.
You say that you are not insulting and then you make a statement like this without having ever met me. Up until now I have avoided saying what I think atheistic morals are, atheistic morals are mental gymnastics to justify what the atheist was going to do anyway.
So, as a Christian, I am supposed to take responsibility for everyone who calls themselves a Christian (or even was ever associated with a Christian Church), but you as an atheist only have to take responsibility for those who share your particular take on atheism (as defined by you)?
Besides, the religious Christian extremists in the US and Canada are probably more a threat to me than the religious Muslim extremists.
In what way? When was the last time "religious Christian extremists" killed someone for making a movie that was offensive to their faith? I hear people make that kind of statement all the time, but I would like to know what it is based upon.
If they program a great software for sorting and handling animals in animal shelters, they've effectively made it that anyone who uses the software cannot euthanize animals. Not a bad move, though it could open a whole can of worms.
Which means that PETA would be unable to use software licensed under their own software license. Which would perfectly sum up what hypocrites they are. PETA has frequently been in the news for killing and disposing of animals from their shelters in illegal manners.
That more than anything would bring about an American victory in the "war on terrorism," as all the terrorists really want is for the US and other Western powers to stop meddling in their affairs.
Well, that and convert to Islam. If you don't believe that the Muslim extremists who are behind most of the terrorism in the world today want to forcibly convert the rest of the world to their version of Islam, you need to study the history of Islam. The only times that Islam has not been using military force to conquer non-Muslims is when there has been a world power that was strong enough to forcibly prevent them from doing so.
The best evidence is that the library of Alexandria was burned when Caesar burned the library by accident in 48 BC or at the latest during the wars between Aurelius and Zenobia of Palmyra.
As for the reason I don't read your posts carefully, it is because they are full of bile and anger. All of your arguments are couched in insulting language rather than being phrased in a manner that suggests you will actually consider any arguments I make.
You say that only Martin Luther King, Jr accomplished anything real of the people I mentioned. I take it that you do not consider wiping out the worldwide slave trade to be anything of significance?
You say what can the few good Christians do to make up for a bunch of terrible things that you credit to Christians (I do not accept that Hitler was a Christian, if you look at his writings you will discover that he held Christians in as much contempt as yourself). Well what can the few good atheists do to make up for Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin?
Thank you, you point out a very good point. There is not yet enough information to determine if the AG is trying to suppress criticism or if he is legitimately going after someone trying to poison the grand jury process. Either could be the case based on the information currently available. So far, I see a bunch of people jumping to conclusions that Tom Corbett is in the wrong and a few people saying, "Wait a minute, let's wait to see the rest of the story before we reach a conclusion." The latter is the closest anybody is coming to defending Tom Corbett, as it should be based on the info so far available, although the people condemning him should be a little more circumspect until the facts all come out.
You say that the man who follows the morality of a higher power will never have done anything great. So, according to you William Wilberforce never did anything much? According to you Martin Luther King, Jr was nothing much? Perhaps you don't think Florence Nightingale accomplished much?
I follow the moral code laid down by a Higher Power because I believe that He created humans and best understands what brings happiness and fulfillment to them. You say that you will not squander your existence, how can you squander your existence if it means nothing and in the end makes no difference whatsoever? According to your beliefs no matter what you do, the universe will end in heat death and nothing will mean anything.
I see no reason to argue with you about leaving this world angry and full of cruel hate, since you are the one who seems angry.
Yes, I am. While the behavior during the Crusades and the Inquisition was horrific, it doesn't hold a candle to the immoral actions of 20th Century atheists.
As I said in another post, if there is a Creator it is logical to believe that He knows what the optimum behavior to maximize happiness for humans is and that His moral code would reflect this. If there is no Creator, why should I believe that your moral code is the optimum for my happiness?
They killed themselves because their worldview so no downside to dying. If they had believed that there was more to existence than just this life, they may have reached different moral conclusions.
The Laws of the Books of the Law were about setting up a nation (Israel), a political system. Christianity is not about a political system but about individuals interacting with God.
Your understanding of the Bible is so far off that it is not possible for me to answer your arguments in full in this type of setting. However, I will say one last thing, it appears that you read the Bible, not with the purpose of understanding, but with the purpose of finding things to support your pre-conceived understanding of the world.
No what I am saying is that if there is a Creator, it makes sense that He would know what the optimum behavior is for those that He created. If there is no Creator, how do I know that a particular moral code is optimum for me?
Let me see if I follow your argument. The fact that some intelligent people were able to "create" life proves that those who think that it takes intelligence to create life are wrong. Is that the point you were trying to make?
Acts 15 says that Gentiles shall only be called upon to follow a very limited set of specifications from the Law of Moses. Those specifications that they are to follow are laid out in Act 15.
If Christianity is true, then there were those before Moses who had received moral instruction from God.
If none of the world's religions are true, what argument would you use to convince the Columbine killers not to commit their crime?
Slashdot Mirror
The person I was debating with brought up many whom I do not consider Christians before I brought up Stalin and Mao. He even tried to claim that Hitler and the Nazis were Christians, when Hitler's (and many other Nazi's) writings were very contemptuous of Christianity.
So, I don't think in this discussion I could avoid being asked to take that responsibility by not bringing up Stalin and Mao.
Why would an atheist need justification to take any action they please? Why does it matter? They are just acting according to the way the random Universe caused them to be.
You repeatedly talk about how hateful Christian morals all, yet all of your posts drip with anger and condemnation of anyone who disagrees with you. You have no understanding of Christian morals. Why would I hate someone whom Jesus Christ suffered and died to redeem? The basis of Christian morals is to act according to the model laid out by Jesus, which was to lay down His life for others.
There is a true story from my religious tradition about Dirk Willems who was being pursued by the authorities for his religious beliefs. He fled across a frozen river. One of his pursuers fell through the ice and was drowning. Dirk returned and pulled the man from the water even though it meant his arrest and death by torture. Dirk Wilems by this act summed up Christian morals. Would you have done the same? Do you even believe that you should do the same? I believe that I should strive to follow Dirk Willems example.
And that proves what? If life requires a creator, how did the first life come to be? If life doesn't require a creator, why has no one ever seen life appear from non-life (there are many possible explanations, but until someone shows it, we have no scientific explanation for the origin of life)?
They are bullies, haters, and cruel when derived from the bible.
You say that you are not insulting and then you make a statement like this without having ever met me. Up until now I have avoided saying what I think atheistic morals are, atheistic morals are mental gymnastics to justify what the atheist was going to do anyway.
So, as a Christian, I am supposed to take responsibility for everyone who calls themselves a Christian (or even was ever associated with a Christian Church), but you as an atheist only have to take responsibility for those who share your particular take on atheism (as defined by you)?
Name one.
Besides, the religious Christian extremists in the US and Canada are probably more a threat to me than the religious Muslim extremists.
In what way? When was the last time "religious Christian extremists" killed someone for making a movie that was offensive to their faith? I hear people make that kind of statement all the time, but I would like to know what it is based upon.
full time professional ethically balanced reporters.
Ha Ha Ha Ha, that was funny, do you still believe in the Easter Bunny too?
If they program a great software for sorting and handling animals in animal shelters, they've effectively made it that anyone who uses the software cannot euthanize animals. Not a bad move, though it could open a whole can of worms.
Which means that PETA would be unable to use software licensed under their own software license. Which would perfectly sum up what hypocrites they are. PETA has frequently been in the news for killing and disposing of animals from their shelters in illegal manners.
That more than anything would bring about an American victory in the "war on terrorism," as all the terrorists really want is for the US and other Western powers to stop meddling in their affairs.
Well, that and convert to Islam. If you don't believe that the Muslim extremists who are behind most of the terrorism in the world today want to forcibly convert the rest of the world to their version of Islam, you need to study the history of Islam. The only times that Islam has not been using military force to conquer non-Muslims is when there has been a world power that was strong enough to forcibly prevent them from doing so.
The best evidence is that the library of Alexandria was burned when Caesar burned the library by accident in 48 BC or at the latest during the wars between Aurelius and Zenobia of Palmyra.
As for the reason I don't read your posts carefully, it is because they are full of bile and anger. All of your arguments are couched in insulting language rather than being phrased in a manner that suggests you will actually consider any arguments I make.
You say that only Martin Luther King, Jr accomplished anything real of the people I mentioned. I take it that you do not consider wiping out the worldwide slave trade to be anything of significance?
You say what can the few good Christians do to make up for a bunch of terrible things that you credit to Christians (I do not accept that Hitler was a Christian, if you look at his writings you will discover that he held Christians in as much contempt as yourself). Well what can the few good atheists do to make up for Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin?
Thank you, you point out a very good point. There is not yet enough information to determine if the AG is trying to suppress criticism or if he is legitimately going after someone trying to poison the grand jury process. Either could be the case based on the information currently available. So far, I see a bunch of people jumping to conclusions that Tom Corbett is in the wrong and a few people saying, "Wait a minute, let's wait to see the rest of the story before we reach a conclusion." The latter is the closest anybody is coming to defending Tom Corbett, as it should be based on the info so far available, although the people condemning him should be a little more circumspect until the facts all come out.
You say that the man who follows the morality of a higher power will never have done anything great. So, according to you William Wilberforce never did anything much? According to you Martin Luther King, Jr was nothing much? Perhaps you don't think Florence Nightingale accomplished much?
I follow the moral code laid down by a Higher Power because I believe that He created humans and best understands what brings happiness and fulfillment to them. You say that you will not squander your existence, how can you squander your existence if it means nothing and in the end makes no difference whatsoever? According to your beliefs no matter what you do, the universe will end in heat death and nothing will mean anything.
I see no reason to argue with you about leaving this world angry and full of cruel hate, since you are the one who seems angry.
Actually, there are several proponents of ID who believe that the "intelligence" was some sort of alien.
According to their worldview, any action they chose was going to end in death, what made this death any worse than another?
I love people who argue, "See, we created life, that proves that life doesn't need a creator."
Yes, I am. While the behavior during the Crusades and the Inquisition was horrific, it doesn't hold a candle to the immoral actions of 20th Century atheists.
As I said in another post, if there is a Creator it is logical to believe that He knows what the optimum behavior to maximize happiness for humans is and that His moral code would reflect this. If there is no Creator, why should I believe that your moral code is the optimum for my happiness?
They killed themselves because their worldview so no downside to dying. If they had believed that there was more to existence than just this life, they may have reached different moral conclusions.
The Laws of the Books of the Law were about setting up a nation (Israel), a political system. Christianity is not about a political system but about individuals interacting with God.
Your understanding of the Bible is so far off that it is not possible for me to answer your arguments in full in this type of setting. However, I will say one last thing, it appears that you read the Bible, not with the purpose of understanding, but with the purpose of finding things to support your pre-conceived understanding of the world.
No what I am saying is that if there is a Creator, it makes sense that He would know what the optimum behavior is for those that He created. If there is no Creator, how do I know that a particular moral code is optimum for me?
Except the point is what is the basis for a moral system if there is no God?
That's nice, so what?
Let me see if I follow your argument. The fact that some intelligent people were able to "create" life proves that those who think that it takes intelligence to create life are wrong. Is that the point you were trying to make?
Acts 15 says that Gentiles shall only be called upon to follow a very limited set of specifications from the Law of Moses. Those specifications that they are to follow are laid out in Act 15.
If Christianity is true, then there were those before Moses who had received moral instruction from God.
If none of the world's religions are true, what argument would you use to convince the Columbine killers not to commit their crime?