Questions to atheists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-11-2015, 11:37 AM
RE: Questions to atheists
(22-11-2015 11:34 AM)davidkingrichie Wrote:  
(22-11-2015 11:33 AM)davidkingrichie Wrote:  NOTE: my article is called "davidking's theory". This is not law,its just my own way of explaining things that we basically cannot understand. This should be at the same level with that of Charles Darwin's.

More like Charlie Brown...but knock yourself out, you won't be the first to come here with their own "theories" of the universe or the first to rewrite the gospels.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-11-2015, 11:38 AM
RE: Questions to atheists
(22-11-2015 11:33 AM)WillHopp Wrote:  
(22-11-2015 11:22 AM)davidkingrichie Wrote:  Pointing out fallacies is no basis of argument. Bring out your own arguments and disprove God.

To the contrary, pointing out fallacies is equivalent to lawyers pointing out precedents, the work has already been done to show your argument is fallacious and not worthy of consideration. We don't have to show our work because it's been done before and this isn't third-grade mathematics class.

You stil don't understand any of this, do you?

You will be a very bad lawyer then. I'll like to see you win a case by just shouting "objection,objection,my lord -a logical fallacy" I guess understanding is what you lack.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-11-2015, 11:41 AM (This post was last modified: 22-11-2015 11:56 AM by Full Circle.)
RE: Questions to atheists
(22-11-2015 11:38 AM)davidkingrichie Wrote:  
(22-11-2015 11:33 AM)WillHopp Wrote:  To the contrary, pointing out fallacies is equivalent to lawyers pointing out precedents, the work has already been done to show your argument is fallacious and not worthy of consideration. We don't have to show our work because it's been done before and this isn't third-grade mathematics class.

You stil don't understand any of this, do you?

You will be a very bad lawyer then. I'll like to see you win a case by just shouting "objection,objection,my lord -a logical fallacy" I guess understanding is what you lack.

I’d like to see you win a case by shouting "it was a miracle!"

Logic is what you lack.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Full Circle's post
22-11-2015, 11:42 AM
RE: Questions to atheists
(22-11-2015 11:33 AM)davidkingrichie Wrote:  NOTE: my article is called "davidking's theory". This is not law,its just my own way of explaining things that we basically cannot understand. This should be at the same level with that of Charles Darwin.

And if someone wished to waste their time reading it where would they find it?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-11-2015, 11:44 AM
Questions to atheists
I'm not sure where you get your little skit with you and John comes from. Let me guess... "Many conversations with atheists."

For one, studies do in fact show why we speak different languages. It's called linguistics. Maybe you read some Greenberg, Comrie, or Chomsky.

And you shouldn't bring up your buddy Lot. He was willing to throw his daughters into a crowd to be raped instead of strangers. Doesn't sound like consent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-11-2015, 11:44 AM
RE: Questions to atheists
(22-11-2015 11:42 AM)DerFish Wrote:  
(22-11-2015 11:33 AM)davidkingrichie Wrote:  NOTE: my article is called "davidking's theory". This is not law,its just my own way of explaining things that we basically cannot understand. This should be at the same level with that of Charles Darwin.

And if someone wished to waste their time reading it where would they find it?

I'll post it here
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-11-2015, 11:47 AM
RE: Questions to atheists
(22-11-2015 11:44 AM)Clockwork Wrote:  I'm not sure where you get your little skit with you and John comes from. Let me guess... "Many conversations with atheists."

For one, studies do in fact show why we speak different languages. It's called linguistics. Maybe you read some Greenberg, Comrie, or Chomsky.

And you shouldn't bring up your buddy Lot. He was willing to throw his daughters into a crowd to be raped instead of strangers. Doesn't sound like consent.

My john the atheist skit was made up. Linguistics! Wow! Never thought of that. Thanks!
Lot knew these men were angels
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-11-2015, 11:50 AM
RE: Questions to atheists
(22-11-2015 11:14 AM)davidkingrichie Wrote:  The first commandment.

The first commandment tells people not to worship other gods, it does not say that there are no other gods. Even if it did, and we accepted it as authoritative, it does not classify the other entities that people worshiped as either angels or demons. You are reading a great deal into it that is not there.

As others have pointed out, the bible is not evidence for your god anyway. It is the claim. It is a book that, as far as I can see, is a compilation of mythology from bronze-age Israel and the surrounding areas. It is no more compelling than many other collections of ancient myths. I would need evidence that the stories it contains are true to believe anything more.

(22-11-2015 11:22 AM)davidkingrichie Wrote:  Pointing out fallacies is no basis of argument. Bring out your own arguments and disprove God.

I am not attempting to disprove god. You came to an atheist forum and are claiming that god exists and that the xian bible is an authoritative tome. I am asking you to support that claim. So far your arguments have been fallacies and speculation and pointing that out is the only response needed.

(22-11-2015 11:33 AM)davidkingrichie Wrote:  NOTE: my article is called "davidking's theory". This is not law,its just my own way of explaining things that we basically cannot understand. This should be at the same level with that of Charles Darwin.

LOL. Darwin's work was the culmination of decades of excruciatingly detailed examination of the actual evidence that he found. The theory of evolution by natural selection has been tested repeatedly against biology, geology, paleontology, bacteriology, an just about every other -ology you can name and has withstood the challenges. It has been modified and extended over the years as we've learned more but it is based on mountains of physical evidence and experimentation.

You've jotted down some speculations about things you clearly admit that you don't understand. You might someday want to look up the definition of theory as used by scientists. You might even begin to see how foolish you sound.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
22-11-2015, 11:50 AM
RE: Questions to atheists
(22-11-2015 04:55 AM)davidkingrichie Wrote:  An article on morality -
If there is no God and there is no distinction between us and that of animals (excluding that of higher intellectual abilities),then it will be safe to have sexual relations with your mother,sister,father,daughter,cousin,your horse,your pet snake,your dog,anything and everything with a sexual organ. Laws against homosexuality,beastiality,perverts,rape,animal right will seem redundant and foolish as we are all animals and we have equal rights. You don't arrest a dog for killing a cat,or arrest a lion for killing and eating a deer. Everything will be a natural process as we are animals that don't need laws to curb our animalistic nature. Laws as we know it will be repealed, redressed and questioned critically. Laws against killing will be foolish and irrelevant because as animals,we need to ensure our survival,and if a stupid cop threatens that,i should kill him,burn him and eat him because i'm an animal and I can do no better. People will say that non-existence of God doesn't remove the empathy/moral code we all feel,but empathy is only felt when survival is not threatened and issue of morals doesn't exist for animals. If a man means no harm to me and i'm not hungry for his flesh,killing him will be against nature. We as animals don't kill for no reason. You could stay with a pack of well fed lions and they will do no harm to you if you don't threaten their existence. Animal rights will be removed as we are all animals,and such rights will be stupid to begin with in the first place. Human rights will be removed as we are all animals,and such rights will also be stupid to begin with. The universal law of nature will then be "do not kill for irrelevance( when not threatened or hungry) but do so with purpose."
Atheist don't think critically about their stand and the effect it can have on humanity as we know it. Most atheist factions separates themselves from atheist-perverts,atheist-cannibals and their likes because they can't understand the effect of atheism on humanity. Even if the US/World government is run by atheists,killers and perverts,these fools are wise enough not to ban religion and debunk it totally for the sake of humanity and the existence of law.

Oh goody

Welcome dear friend. I will offer you some information...drink it in, let it marinate, and we can enter discourse when you think you are ready....

Oh first....your mythical god who allegedly gave moses the ten commandments, who by the way never existed and was yet another construct by the anonymous authors of the fictional book the bible, and when one peruses these ten commandments, one finds exactly what one would expect from a group of superstitious men from a patriarchal society.....did the omniscient god forbid rape, incest, and slavery.....no....apparently the all knowing all seeing god didnt foresee that as being a problem, but wait...covet not thy neighbor's wife made the cut Rolleyes I usually get "that was a common factor in the culture of the time" as an answer, which is irrelevant...what man's culture was doing doesn't matter, it is gods ten commandments right, and god surely knew rape, incest and slavery were.....rather unkind acts to say the least....but no....didn't make the cut... anyway I digress, lets look at your failed morality argument. Here is one of my published papers on the subject...read...think...evolve..

Moral Theology is the study of how persons live in response to what God has done for them (Mueller 221).

Morality is concerned with human conduct but goes to a deeper level of personhood, such that our conduct is a reflection of who we are, a reflection of our character (Mueller 221).

Ethics can be defined as a discussion of the formation of human conduct… How responsible human beings capable of critical judgment should live using reflection on fundamental issues in description of concrete cases (Mueller 221).

Conscience is the voice of God written in our hearts, in accordance with the second Vatican Council. Natural law is considered one of the major sources of moral theology and answers the question: how do I know what is good or evil? Christians believe that natural law has been a factor in our decisions of what is morally right and wrong, good and evil (Mueller 222 – 227).

“This people who may personally and individually be moral and good people and have no intention of conflict and harm on others often share a Christian theory called the collective guilt “social sin.” (Mueller 257). The depths that theists go to fabricate the conception of sin knows no bounds, here you can be a good person yet you still have “social sin”. John Paul II said that social sins are “collective behavior of certain social groups, big or small, or even of whole nations or blocks of nations” (Mueller 258). Social sin becomes personal sin of individuals through complicity, indifference, or reluctance of those in a position to exert influence for change who do not do so (Mueller 258).

Catholic social teaching looks to gospel teaching to form the moral foundation the Catholic approach to questions of social justice. And assist the disciple in the ongoing task of reflecting on the challenge of Jesus in the sermon on the Mount and in discerning what it means in a consumer, technological, and globalized society to be poor in spirit and to embrace a sorrowing and the lowly (Mueller 260).

Secular morality is the aspect of philosophy that deals with morality outside of religious traditions. Modern examples include humanism, freethinking, and most versions of consequentialism. Additional philosophies with ancient roots include those such as skepticism and virtue ethics. Greg M. Epstein states that, "much of ancient Far Eastern thought is deeply concerned with human goodness without placing much if any stock in the importance of gods or spirits. Other philosophers have proposed various ideas about how to determine right and wrong actions. An example is Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative: "The idea that actions can only be considered moral if they could be imitated by anyone else and produce good results."

A variety of positions are apparent regarding the relationship between religion and morality. Some believe that religion is necessary as a guide to a moral life. This idea has been with us for nearly 2,000 years. There are various thoughts regarding how this idea has arisen. For example, Greg Epstein suggests that this idea is connected to a concerted effort by theists to question nonreligious ideas: "conservative authorities have, since ancient days, had a clever counter strategy against religious skepticism—convincing people that atheism is evil, and then accusing their enemies of being atheists.

Others eschew the idea that religion is required to provide a guide to right and wrong behavior. Interestingly the Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics states that religion and morality "are to be defined differently and have no definitional connections with each other". Some believe that religions provide poor guides to moral behavior.

Popular atheist author and biologist Richard Dawkins, writing in The God Delusion, has stated that religious people have committed a wide variety of acts and held certain beliefs through history that are considered today to be morally repugnant. He has stated that Adolf Hitler and the Nazis held broadly Christian religious beliefs that inspired the Holocaust on account of antisemitic Christian doctrine, that Christians have traditionally imposed unfair restrictions on the legal and civil rights of women, and that Christians have condoned slavery of some form or description throughout most of Christianity's history. Dawkins insists that, since Jewish and Christian interpretations of the Bible have changed over the span of history so that what was formerly seen as permissible is now seen as impermissible, it is intellectually dishonest for them to believe theism provides an absolute moral foundation apart from secular intuition. In addition, he argued that since Christians and other religious groups do not acknowledge the binding authority of all parts of their holy texts (e.g., The books of Exodus and Leviticus state that those who work on the Sabbath and those caught performing acts of homosexuality, respectively, were to be put to death.), they are already capable of distinguishing "right" from "wrong." (Boghossian 248).

The well-known passage from Dostoyevsky's The Brothers Karamazov, "If God is dead, all is permitted," suggests that non-believers would not hold moral lives without the possibility of punishment by a God. This is absurd as all one has to do is look at Denamrk or Sweden to see that these largely atheist areas enjoy being at the top tier of civilization. This is broken down in great detail in a book by Phil Zuckerman, "Society without god".

Phil Zuckerman, associate professor of sociology at Pitzer College in California, in his article, "Is Faith Good For Us" states the following: "A comparison of highly irreligious countries with highly religious countries, however, reveals a very different state of affairs. In reality, the most secular countries-those with the highest proportion of atheists and agnostics-are among the most stable, peaceful, free, wealthy, and healthy societies. And the most religious nations-wherein worship of God is in abundance-are among the most unstable, violent, oppressive, poor, and destitute."

A study by Gregory S. Paul, entitled "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look," was done and the study's conclusion was that there was an inverse relationship between religion and poor societal health rates. What that means is that the higher the level of religious belief in a country, the lower the level of societal health (more violent crimes, suicides, teen pregnancies, etc.).

So it seems that a plethora of evidence exists to show that not only do we not need religion in our lives to be good humans, but that having it in our lives can be counter-productive and unhealthy.

Works cited

Mueller, J.J., Theological Foundations: Concepts and Methods for Understanding the Christian Faith. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2011. Print.

Boghossian, Peter. A Manual for Creating Atheists. Durham: Pitchstone Publishing, 2013. Print.

Zuckerman, Phil. Society without god: What the least religious nations can tell us about contentment. New York: New York University Press, 2008. Print.

--------------------------

I look forward to engaging you soon on whatever topic you think you know enough about..

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
22-11-2015, 11:54 AM
RE: Questions to atheists
Ahhh working on a mathematical calculations final project today...hope I have time to take our new friend on a tour of the knowledge garden....It would be a nice side distraction and takes minimal effort as usual Consider

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: