Questions to atheists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-11-2015, 12:40 PM
RE: Questions to atheists
(22-11-2015 12:35 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  
(22-11-2015 11:38 AM)davidkingrichie Wrote:  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.

A lawyer who uses precedents in motion hearings is considered bad? You are totally clueless about how life works, which again is no surprise giving you worldview of gawddidit.

If you have any question for me, ask them. You guys should take it easy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-11-2015, 12:41 PM
RE: Questions to atheists
Girl_nails

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...vil-debate

"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
22-11-2015, 12:41 PM
RE: Questions to atheists
The Ray Comfort apologetic is strong with this one. Which is idiotic. It's kind of like training in the Mr. Magoo school of cartography.

Okay, let's break this down. I'll try to quote line by line but I might have to parse it finer than that given how densely this guy is packing in his wrongness.

(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.

Taxonomically, scientifically, and biologically speaking, we are animals. We fall into the same category because we meet the scientific definition of what it means to be an animal. Here it is from Wikipedia:

Quote:Animals are multicellular, eukaryotic organisms of the kingdom Animalia (also called Metazoa). All animals are motile, meaning they can move spontaneously and independently, at some point in their lives. Their body plan eventually becomes fixed as they develop, although some undergo a process of metamorphosis later on in their lives. All animals are heterotrophs: they must ingest other organisms or their products for sustenance.

Going through the checklist one point at a time:

Are we multicellular? Check. Anyone can confirm this with a microscope and some flakes of skin or a few drops of their own blood. This is within the ability of an elementary school science class. This distinguishes us from, say amoebas.

Are we eukaryotic? Check. Again from Wikipedia: "The defining feature that sets eukaryotic cells apart from prokaryotic cells (Bacteria and Archaea) is that they have membrane-bound organelles, especially the nucleus, which contains the genetic material, and is enclosed by the nuclear envelope." Again, a few skin cells and a microscope will confirm this for humans, though it helps if you have some sort of dye that can bring out the parts of the cell in sharp relief. Again within range of an elementary school science class. This distinguishes us from, say, bacteria.

Are we motile? Can we move spontaneously and independently? Check. Babies know this when they start crawling. This distinguishes us from plants.

Are our body plans fixed? Check. We are mostly bilaterally symmetrical (left-and-right, though our internal organs do not conform to exact symmetry) with two arms and two legs ending in hands and feet respectively, each with five digits, a central trunk containing most of our vital organs, and a head containing most of our neurology and sensory information. While some mutations and injuries can alter this (people with six fingers, for example), and while the proportions change during childhood, this body plan is fixed from well before we are born. Any five year old can express this. A three year old probably understands it, but might lack the language to express it. This distinguishes us from, say, mats of algae.

Are we heterotrophs? Must we ingest other organisms for sustenance? Check. Again, elementary school science here. This also distinguishes us from plants.

So yes, we are animals... again, as any child with an elementary school science education can confirm. That does not change that we are a particular species of animal (humans) with a particular mental capacity for ideation, communication, socialization, and culture, to a degree of ability that sets us apart from all other species of animal. Finer degrees of subcategory exist within the category of animal -- vertebrates versus invertebrates, for example, or mammals versus birds, or humans versus gorillas. There are more distinctions that can be drawn than just whether or not something is an animal. Whatever slippery slope appeal to consequences you might be threatening us with if we are animals doesn't change that. We are in fact animals. Whatever bad news being an animal carries (including things like aging, death, propensity for famine, thirst, disease, pain, and so on) it's happening to us, whether you want it to or not.

The other half of your condition is if no god existed. The universe looks and acts remarkably like it would look and act if no god existed. The laws of physics are not regularly suspended for miraculous intervention. People are not magically struck dead for blaspheme (usually that takes an angry mob of offended zealots). There is no twenty-foot high monument displaying God's law in fiery letters that all can read by anyone no matter their native tongue, and no booming voice regularly issues forth from the sky to communicate with us. There is no obvious evidence for a god in our day-to-day lives. So pretty much everything that would seem safe with a god would seem safe without it. (Also, it would depend on WHICH god. There was that story about Loki getting impregnated by a horse.)

You are quite wrong, of course, that having sex with any animal would be safe.

You're not addressing morality yet -- just safety. Yet you seem to be implicitly (and quite ineptly) suggesting that what you mean by "safe" is that no punishment is being imposed for the offense, and that this somehow ties in with morality. If so, this is ludicrous on... at least three fronts that I can count in only a brief surveying of the concept. First, there ARE punishments imposed for bestiality by most civilized nations. Second, the existence or application of a punishment does not necessarily make an action wrong, unless you think that Dr. King's civil rights movement (which landed him in jail multiple times) was wrong. Third, under most conventional Christian understandings of a god, the supernatural punishment for bestiality can be avoided with the certain prayers, rituals, repentance, and occasional purchases of indulgences from a church. (Whether such retribution can be avoided in such a manner... or whether it occurs at all... is impossible to demonstrate. No evidence either way can be provided.)

For reference, some things that WOULD be "safe" in this sense if a Christian god did exist: Forcing rape victims to marry their rapists, slavery (including sex slaves), polygamy, and killing people who make art of, say, Aphrodite. IIRC, stoning to death was the preferred method of execution. (Stoning for adultery is on the list too, but there was a very vague and flaccid intervention that Jesus is supposed to have made, actually inserted centuries later to the narrative by a scribe, in which he suggests only someone without sin should cast the first stone in that particular case. While this is not by any means a clear overturning of the previous law, and while Jesus in the Bible makes explicitly clear that the previous law is not being overturned at all, I'll let this one go. It's not like there isn't enough other ammunition out there.) Things that wouldn't be safe (barring the get-out-of-sin-free card of salvation that makes everything safe) include sex before marriage, getting a blow job from your wife, or wearing a polyester-cotton blend.

(22-11-2015 04:55 AM)davidkingrichie Wrote:  Laws against homosexuality,beastiality,perverts,rape,animal right will seem redundant and foolish as we are all animals and we have equal rights.

Our equal rights do not emerge from our equal status as animals... and even if they did, they would not imply that it is okay to rape anyone or anything. Laws against rape make sense under the idea of enlightened self-interest. Or put another way, I want there to be laws against rape BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO BE RAPED. (More altruistically, I don't want anyone else to be raped either.)

We can generalize this to an overall principle called the ethic of reciprocity, sometimes known as the Golden Rule, which can be found in pretty much every world religion. It is also found in Christianity, but is neither unique to it nor originated in it. The simplest formulation of this rule in sexual matters is consent. If the other party (or parties) consents, then it's okay. Some complications arise when there is a diminished capacity for consent -- when the other party isn't competent, or able to clearly communicate, or under duress. This standard of free, competent consent is at the basis of sexual ethics in modern society.

Some implications of this standard: Non-human animals are not able to clearly communicate consent, so they're off the table. Immature children are not seen as capable of comprehending sexual matters, so they're not able to give consent. (Exactly when a person matures to this point is a matter of some debate, and you will see this in varying age of consent laws in different polities.) Homosexuality between consenting adults is fine. Perversion... depends on the perversion, but most things are okay between consenting adults. (It should be noted that the leather-and-whips crowd is legit even WITHIN conventional Christian teachings, provided they only have sex within a marriage. Or maybe with the wife's slave is okay too. Again that whole question of whether the old law is being overturned or not is a matter of debate even within Christianity.)

Note that this standard of consent can be applied EITHER WAY, whether there is a god or not. Another example of a universe with a god being very much like a universe without a god.

As to whether all these laws are redundant? Let me paraphrase Penn Jilllette here. I'm not going to commit bestiality in the future. I'm not going to rape any men OR women in the future. I'm not going to molest any children in the future. This is because I've already had sex with as many non-human animals as I want to in my life and raped as many men and women as I want to in my life and molested as many children as I want to in my life. And that number is: ZERO. If YOUR number is NOT ZERO, COMMIT YOURSELF TO A MENTAL INSTITUTE NOW! Does this make mortal law on these subjects redundant in my case? Yes. Would this make a divine decree not to do these things also redundant in my case? Yes. Are there people for whom that number is not zero that would make mortal law or divine decree significant? Yes. It is because of such people that such laws are crafted.

(22-11-2015 04:55 AM)davidkingrichie Wrote:  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.

I've already said that the existence of a god is not necessary for drawing a distinction between humans and other animals... though I will note that dogs that kill pet cats and lions that kill from herds are often killed in turn. But you put your finger on a key point here -- that laws exist to curb some activities that we would do without those laws. And that is a critical distinction between most animals and humans: They. Can't. Learn. Deterrence (a threat of punishment to keep people from engaging in undesirable behavior) occupies a central role in most of our jurisprudence. We cannot clearly communicate to a lion the idea that it will go to jail for killing a gazelle, and so no deterrence is possible there. (Also, a lion killing a deer? WTF? Those are from completely different biomes.) Dogs CAN be trained, to a degree, though complex laws are more than they can figure out.

The problem with much of what we do is not that it is animalistic. Eating, breathing, grooming, communicating, sex, child-rearing, social behavior, all of these are things we share with some non-human animals. (Not all, of course. Fish don't breathe, for example. But some.) Many of our instincts are perfectly legal. Most of our laws exist to curb behavior, not on the grounds that it is animalistic, but on the grounds that it in some way harms another member of society or undermines the structure of society at large. Murder? Harmful and undermining. Theft? Harmful and undermining. Rape? Harmful and undermining. Assault and mutilation? Harmful and undermining. That's what prohibitive laws are supposed to curb.

(22-11-2015 04:55 AM)davidkingrichie Wrote:  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.

Show me ONE ANIMAL (other than humans) that burns their enemies. (We are talking fire burns, right? Not chemical burns?)

This is a bold prediction... and quite at ends with this little thing called REALITY. We can actually check your claim statistically and it is utterly false. Measuring crime rates in nations with low religiosity and high atheism (such as Sweden) to those with high religiosity and low atheism (such as Saudi Arabia) show that the irreligious, atheistic nations have a much LOWER rate of murder, assault, rape, pretty much every violent crime imaginable. When we correct for the governmental structure of society and compare irreligious liberal democracies (again Sweden) to highly religious liberal democracies (like the United States), the irreligious societies AGAIN see far lower rates of violent crime... and do better overall across the board on pretty much every standard we could name. (Education, lifespan, poverty rates, etc.) The trend is very strong and quite clear -- high religiosity is actually bad for society. These irreligious societies do not, as you imply, get rid of their laws against murder, rape, and cannibalism. You have on this point disconnected with reality.

Oh, and on the subject of burning alive... who is best known for that again? Hmm.. let me think. OH! RIGHT! CHRISTIANITY! THE PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE THERE IS A GOD!

As far as questioning laws critically? GOOD! Again, I bring up the example of the civil rights movement, which critically questioned segregation in the United States. (Their main opposition were religious fundamentalists who insisted that God wanted blacks and whites separated. Of course, most of the proponents of desergregation were religious. This is an example of Christians not agreeing on what the fuck their imaginary god wants, because they don't all have the same imagination.) But this was indeed a law that should be questioned critically. What about questioning laws against murder critically? Fine by me! I am fully confident that good laws like that will stand up against an honest, critical review. The thing is, all the laws we would want to have, there are good reason to have WHETHER OR NOT A GOD EXISTS.

I'm going to skip the rest of what you said in your OP. Basically, your whole argument is a total slippery-slope non-sequitur Argument from Morality. Your conclusions of a descent into maddened anarchy does not actually follow from not believing in the existence of a god, any more than an orderly society follows from believing that there is a god. We can actually fact-check you on this, and have, and the facts are against you. Widespread belief in a god correlates to HIGHER rates of murder, rape, etc, whether we are comparing on a nation-by-nation level or even a state-by-state level within the United States. Religion goes hand in hand with SICK societies. The exact manner of causation is still up for debate, though a hint might be found in the fact that the most recent spike in Norway's murder rate was a fundamentalist Christian doing as he believed he was instructed to by God and going on a murderous rampage in a children's summer camp. But it is not, as you claim, that atheistic societies tend to descend into barbaric anarchy. It is exactly the opposite.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Reltzik's post
22-11-2015, 12:42 PM
RE: Questions to atheists
(22-11-2015 12:40 PM)davidkingrichie Wrote:  
(22-11-2015 12:35 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  A lawyer who uses precedents in motion hearings is considered bad? You are totally clueless about how life works, which again is no surprise giving you worldview of gawddidit.

If you have any question for me, ask them. You guys should take it easy.

You know nothing, therefore we could learn nothing from you.

Check out my now-defunct atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WillHopp's post
22-11-2015, 12:43 PM
RE: Questions to atheists
(22-11-2015 12:40 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(22-11-2015 10:04 AM)davidkingrichie Wrote:  What I don't get is this. If atheists believe that there is no God and life ends in death,then why waste you time debating about this? Why have a forum about this? Why don't you experience all the fun life has to offer? Oh,wait! Hmmmmm....

Well, Mr. 3names, it's like this.

1. MATURE humans have ethics, and ethical principles. They hold these principles, not for your childish "oh, I get a reward" but because they maybe have studied Philosophy and have determined what a "good life" consists of. They grew up from the "sucker from the dentist" phase.
2. I hope you know, that one of major religious traditions, (which we know a LOT more about than you ever will), had NO HEAVEN and no HELL until well after the Exilic period, and that was never an essential part of the tradition from which Christianity arose ... we can discuss that in great detail, IF you have the background in the study of Comparative Religion to even begin it.
3. Every single ethical principle which now exists in the Bible, Judaism and Christianity came from the cultures in which it existed. These religious tradition TOOK values which ALREADY existed in their cultures, sanctioned them, and wrote them INTO their ethical systems, NOT the other way around. This is easily proven by people who know history, and cultural anthropology, (which really is the source f morality and ethics).

So I can only assume you are a rank beginner at all this, if that really is your first question, .... and we'd be happy to enlighten you on anything you don't know about the origins of religious ideas and beliefs.

I look forward to probing his knowledge...it would be nice to have a theist who can actually articulate, validate, and substantiate his faith but I guess we will have to see...not impressed thusfar.

"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
[+] 1 user Likes goodwithoutgod's post
22-11-2015, 12:46 PM
RE: Questions to atheists
(22-11-2015 12:41 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  The Ray Comfort apologetic is strong with this one. Which is idiotic. It's kind of like training in the Mr. Magoo school of cartography.

Okay, let's break this down. I'll try to quote line by line but I might have to parse it finer than that given how densely this guy is packing in his wrongness.

(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.

Taxonomically, scientifically, and biologically speaking, we are animals. We fall into the same category because we meet the scientific definition of what it means to be an animal. Here it is from Wikipedia:

Quote:Animals are multicellular, eukaryotic organisms of the kingdom Animalia (also called Metazoa). All animals are motile, meaning they can move spontaneously and independently, at some point in their lives. Their body plan eventually becomes fixed as they develop, although some undergo a process of metamorphosis later on in their lives. All animals are heterotrophs: they must ingest other organisms or their products for sustenance.

Going through the checklist one point at a time:

Are we multicellular? Check. Anyone can confirm this with a microscope and some flakes of skin or a few drops of their own blood. This is within the ability of an elementary school science class. This distinguishes us from, say amoebas.

Are we eukaryotic? Check. Again from Wikipedia: "The defining feature that sets eukaryotic cells apart from prokaryotic cells (Bacteria and Archaea) is that they have membrane-bound organelles, especially the nucleus, which contains the genetic material, and is enclosed by the nuclear envelope." Again, a few skin cells and a microscope will confirm this for humans, though it helps if you have some sort of dye that can bring out the parts of the cell in sharp relief. Again within range of an elementary school science class. This distinguishes us from, say, bacteria.

Are we motile? Can we move spontaneously and independently? Check. Babies know this when they start crawling. This distinguishes us from plants.

Are our body plans fixed? Check. We are mostly bilaterally symmetrical (left-and-right, though our internal organs do not conform to exact symmetry) with two arms and two legs ending in hands and feet respectively, each with five digits, a central trunk containing most of our vital organs, and a head containing most of our neurology and sensory information. While some mutations and injuries can alter this (people with six fingers, for example), and while the proportions change during childhood, this body plan is fixed from well before we are born. Any five year old can express this. A three year old probably understands it, but might lack the language to express it. This distinguishes us from, say, mats of algae.

Are we heterotrophs? Must we ingest other organisms for sustenance? Check. Again, elementary school science here. This also distinguishes us from plants.

So yes, we are animals... again, as any child with an elementary school science education can confirm. That does not change that we are a particular species of animal (humans) with a particular mental capacity for ideation, communication, socialization, and culture, to a degree of ability that sets us apart from all other species of animal. Finer degrees of subcategory exist within the category of animal -- vertebrates versus invertebrates, for example, or mammals versus birds, or humans versus gorillas. There are more distinctions that can be drawn than just whether or not something is an animal. Whatever slippery slope appeal to consequences you might be threatening us with if we are animals doesn't change that. We are in fact animals. Whatever bad news being an animal carries (including things like aging, death, propensity for famine, thirst, disease, pain, and so on) it's happening to us, whether you want it to or not.

The other half of your condition is if no god existed. The universe looks and acts remarkably like it would look and act if no god existed. The laws of physics are not regularly suspended for miraculous intervention. People are not magically struck dead for blaspheme (usually that takes an angry mob of offended zealots). There is no twenty-foot high monument displaying God's law in fiery letters that all can read by anyone no matter their native tongue, and no booming voice regularly issues forth from the sky to communicate with us. There is no obvious evidence for a god in our day-to-day lives. So pretty much everything that would seem safe with a god would seem safe without it. (Also, it would depend on WHICH god. There was that story about Loki getting impregnated by a horse.)

You are quite wrong, of course, that having sex with any animal would be safe.

You're not addressing morality yet -- just safety. Yet you seem to be implicitly (and quite ineptly) suggesting that what you mean by "safe" is that no punishment is being imposed for the offense, and that this somehow ties in with morality. If so, this is ludicrous on... at least three fronts that I can count in only a brief surveying of the concept. First, there ARE punishments imposed for bestiality by most civilized nations. Second, the existence or application of a punishment does not necessarily make an action wrong, unless you think that Dr. King's civil rights movement (which landed him in jail multiple times) was wrong. Third, under most conventional Christian understandings of a god, the supernatural punishment for bestiality can be avoided with the certain prayers, rituals, repentance, and occasional purchases of indulgences from a church. (Whether such retribution can be avoided in such a manner... or whether it occurs at all... is impossible to demonstrate. No evidence either way can be provided.)

For reference, some things that WOULD be "safe" in this sense if a Christian god did exist: Forcing rape victims to marry their rapists, slavery (including sex slaves), polygamy, and killing people who make art of, say, Aphrodite. IIRC, stoning to death was the preferred method of execution. (Stoning for adultery is on the list too, but there was a very vague and flaccid intervention that Jesus is supposed to have made, actually inserted centuries later to the narrative by a scribe, in which he suggests only someone without sin should cast the first stone in that particular case. While this is not by any means a clear overturning of the previous law, and while Jesus in the Bible makes explicitly clear that the previous law is not being overturned at all, I'll let this one go. It's not like there isn't enough other ammunition out there.) Things that wouldn't be safe (barring the get-out-of-sin-free card of salvation that makes everything safe) include sex before marriage, getting a blow job from your wife, or wearing a polyester-cotton blend.

(22-11-2015 04:55 AM)davidkingrichie Wrote:  Laws against homosexuality,beastiality,perverts,rape,animal right will seem redundant and foolish as we are all animals and we have equal rights.

Our equal rights do not emerge from our equal status as animals... and even if they did, they would not imply that it is okay to rape anyone or anything. Laws against rape make sense under the idea of enlightened self-interest. Or put another way, I want there to be laws against rape BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO BE RAPED. (More altruistically, I don't want anyone else to be raped either.)

We can generalize this to an overall principle called the ethic of reciprocity, sometimes known as the Golden Rule, which can be found in pretty much every world religion. It is also found in Christianity, but is neither unique to it nor originated in it. The simplest formulation of this rule in sexual matters is consent. If the other party (or parties) consents, then it's okay. Some complications arise when there is a diminished capacity for consent -- when the other party isn't competent, or able to clearly communicate, or under duress. This standard of free, competent consent is at the basis of sexual ethics in modern society.

Some implications of this standard: Non-human animals are not able to clearly communicate consent, so they're off the table. Immature children are not seen as capable of comprehending sexual matters, so they're not able to give consent. (Exactly when a person matures to this point is a matter of some debate, and you will see this in varying age of consent laws in different polities.) Homosexuality between consenting adults is fine. Perversion... depends on the perversion, but most things are okay between consenting adults. (It should be noted that the leather-and-whips crowd is legit even WITHIN conventional Christian teachings, provided they only have sex within a marriage. Or maybe with the wife's slave is okay too. Again that whole question of whether the old law is being overturned or not is a matter of debate even within Christianity.)

Note that this standard of consent can be applied EITHER WAY, whether there is a god or not. Another example of a universe with a god being very much like a universe without a god.

As to whether all these laws are redundant? Let me paraphrase Penn Jilllette here. I'm not going to commit bestiality in the future. I'm not going to rape any men OR women in the future. I'm not going to molest any children in the future. This is because I've already had sex with as many non-human animals as I want to in my life and raped as many men and women as I want to in my life and molested as many children as I want to in my life. And that number is: ZERO. If YOUR number is NOT ZERO, COMMIT YOURSELF TO A MENTAL INSTITUTE NOW! Does this make mortal law on these subjects redundant in my case? Yes. Would this make a divine decree not to do these things also redundant in my case? Yes. Are there people for whom that number is not zero that would make mortal law or divine decree significant? Yes. It is because of such people that such laws are crafted.

(22-11-2015 04:55 AM)davidkingrichie Wrote:  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.

I've already said that the existence of a god is not necessary for drawing a distinction between humans and other animals... though I will note that dogs that kill pet cats and lions that kill from herds are often killed in turn. But you put your finger on a key point here -- that laws exist to curb some activities that we would do without those laws. And that is a critical distinction between most animals and humans: They. Can't. Learn. Deterrence (a threat of punishment to keep people from engaging in undesirable behavior) occupies a central role in most of our jurisprudence. We cannot clearly communicate to a lion the idea that it will go to jail for killing a gazelle, and so no deterrence is possible there. (Also, a lion killing a deer? WTF? Those are from completely different biomes.) Dogs CAN be trained, to a degree, though complex laws are more than they can figure out.

The problem with much of what we do is not that it is animalistic. Eating, breathing, grooming, communicating, sex, child-rearing, social behavior, all of these are things we share with some non-human animals. (Not all, of course. Fish don't breathe, for example. But some.) Many of our instincts are perfectly legal. Most of our laws exist to curb behavior, not on the grounds that it is animalistic, but on the grounds that it in some way harms another member of society or undermines the structure of society at large. Murder? Harmful and undermining. Theft? Harmful and undermining. Rape? Harmful and undermining. Assault and mutilation? Harmful and undermining. That's what prohibitive laws are supposed to curb.

(22-11-2015 04:55 AM)davidkingrichie Wrote:  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.

Show me ONE ANIMAL (other than humans) that burns their enemies. (We are talking fire burns, right? Not chemical burns?)

This is a bold prediction... and quite at ends with this little thing called REALITY. We can actually check your claim statistically and it is utterly false. Measuring crime rates in nations with low religiosity and high atheism (such as Sweden) to those with high religiosity and low atheism (such as Saudi Arabia) show that the irreligious, atheistic nations have a much LOWER rate of murder, assault, rape, pretty much every violent crime imaginable. When we correct for the governmental structure of society and compare irreligious liberal democracies (again Sweden) to highly religious liberal democracies (like the United States), the irreligious societies AGAIN see far lower rates of violent crime... and do better overall across the board on pretty much every standard we could name. (Education, lifespan, poverty rates, etc.) The trend is very strong and quite clear -- high religiosity is actually bad for society. These irreligious societies do not, as you imply, get rid of their laws against murder, rape, and cannibalism. You have on this point disconnected with reality.

Oh, and on the subject of burning alive... who is best known for that again? Hmm.. let me think. OH! RIGHT! CHRISTIANITY! THE PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE THERE IS A GOD!

As far as questioning laws critically? GOOD! Again, I bring up the example of the civil rights movement, which critically questioned segregation in the United States. (Their main opposition were religious fundamentalists who insisted that God wanted blacks and whites separated. Of course, most of the proponents of desergregation were religious. This is an example of Christians not agreeing on what the fuck their imaginary god wants, because they don't all have the same imagination.) But this was indeed a law that should be questioned critically. What about questioning laws against murder critically? Fine by me! I am fully confident that good laws like that will stand up against an honest, critical review. The thing is, all the laws we would want to have, there are good reason to have WHETHER OR NOT A GOD EXISTS.

I'm going to skip the rest of what you said in your OP. Basically, your whole argument is a total slippery-slope non-sequitur Argument from Morality. Your conclusions of a descent into maddened anarchy does not actually follow from not believing in the existence of a god, any more than an orderly society follows from believing that there is a god. We can actually fact-check you on this, and have, and the facts are against you. Widespread belief in a god correlates to HIGHER rates of murder, rape, etc, whether we are comparing on a nation-by-nation level or even a state-by-state level within the United States. Religion goes hand in hand with SICK societies. The exact manner of causation is still up for debate, though a hint might be found in the fact that the most recent spike in Norway's murder rate was a fundamentalist Christian doing as he believed he was instructed to by God and going on a murderous rampage in a children's summer camp. But it is not, as you claim, that atheistic societies tend to descend into barbaric anarchy. It is exactly the opposite.

Damnit Reltzik, you are going to scare him off before I get my hooks into him. You just dropped an A bomb with science, education, and well articulated facts backed by empirical evidence...we need to coax him in closer before dropping big words on him....sigh...what am I going to do with you Big Grin Smartass

"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
[+] 1 user Likes goodwithoutgod's post
22-11-2015, 12:51 PM
RE: Questions to atheists
(22-11-2015 12:40 PM)davidkingrichie Wrote:  If you have any question for me, ask them.

Sure. Before we get into any premature discussion of god and religion, please tell me by what plausible mechanism of action do you propose for your postmortem preservation of identity? How are you planning to survive your own death?

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-11-2015, 12:52 PM
RE: Questions to atheists
(22-11-2015 12:43 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  ...
I look forward to probing his knowledge...it would be nice to have a theist who can actually articulate, validate, and substantiate his faith but I guess we will have to see...not impressed thusfar.

Tell you what ... if you don't get a bite at your bait, lemme know. Bedtime for me know but later I can take over his ID and argue for him.

It shouldn't be too difficult to be predictable and inane.

My main attack will be a combination of strawmen and non sequiturs like Shane Williams side-stepping his way through an English 15.

Girl_nails

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
22-11-2015, 12:54 PM
RE: Questions to atheists
(22-11-2015 12:52 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(22-11-2015 12:43 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  ...
I look forward to probing his knowledge...it would be nice to have a theist who can actually articulate, validate, and substantiate his faith but I guess we will have to see...not impressed thusfar.

Tell you what ... if you don't get a bite at your bait, lemme know. Bedtime for me know but later I can take over his ID and argue for him.

It shouldn't be too difficult to be predictable and inane.

My main attack will be a combination of strawmen and non sequiturs like Shane Williams side-stepping his way through an English 15.

Girl_nails

Ha I know right? Laugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out load

"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
22-11-2015, 12:58 PM
RE: Questions to atheists
(22-11-2015 12:20 PM)davidkingrichie Wrote:  
(22-11-2015 12:16 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  If you need religion in order to avoid being a murderous rapist, please keep believing.

Love,

Thump


Lmao

Such a vapid reply got the first negative rep I've given on this forum.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: