On what grounds do atheist call things wrong?

[Desperate Measures]

Not so. They barely hurt at all and they are very important. Plus they give you lollipops.

Where have you been getting your vaccinations? I never got a lollipop when I got shots!

You have to convince a pediatrician to take you on. They are the most fun. I remember mine turned my tetanus shot (there was a red bump for a nose) into a clown face. I was 22. It made me happy for like a week.

[Radiatia]

If you were to ask me if I believe in morality (as some universally true concept), then I would say I am a moral nihilist.

However if you were to ask me about ethics, which is based on the logic and reason of "Does this benefit me and does this benefit other people?" then that is where my 'morality' comes from.

I don't have time to expand on this, but the simplest answer is that rather than my 'morality' coming from my heart, or a book, it comes from my mind and from reason.

So when I say "genocide is wrong" I say this from an ethical viewpoint, or from a scientifically determined viewpoint of "Something which does not benefit humanity, and therefore by association myself*, is wrong."

But I don't believe that there is a universal concept independent of us that says "this is good" and "this is evil".

Does that make sense or do I need to clarify? It took me a long time to get my head around this idea when I first came across it.

*A lot of our ideas of right and wrong do stem from a combination of empathy and selfishness. When we hear about pschopaths and sociopaths, and people with extreme right-wing views (haha just kidding), those are people who chemically lack empathy. But ultimately it all comes down to selfishness - even morality via religion is selfish, and the person wishes to gain reward/ avoid punishment.

[Grenartia]

1. Listen here, Atheists as a whole are just a bunch of depressing idiots that think believing in the Lord is "not cool"and having no faith is.

2. I have been a devout Christian all my life, and I have, for as long as I can remember, held the view that god gave us life, and if some cannot even believe in his glory, let alone worship him, they should be re-educated and segregated from the rest of the population.

Think about this, how would you like your child to spend 12 years of their lives living with Muslims for 6-8 hours a day?

3. That is what going to school is like today, so much Atheist and Muslim propaganda in lessons, I had to write to the school, and it took several months, to excuse my son from the shocking classes, but they still force him to sit through a bunch of evolutionary drivel in his science classes.

4. My son, my wife and my father are all devout Christians, but we are treated like second class citizens in what is supposed to be a Christian country.

It wouldn't surprise me if this impending environmental crisis is the maker himself! It would solve a lot of problems!

1. With the intolerance and severe ignorance found in many conservative, evangelical Christian people, one wonders why more people aren't driven away from Christianity. (I'm not saying that you are, but there is a reason why Ghandi once said, "I like your Christ, but I do not like your Christians". BTW, just an FYI, I'm a Christian.)

2. Many people say that Christians should be segregated and re-educated. Does that make them right? Certainly not. By the same token, people who choose not to believe in God shouldn't be either. Simple case of doing unto others.

3. Its certainly not Muslim propoganda. I don't know what school system your son was in, but I've never seen anything at my school promoting Islam. And I'm not totally surrounded by muslims, either (and I honestly doubt that your son is).

As for the Atheist bit (which is actually contradictory to your statement about Muslim propoganda), of course they have to teach in a secular manner. There are children of many different religious beliefs, and due to the separation of church and state, they can't teach Christianity to them, because their parents don't want their kids being taught Christianity any more than you want your child being taught Islam or Atheism. As for the bit about evolution, I'm not going to address that, as that would only lead to a threadjack.

4. Really? Second-class citizens? When we have wackos like Santorum (who is dangerously close to being President) in public office? When LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) people can't marry, while you can? If anything, conservative Christians seem to be anything BUT second-class citizens.

And he forgot to mention freedom of thought, gays, objective morality, sanity...

Homosexuals are fine, they are not allowed to engage in homosexual coitus, however their existence is not bad.

Christianity is centred around morality, and anything OTHER than Christianity is INsanity.

Actually, its illegal in the United States to make same-sex intercourse illegal. Has been since 2003.

Christ Himself said that the two greatest commandments were to love your neighbor as yourself, and to love God with all your heart and soul. The logical extension of the first one leads us to the golden rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Logically, this means that you forcing your beliefs on others who don't share them, or calling others' beliefs 'INsanity', is just as bad as those same people trying to force their beliefs on you, and calling your beliefs insane.

[Flavionia]

It depends on how their parents raises them and that stuff.

[Remove Kebab]

I'm an atheist and I don't say that God did that wrong or that the Old Testament is wrong. I don't believe in it, that said, I don't go into discussion about faith with both atheists and people who do have a faith.

Just let everyone roll his stuff and it will go allright.

[Four-sided Triangles]

Minimalist post count, limited number of post, all controversial, familiarity with forum quoting practises on a single digit nation.

Almost certainly a puppet.

Inconsistent message, based on often conflicting understanding of the subject matter. Trolling looks likely.


It makes me feel old... in my day, even the trolls were better.

The most pertinent question is this: Is the owner of this sockpuppet an atheist or a believer?

[Grenartia]

Christianity does not advocate those things, historical leaders did.

We are in the 21st century, and as conditions in the world change, religion is applicable in different ways.

It's all relative, back then you could be branded with a hot iron for stealing a loaf of bread, so it made sense that if that was the case for such a minor crime, forsaking the Lord was worthy of death.

Now, stealing a loaf of bread gets you a shouting at by Mr. Patel down the corner shop so forsaking the lord should result in re-education and segregation.

Wait, so you're advocating moral relativism?

Yeah, I'm 90% certain this is a troll.

No, I'm fairly certain he's serious. If he was a troll, he would never have passed up an opportunity to give some biblical justification for slavery when it was presented. No troll could ever resist that juicy bait.

Christianity does not advocate those things, historical leaders did.

We are in the 21st century, and as conditions in the world change, religion is applicable in different ways.

It's all relative, back then you could be branded with a hot iron for stealing a loaf of bread, so it made sense that if that was the case for such a minor crime, forsaking the Lord was worthy of death.

Now, stealing a loaf of bread gets you a shouting at by Mr. Patel down the corner shop so forsaking the lord should result in re-education and segregation.

No, attempting to force your bullshit beliefs on others should result in re-education and segregation.

No, it shouldn't. That would make you (if you did it) as bad as him (if he did it).

[Four-sided Triangles]

No, I'm fairly certain he's serious. If he was a troll, he would never have passed up an opportunity to give some biblical justification for slavery when it was presented. No troll could ever resist that juicy bait.

Jezuzfreek777, who's definitely NOT a troll, attempted to justify biblical slavery by saying that it was "different" from the kind of slavery practiced in the Old South.

[Grenartia]

No, I'm fairly certain he's serious. If he was a troll, he would never have passed up an opportunity to give some biblical justification for slavery when it was presented. No troll could ever resist that juicy bait.

Jezuzfreek777, who's definitely NOT a troll, attempted to justify biblical slavery by saying that it was "different" from the kind of slavery practiced in the Old South.

Just because somebody who wasn't a troll is justifying slavery (yes I know that he called it different than southern slavery, but slavery justification is slavery justification).

But that doesn't mean that trolls can't justify it either.

Basically, your argument is like saying that our views on sex are different, so one of us must breathe water, and the other must breathe air.

[Four-sided Triangles]

Basically, your argument is like saying that our views on sex are different, so one of us must breathe water, and the other must breathe air.

Dammit! The humans are on to our fishman conspiracy.

[Hallistar]

I believe that such a cruel sadistic god as depicted in abrahamic scriptures could ultimately be true, but I believe that their concept of sins (like drinking or doing such and such) is just an arbitrary set of rules, and the whole cavalry and ressurection and armagaddeon is all some arbitrary pre-planned and pointless 'moral' story for the existence of the universe.

I won't call a religion wrong as in false as in it cannot be true, as far as I am concerned it could ultimately be true, but if I start getting told about how "THERE is NO other WAY! CHRIST the LORD died for you at CAVALRY and LOVES YOU but at the same time will burn you in HELLFIRE and DAMNATION", I'll give them my opinion about how they don't even question the illogicality of what they're telling me

[Risottia]

Listen here, Atheists as a whole are just a bunch of depressing idiots that think believing in the Lord is "not cool"and having no faith is.

I bid thee be gone, thou foul troll.

[The Archregimancy]

Is it just me or has there been an even larger than usual outbreak of religion threads recently?

They're increasingly like some sort of Biblical plague sent to test the mods.

I don't feel like reading paragraphs of Times New Roman.

And what's with this increasing reluctance of new NSG participants to actually read? I had someone yesterday attempting to claim an amateur YouTube animated video somehow trumped a detailed historical post full of academic citations because the latter consisted of a 'wall of text', when - if he'd bothered to read the post - he would have avoided embarrassing himself when he had it pointed out to him that the two weren't fundamentally in disagreement.

Or am I just getting crusty in my middle age?

[The Archregimancy]

Listen here, Atheists as a whole are just a bunch of depressing idiots that think believing in the Lord is "not cool"and having no faith is.

*** Warned for flaming/trolling ***

Edit:

A warning clearly superseded by one of my colleagues before I could take the same action after making further checks.

My apologies to everyone for my being a little slow on the draw with that one.

[The Realm of God]

Is it just me or has there been an even larger than usual outbreak of religion threads recently?

They're increasingly like some sort of Biblical plague sent to test the mods.

I don't feel like reading paragraphs of Times New Roman.

And what's with this increasing reluctance of new NSG participants to actually read? I had someone yesterday attempting to claim an amateur YouTube animated video somehow trumped a detailed historical post full of academic citations because the latter consisted of a 'wall of text', when - if he'd bothered to read the post - he would have avoided embarrassing himself when he had it pointed out to him that the two weren't fundamentally in disagreement.

Or am I just getting crusty in my middle age?

No your just better educated than most around here.

[Hallistar]

Listen here, Atheists as a whole are just a bunch of depressing idiots that think believing in the Lord is "not cool"and having no faith is.

I bid thee be gone, thou foul troll.

I honestly don't think I could have heard anything more fundamentally non-sequitor than what League of Christ just said..

[Risottia]

Dammit! The humans are on to our fishman conspiracy.

They're on it since they first tasted sea kitten, you know.

[Ifreann]

Is it just me or has there been an even larger than usual outbreak of religion threads recently?

They're increasingly like some sort of Biblical plague sent to test the mods.

As Moses said to Pharaoh, let my people come back from their bans!

[Valkmar]

Yes. Just because the being knows everything doesn't mean that it is honest. It could lie. Also, there's no reason to presuppose that said being even IS omniscient. Why should we believe that it really knows everything?

It's God?

I think most religious doctrines teach that God is incapable of telling a lie.

Well then in that definition he is not omniscient because omniscient beings can do anything, and lying is a capability.

God is also described as Omnipotent, which goes with above.

[Airifore]

I atleast have a set of morals and if you break any I will say thats wrong now you get differnt reactions depending on which rule of mine you break. If you insult someone with only reason to be a bully I will tell you to knock it off now if you kill someone now i will report you to the police. if you try to stop from doing that then i will be forced to defend myself and kill you or disable you so i may report you to the police. Those are my morals and everyone morals are different.

[The Archregimancy]

Well then in that definition he is not omniscient because omniscient beings can do anything, and lying is a capability.

Not quite.

Omniscient beings know everything, but this doesn't mean they can do anything. The word you're looking for is 'omnipotent'.


Which is petty pedantry on my part, I realise, since your point would have been well-served had you used the correct term; it's just one of those little linguistic inaccuracies that bothers me, since omniscience need not automatically mean omnipotence (and the reverse is also true). One could posit an omniscient deity with limits on his capabilities, just as one could posit have an omnipotent deity with limits on his knowledge.

[Bleckonia]

I am an atheist, but I still have morals.

I guess people are born with a moral compass and naturally know what's right and wrong. Also, if it hurts someone (and it's not self defence), then that's immoral.

[Grenartia]

Well then in that definition he is not omniscient because omniscient beings can do anything, and lying is a capability.

Not quite.

Omniscient beings know everything, but this doesn't mean they can do anything. The word you're looking for is 'omnipotent'.


Which is petty pedantry on my part, I realise, since your point would have been well-served had you used the correct term; it's just one of those little linguistic inaccuracies that bothers me, since omniscience need not automatically mean omnipotence (and the reverse is also true). One could posit an omniscient deity with limits on his capabilities, just as one could posit have an omnipotent deity with limits on his knowledge.

But I'd imagine that a being that was omnipotent would have the power to make himself all-knowing.

[Risottia]

I am an atheist, but I still have morals.
I guess people are born with a moral compass and naturally know what's right and wrong. Also, if it hurts someone (and it's not self defence), then that's immoral.

Do you? I would say so. I think morality has more to do with nurture and society (hence, more local), while ethics is derived from empathy (hence, more "universal" throughout humanity).

[Risottia]

Not quite.

Omniscient beings know everything, but this doesn't mean they can do anything. The word you're looking for is 'omnipotent'.


Which is petty pedantry on my part, I realise, since your point would have been well-served had you used the correct term; it's just one of those little linguistic inaccuracies that bothers me, since omniscience need not automatically mean omnipotence (and the reverse is also true). One could posit an omniscient deity with limits on his capabilities, just as one could posit have an omnipotent deity with limits on his knowledge.

But I'd imagine that a being that was omnipotent would have the power to make himself all-knowing.

True, but an omnipotent BUT not omniscient being would have to WANT to be omniscient.