I say it is meaningless or "it would be better for a man not to be born than to be brought into the world", but Im just curious and somewhat sick of debates at the moment so you can criticize my view I just may not answer and Id like to hear yours

Also another question I have for Atheists is why should I (or anyone else) be moral if there is no God? I wont accept it if it is subjective because subjective morals makes Nazism moral.

Tags: Why, are, bother, monkeys, moral

Views: 167

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Hence why I don't like to follow the Bible. I was raised Catholic but I always was raised by parents who thought kids were pure and innocent so I don't think I ever really believed in Original Sin. I remember learning about it in CCD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confraternity_of_Christian_Doctrine and knowing what it meant but I never really understood it, it never logically made sense to me that someone naturally had sinned just by being born.
It's ironic to me that Christians tend to be the most patriotic and defend the "American Way", one of those "ways" being the "innocent until proven guilty" concept. Why does that not apply spiritually? Why is it assumed all are guilty until they prove their innocence? It's really disgusting.
Who are you to call me immoral?

I thought that was your job to call the rest of humanity as such.

Is it not plausible that a baby has done something evil?

Good job making Christianity seemed stupider than ever. I'll pass on your messed up cult.
Let me ask you, can a pet rock commit an evil act? It can't can it? If your answer is anything but a resounding "NO" don't bother responding. At 6 months a child has the same potential to commit evil as a pet rock, which is none at all. Unlike a pet rock, a 6 month old child does have a brain, but it is undeveloped and incapable of thought processes that you and I consider basic.
I dont know but the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence

First of all, that doesn't even come close to answering the question.

Second of all, even Christians realize that argument is stupid because it can apply to a wide number of nonsense imaginary creatures. Absence of evidence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn is not evidence of absence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Et al. Etc etc.
Praise be to the Invisible Pink Unicorn!
(peace and prayers be upon Her)
1) You've yet to prove that god exists.
2) You are yet to prove that even if god existed, that he is good.
We have shown you MANY examples in the Bible of god acting like a total douche. If you live by the morals of that god, then you advocate rape. You advocate slavery. You advocate pedophilia. You advocate gender discrimination. You advocate genocide. Tell me right now that you agree with those things, because if you do not, then you do not follow god's word or his morality.
3) "As someone who holds to a set of relative morals you cant really say that something is good or evil because your just stating your opinion not the truth"
Sir... there are MANY religions in the world. Each of them claim to be the only authority on 'truth.' Our government finds them to all be unproven, therefore they are not used as the basis of law. Our laws are what define morality in society. Your truth is legally held as nothing more than individual superstitions.
4)"my definition of evil is the absence of good"
If that is the case, then you have just argued against god.
If god is all good and omnipresent, then evil cannot exist. Either god is everywhere and in everything therefore goodness is everywhere and in everything, or god is NOT everywhere and in everything...and that is where evil is. So tell me, what are these absences of god that permit evil to exist? Is it when god goes on vacation? Or is he so weak that he cannot be everywhere and in all things?
5) "mercy is good but so is justice."
Please explain to me the 'justice' in torturing a beloved child for all eternity for a mistake? If god loves us unconditionally and gives us free will, then Hell is not possible. Hell is a permanent solution to a temporary problem and literally unjust by definition. If you are not ever given a chance to redeem yourself, then you are not unconditionally loved. God supposedly created humans. He knew what we were capable of, and yet he still sticks a tree in the garden, sticks a talking, evil snake in with us, and then acts shocked when we screw it up. Further, he decides to punish every single human being for the mistake of two individuals. That is not just. That is entrapment and then punishment for nothing more than the crime of being born.. a crime which none of us willfully committed, since god is the one that decides when we live and when we die. Which of course brings us to another point. If god decides when we live and when we die, then he purposefully damns people by making them die before they are 'saved.' This also negates the idea of freewill. As humans, we are given a whole lot of shifty stories written by goat herders 2,000 years before our birth. These stories contradict the natural laws of science (which god supposedly wrote) but based on these stories we are told that we must believe in and love god with our whole hearts, or else face suffering, agony and punishment..FOREVER.
Sorry, but that isn't free will. That is intimidation and threatening behavior, the likes of which we usually see in abusive relationships. Forced love isn't love. It is rape.

This is what I see. You came to this site looking for... something. I'm not sure what. I read your words and picture a very lost, very sad individual that was looking for other sad, lost individuals. You mistakenly thought that the atheist community was filled with hopeless, depressed people filled with hatred and disgust towards your god. Instead what you found were well balanced, thoughtful and educated folks that turn to atheism as a conclusion, not a conviction.
I tell you now, that if you could say even one thing that makes sense, I'll get down on my knees and pray with you.
But you don't. You can't. No matter how good your intentions are, the fact of the matter is that you are arguing for something that does not exist.
I understand that there is something wrong with you. Maybe it was your upbringing. There is a sense community within a church. Religious leaders do lavish their members with attention and affection. Maybe (and this is my thought) that it is biological.
Perhaps you've got a chemical imbalance and at one point you reached a meditative state while in prayer. Maybe that state temporarily relieved the symptoms of your imbalance. You incorrectly assumed that feeling of peace and love was coming from some deity, though instead it was a natural reaction happening within your own neurology. I am sure that if I were to experience such a scenario, I might incorrectly label that as 'proof.'
I'm sure such 'proof' would carry me through a whole lot of counter arguments, even though I logically knew better.
Or maybe I'm way off target, and this doesn't apply to you at all.
Hell, I'm sure there is a reason for the way you are, but please understand that there is a reason for the way we are, too.
A lot of us started on the path of atheism because we wanted to 'prove' either to ourselves or our disbelieving friends that our religion was correct.
Unfortunately, once we studied the facts without emotion, the only logical conclusion a person can reach is that of atheism. Apply religion to any other clinical trial, any other test, any other skepticism that you would for a drug, a food safety test, a science experiment. The results are always the same.
I hope you find whatever it is that you are looking for.
I hope you get help and find happiness. If religion does that for you, then I am honestly happy. Just understand that for a lot of people, religion is an evil force used to subjugate, humiliate and even kill. If your religion does not do that, and if it does not interfere with my legal rights, then I've got no issue. But more than likely it does. That's the problem.
Killer post, Misty.
I agree. Wow. That was perfect. I hope David takes the time to slowly read through all of it and really consider everything you said.
Me too. In fact I think this responce is good enough to be reworked into a blog of its own.
//1) You've yet to prove that god exists.//
Well it is actually impossible to prove that anything exists because there is always room for doubt and skepticism. Furthermore no matter what evidence I present you will reject it because you presuppose God does not exist. For example (I can cite these if you want) Einstein has proven that the universe is expanding. Cosmologists today see no evidence that the universe would ever retract because there is not enough mass. So the Universe cannot be eternal it had to of had a beginning. So it had a beginning but where did it come form. Maybe it came from the Big Bang but what caused that? Does it just happen randomly that Universes appear out of nothing. How is that scientific or falsifiable. This evidence points to a Creator

Another piece of evidence that points to a creator is the fine tuning of the Universe
" Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe

strong nuclear force constant
if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry
weak nuclear force constant
if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
gravitational force constant
if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form
electromagnetic force constant
if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support
if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements
ratio of electron to proton mass
if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
if smaller: same as above"
This was taken from http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html#ekhhKHwxww11
Again it does not prove that God exists but it does prove that it is more likely than not htat God does exist

The existence of moral evil also points to a creator. This I'm sure will be rejected but is evidence nonetheless. Why is it wrong to kill someone or why do humans think it is wrong to kill someone. Why is it generally seen as wrong to steal. Why is there a general consensus on what is right and wrong even though there is not an objective morality(that most of the world subscribes to) to base it on. Is it by mere coincidence or globalization or is it because the concept of moral evil is put on earth by a creator. If so then "We are made in God's Image and Likeness" as the Bible says thought that does not proof the Bible to be true just because on aspect could be seen as true.

That is just a few arguments for God's existence


Common arguments atheists use
inconsistency of scriptures - only disproves a religious God not a Creator God but as a Christian I will get to that later.
foolish designer - essentially why would God allow so many of his creatures to do, this is irrelevant though because it does not comment on a Creator/God's existence
God of the Gaps argument - The argument that the only reason someone believes in or invents a God is because of gaps in knowledge and understanding. For example Zeus was credited with lightning but after people came to understand how lightning was formed they rejected Zeus. This however does not prove that God does not exist, even though we understand how lightning works today it still does not eliminate the possibility that He/She/It caused it.

Those are just the ones I know off the top of my head

RSS

Atheist Sites

Blog Posts

In Avoidance of Anger

Posted by Pope Beanie on November 27, 2014 at 4:59pm 0 Comments

The plane that never crashed

Posted by Brazillian atheist on November 27, 2014 at 12:17pm 1 Comment

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service