Now, if we assume that morality involves having standards regarding
consequences, and consequences refer to something in reality, it
follows that you have to have consistent standards for what reality is
to have morals, and obviously no theist has those because theism
requires relaxing standards of truth in the area of belief. So no
theist has a conscience. Many of you simply know from experience that
at least most theists have no consciences, but if you suspect that
it's possible for a theist to have a conscience that you just haven't
met, rest assured that there isn't one. It's absolutely impossible,
and that's why they are the way they are on this group.
There is an interesting problem that comes up with theists: obviously,
they shouldn't be allowed to have children--even if they don't wind up
in the paper with the headline "Jesus said to microwave my baby" their
lack of standards regarding the differentiation of truth and fiction
leave them all with equally insane if not equally consequential
premises, and of course religiosity of parents does correlate with
infant mortality worldwide. Clearly, driving or having a position of
authority requires consistent standards for determining what is real
and what is not--theists should not have any power or driver's
licenses. Suggesting they be allowed to vote is not only unfair to
sane people, it's unfair to them--the consequences of theists voting
in democracies have affected them adversely as well.
Now, we all know by now that nobody can give an argument for why
killing any of the theists on this group wouldn't make the world a
better place. Lots of stupid posters get all cranky when this is
suggested, but they _never_ explain why they aren't just objecting to
an obviously true thing that they would rather not acknowledge. I
mean, if I was actually wrong about this, there might be...oh, I don't
know...a counterargument somewhere? Of course there isn't one. Nobody
can really say that shooting Chris dead in the street, breaking into
Allan's home and stabbing him in the throat with a piece of glass,
dumping hydrochloric acid all over Treebeard and putting him in a
windtunnel, etc. would be a massive loss to the other seven billion or
so people in the world. We can only assume that objections to doing
things like that are simply superficial, selfish and essentially
aesthetic.
But fine. Fuck it. What about slavery? The Bible and Koran say it's
okay, so isn't this really the perfect compromise? I could imagine
Brock being a good slave, for example, as long as you beat him a lot.
You know how they put a carrot on a string in front of a mule to get
it to move? Do the same thing with a dildo and Chris will be ready to
go. checkers we'd still probably have to euthanize--he's clearly not
good for even rudimentary labor. I'm afraid this would be a problem
with a lot of theists, but I see a solution in this: feed the ones who
don't work to the ones who do. The Catholics are already keen on
cannibalism, so this shouldn't be much of a transition.
Or maybe we should just kill them. Even in shackles, they're clearly a
danger to society. I dunno. How about a poll? Should we kill theists,
or enslave them? Feel free to back up your vote with an argument.
> Now, if we assume that morality involves having standards regarding
> consequences, and consequences refer to something in reality, it
> follows that you have to have consistent standards for what reality is
> to have morals, and obviously no theist has those because theism
> requires relaxing standards of truth in the area of belief. So no
> theist has a conscience. Many of you simply know from experience that
> at least most theists have no consciences, but if you suspect that
> it's possible for a theist to have a conscience that you just haven't
> met, rest assured that there isn't one. It's absolutely impossible,
> and that's why they are the way they are on this group.
> There is an interesting problem that comes up with theists: obviously,
> they shouldn't be allowed to have children--even if they don't wind up
> in the paper with the headline "Jesus said to microwave my baby" their
> lack of standards regarding the differentiation of truth and fiction
> leave them all with equally insane if not equally consequential
> premises, and of course religiosity of parents does correlate with
> infant mortality worldwide. Clearly, driving or having a position of
> authority requires consistent standards for determining what is real
> and what is not--theists should not have any power or driver's
> licenses. Suggesting they be allowed to vote is not only unfair to
> sane people, it's unfair to them--the consequences of theists voting
> in democracies have affected them adversely as well.
> Now, we all know by now that nobody can give an argument for why
> killing any of the theists on this group wouldn't make the world a
> better place. Lots of stupid posters get all cranky when this is
> suggested, but they _never_ explain why they aren't just objecting to
> an obviously true thing that they would rather not acknowledge. I
> mean, if I was actually wrong about this, there might be...oh, I don't
> know...a counterargument somewhere? Of course there isn't one. Nobody
> can really say that shooting Chris dead in the street, breaking into
> Allan's home and stabbing him in the throat with a piece of glass,
> dumping hydrochloric acid all over Treebeard and putting him in a
> windtunnel, etc. would be a massive loss to the other seven billion or
> so people in the world. We can only assume that objections to doing
> things like that are simply superficial, selfish and essentially
> aesthetic.
> But fine. Fuck it. What about slavery? The Bible and Koran say it's
> okay, so isn't this really the perfect compromise? I could imagine
> Brock being a good slave, for example, as long as you beat him a lot.
> You know how they put a carrot on a string in front of a mule to get
> it to move? Do the same thing with a dildo and Chris will be ready to
> go. checkers we'd still probably have to euthanize--he's clearly not
> good for even rudimentary labor. I'm afraid this would be a problem
> with a lot of theists, but I see a solution in this: feed the ones who
> don't work to the ones who do. The Catholics are already keen on
> cannibalism, so this shouldn't be much of a transition.
> Or maybe we should just kill them. Even in shackles, they're clearly a
> danger to society. I dunno. How about a poll? Should we kill theists,
> or enslave them? Feel free to back up your vote with an argument.
chx
wow! i thought you don't do thumb sucking anymore. i'll ignore most of
your fable and dive into the topic title.
this is 2008, you are still living in the past...or wait, you atheists
wish to revive this phenomena, hmmm!
so you want me dead anyway - will that be because i am seen as a
danger to your plot and an instigator among your slaves. oh!!!! i am
seen as MOSES whahahaha. ok, the ten plagues are on their way :P
Answer my question checkers: what's so horrible about making the world
a better place that it shouldn't be legal to break into your home and
end your life?
On Nov 16, 10:27 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> On Nov 16, 6:15 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > Now, if we assume that morality involves having standards regarding
> > consequences, and consequences refer to something in reality, it
> > follows that you have to have consistent standards for what reality is
> > to have morals, and obviously no theist has those because theism
> > requires relaxing standards of truth in the area of belief. So no
> > theist has a conscience. Many of you simply know from experience that
> > at least most theists have no consciences, but if you suspect that
> > it's possible for a theist to have a conscience that you just haven't
> > met, rest assured that there isn't one. It's absolutely impossible,
> > and that's why they are the way they are on this group.
> > There is an interesting problem that comes up with theists: obviously,
> > they shouldn't be allowed to have children--even if they don't wind up
> > in the paper with the headline "Jesus said to microwave my baby" their
> > lack of standards regarding the differentiation of truth and fiction
> > leave them all with equally insane if not equally consequential
> > premises, and of course religiosity of parents does correlate with
> > infant mortality worldwide. Clearly, driving or having a position of
> > authority requires consistent standards for determining what is real
> > and what is not--theists should not have any power or driver's
> > licenses. Suggesting they be allowed to vote is not only unfair to
> > sane people, it's unfair to them--the consequences of theists voting
> > in democracies have affected them adversely as well.
> > Now, we all know by now that nobody can give an argument for why
> > killing any of the theists on this group wouldn't make the world a
> > better place. Lots of stupid posters get all cranky when this is
> > suggested, but they _never_ explain why they aren't just objecting to
> > an obviously true thing that they would rather not acknowledge. I
> > mean, if I was actually wrong about this, there might be...oh, I don't
> > know...a counterargument somewhere? Of course there isn't one. Nobody
> > can really say that shooting Chris dead in the street, breaking into
> > Allan's home and stabbing him in the throat with a piece of glass,
> > dumping hydrochloric acid all over Treebeard and putting him in a
> > windtunnel, etc. would be a massive loss to the other seven billion or
> > so people in the world. We can only assume that objections to doing
> > things like that are simply superficial, selfish and essentially
> > aesthetic.
> > But fine. Fuck it. What about slavery? The Bible and Koran say it's
> > okay, so isn't this really the perfect compromise? I could imagine
> > Brock being a good slave, for example, as long as you beat him a lot.
> > You know how they put a carrot on a string in front of a mule to get
> > it to move? Do the same thing with a dildo and Chris will be ready to
> > go. checkers we'd still probably have to euthanize--he's clearly not
> > good for even rudimentary labor. I'm afraid this would be a problem
> > with a lot of theists, but I see a solution in this: feed the ones who
> > don't work to the ones who do. The Catholics are already keen on
> > cannibalism, so this shouldn't be much of a transition.
> > Or maybe we should just kill them. Even in shackles, they're clearly a
> > danger to society. I dunno. How about a poll? Should we kill theists,
> > or enslave them? Feel free to back up your vote with an argument.
> chx
> wow! i thought you don't do thumb sucking anymore. i'll ignore most of
> your fable and dive into the topic title.
> this is 2008, you are still living in the past...or wait, you atheists
> wish to revive this phenomena, hmmm!
> so you want me dead anyway - will that be because i am seen as a
> danger to your plot and an instigator among your slaves. oh!!!! i am
> seen as MOSES whahahaha. ok, the ten plagues are on their way :P
On Nov 16, 7:36 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Answer my question checkers: what's so horrible about making the world
> a better place that it shouldn't be legal to break into your home and
> end your life?
chx
some 200 saddened people will be a good reason. actually, one is more
than enough. but then you are heartless as all your posts testify and
you obviously kill for self indulgence, yes?
all your posts testify to you having no morals at all. since most
atheists support what you say i can spread a cloak over all the
atheists to this effect, yes?
more proof of your logic; even when an atheist does not agree with
you, he receives the same treatment you wish on theists, point to
ponder!!!
my conclusion; you are not an atheist, you work for the devil.
> On Nov 16, 10:27 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 16, 6:15 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > > Now, if we assume that morality involves having standards regarding
> > > consequences, and consequences refer to something in reality, it
> > > follows that you have to have consistent standards for what reality is
> > > to have morals, and obviously no theist has those because theism
> > > requires relaxing standards of truth in the area of belief. So no
> > > theist has a conscience. Many of you simply know from experience that
> > > at least most theists have no consciences, but if you suspect that
> > > it's possible for a theist to have a conscience that you just haven't
> > > met, rest assured that there isn't one. It's absolutely impossible,
> > > and that's why they are the way they are on this group.
> > > There is an interesting problem that comes up with theists: obviously,
> > > they shouldn't be allowed to have children--even if they don't wind up
> > > in the paper with the headline "Jesus said to microwave my baby" their
> > > lack of standards regarding the differentiation of truth and fiction
> > > leave them all with equally insane if not equally consequential
> > > premises, and of course religiosity of parents does correlate with
> > > infant mortality worldwide. Clearly, driving or having a position of
> > > authority requires consistent standards for determining what is real
> > > and what is not--theists should not have any power or driver's
> > > licenses. Suggesting they be allowed to vote is not only unfair to
> > > sane people, it's unfair to them--the consequences of theists voting
> > > in democracies have affected them adversely as well.
> > > Now, we all know by now that nobody can give an argument for why
> > > killing any of the theists on this group wouldn't make the world a
> > > better place. Lots of stupid posters get all cranky when this is
> > > suggested, but they _never_ explain why they aren't just objecting to
> > > an obviously true thing that they would rather not acknowledge. I
> > > mean, if I was actually wrong about this, there might be...oh, I don't
> > > know...a counterargument somewhere? Of course there isn't one. Nobody
> > > can really say that shooting Chris dead in the street, breaking into
> > > Allan's home and stabbing him in the throat with a piece of glass,
> > > dumping hydrochloric acid all over Treebeard and putting him in a
> > > windtunnel, etc. would be a massive loss to the other seven billion or
> > > so people in the world. We can only assume that objections to doing
> > > things like that are simply superficial, selfish and essentially
> > > aesthetic.
> > > But fine. Fuck it. What about slavery? The Bible and Koran say it's
> > > okay, so isn't this really the perfect compromise? I could imagine
> > > Brock being a good slave, for example, as long as you beat him a lot.
> > > You know how they put a carrot on a string in front of a mule to get
> > > it to move? Do the same thing with a dildo and Chris will be ready to
> > > go. checkers we'd still probably have to euthanize--he's clearly not
> > > good for even rudimentary labor. I'm afraid this would be a problem
> > > with a lot of theists, but I see a solution in this: feed the ones who
> > > don't work to the ones who do. The Catholics are already keen on
> > > cannibalism, so this shouldn't be much of a transition.
> > > Or maybe we should just kill them. Even in shackles, they're clearly a
> > > danger to society. I dunno. How about a poll? Should we kill theists,
> > > or enslave them? Feel free to back up your vote with an argument.
> > chx
> > wow! i thought you don't do thumb sucking anymore. i'll ignore most of
> > your fable and dive into the topic title.
> > this is 2008, you are still living in the past...or wait, you atheists
> > wish to revive this phenomena, hmmm!
> > so you want me dead anyway - will that be because i am seen as a
> > danger to your plot and an instigator among your slaves. oh!!!! i am
> > seen as MOSES whahahaha. ok, the ten plagues are on their way :P
checkers, it's established that unless dishonesty, stupidity and
hypocrisy can be argued to make the world a better place, that
_anyone_ who cares about anyone else in the world agrees that you
should be killed whether you like it or not. That's just common sense:
you are essentially arguing that everything that's bad is good by
saying you shouldn't be executed. I disagree. I think caring about
other people and making the world a better place is important, which
is why anyone with a conscience would be happy to kill you.
On Nov 16, 10:49 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> On Nov 16, 7:36 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > Answer my question checkers: what's so horrible about making the world
> > a better place that it shouldn't be legal to break into your home and
> > end your life?
> chx
> some 200 saddened people will be a good reason. actually, one is more
> than enough. but then you are heartless as all your posts testify and
> you obviously kill for self indulgence, yes?
> all your posts testify to you having no morals at all. since most
> atheists support what you say i can spread a cloak over all the
> atheists to this effect, yes?
> more proof of your logic; even when an atheist does not agree with
> you, he receives the same treatment you wish on theists, point to
> ponder!!!
> my conclusion; you are not an atheist, you work for the devil.
> > On Nov 16, 10:27 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > > On Nov 16, 6:15 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > > > Now, if we assume that morality involves having standards regarding
> > > > consequences, and consequences refer to something in reality, it
> > > > follows that you have to have consistent standards for what reality is
> > > > to have morals, and obviously no theist has those because theism
> > > > requires relaxing standards of truth in the area of belief. So no
> > > > theist has a conscience. Many of you simply know from experience that
> > > > at least most theists have no consciences, but if you suspect that
> > > > it's possible for a theist to have a conscience that you just haven't
> > > > met, rest assured that there isn't one. It's absolutely impossible,
> > > > and that's why they are the way they are on this group.
> > > > There is an interesting problem that comes up with theists: obviously,
> > > > they shouldn't be allowed to have children--even if they don't wind up
> > > > in the paper with the headline "Jesus said to microwave my baby" their
> > > > lack of standards regarding the differentiation of truth and fiction
> > > > leave them all with equally insane if not equally consequential
> > > > premises, and of course religiosity of parents does correlate with
> > > > infant mortality worldwide. Clearly, driving or having a position of
> > > > authority requires consistent standards for determining what is real
> > > > and what is not--theists should not have any power or driver's
> > > > licenses. Suggesting they be allowed to vote is not only unfair to
> > > > sane people, it's unfair to them--the consequences of theists voting
> > > > in democracies have affected them adversely as well.
> > > > Now, we all know by now that nobody can give an argument for why
> > > > killing any of the theists on this group wouldn't make the world a
> > > > better place. Lots of stupid posters get all cranky when this is
> > > > suggested, but they _never_ explain why they aren't just objecting to
> > > > an obviously true thing that they would rather not acknowledge. I
> > > > mean, if I was actually wrong about this, there might be...oh, I don't
> > > > know...a counterargument somewhere? Of course there isn't one. Nobody
> > > > can really say that shooting Chris dead in the street, breaking into
> > > > Allan's home and stabbing him in the throat with a piece of glass,
> > > > dumping hydrochloric acid all over Treebeard and putting him in a
> > > > windtunnel, etc. would be a massive loss to the other seven billion or
> > > > so people in the world. We can only assume that objections to doing
> > > > things like that are simply superficial, selfish and essentially
> > > > aesthetic.
> > > > But fine. Fuck it. What about slavery? The Bible and Koran say it's
> > > > okay, so isn't this really the perfect compromise? I could imagine
> > > > Brock being a good slave, for example, as long as you beat him a lot.
> > > > You know how they put a carrot on a string in front of a mule to get
> > > > it to move? Do the same thing with a dildo and Chris will be ready to
> > > > go. checkers we'd still probably have to euthanize--he's clearly not
> > > > good for even rudimentary labor. I'm afraid this would be a problem
> > > > with a lot of theists, but I see a solution in this: feed the ones who
> > > > don't work to the ones who do. The Catholics are already keen on
> > > > cannibalism, so this shouldn't be much of a transition.
> > > > Or maybe we should just kill them. Even in shackles, they're clearly a
> > > > danger to society. I dunno. How about a poll? Should we kill theists,
> > > > or enslave them? Feel free to back up your vote with an argument.
> > > chx
> > > wow! i thought you don't do thumb sucking anymore. i'll ignore most of
> > > your fable and dive into the topic title.
> > > this is 2008, you are still living in the past...or wait, you atheists
> > > wish to revive this phenomena, hmmm!
> > > so you want me dead anyway - will that be because i am seen as a
> > > danger to your plot and an instigator among your slaves. oh!!!! i am
> > > seen as MOSES whahahaha. ok, the ten plagues are on their way :P
'Or maybe we should just kill them. Even in shackles, they're clearly
a
danger to society. I dunno. How about a poll? Should we kill theists,
or enslave them? Feel free to back up your vote with an argument.'
and
'checkers we'd still probably have to euthanize'
now let us see how many atheist in the group supports this. i would
also like to know so i can see to what level i can generalise in
future.
On Nov 16, 7:56 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> checkers, it's established that unless dishonesty, stupidity and
> hypocrisy can be argued to make the world a better place, that
> _anyone_ who cares about anyone else in the world agrees that you
> should be killed whether you like it or not. That's just common sense:
> you are essentially arguing that everything that's bad is good by
> saying you shouldn't be executed. I disagree. I think caring about
> other people and making the world a better place is important, which
> is why anyone with a conscience would be happy to kill you.
> On Nov 16, 10:49 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 16, 7:36 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > > Answer my question checkers: what's so horrible about making the world
> > > a better place that it shouldn't be legal to break into your home and
> > > end your life?
> > chx
> > some 200 saddened people will be a good reason. actually, one is more
> > than enough. but then you are heartless as all your posts testify and
> > you obviously kill for self indulgence, yes?
> > all your posts testify to you having no morals at all. since most
> > atheists support what you say i can spread a cloak over all the
> > atheists to this effect, yes?
> > more proof of your logic; even when an atheist does not agree with
> > you, he receives the same treatment you wish on theists, point to
> > ponder!!!
> > my conclusion; you are not an atheist, you work for the devil.
> > > On Nov 16, 10:27 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 16, 6:15 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > > > > Now, if we assume that morality involves having standards regarding
> > > > > consequences, and consequences refer to something in reality, it
> > > > > follows that you have to have consistent standards for what reality is
> > > > > to have morals, and obviously no theist has those because theism
> > > > > requires relaxing standards of truth in the area of belief. So no
> > > > > theist has a conscience. Many of you simply know from experience that
> > > > > at least most theists have no consciences, but if you suspect that
> > > > > it's possible for a theist to have a conscience that you just haven't
> > > > > met, rest assured that there isn't one. It's absolutely impossible,
> > > > > and that's why they are the way they are on this group.
> > > > > There is an interesting problem that comes up with theists: obviously,
> > > > > they shouldn't be allowed to have children--even if they don't wind up
> > > > > in the paper with the headline "Jesus said to microwave my baby" their
> > > > > lack of standards regarding the differentiation of truth and fiction
> > > > > leave them all with equally insane if not equally consequential
> > > > > premises, and of course religiosity of parents does correlate with
> > > > > infant mortality worldwide. Clearly, driving or having a position of
> > > > > authority requires consistent standards for determining what is real
> > > > > and what is not--theists should not have any power or driver's
> > > > > licenses. Suggesting they be allowed to vote is not only unfair to
> > > > > sane people, it's unfair to them--the consequences of theists voting
> > > > > in democracies have affected them adversely as well.
> > > > > Now, we all know by now that nobody can give an argument for why
> > > > > killing any of the theists on this group wouldn't make the world a
> > > > > better place. Lots of stupid posters get all cranky when this is
> > > > > suggested, but they _never_ explain why they aren't just objecting to
> > > > > an obviously true thing that they would rather not acknowledge. I
> > > > > mean, if I was actually wrong about this, there might be...oh, I don't
> > > > > know...a counterargument somewhere? Of course there isn't one. Nobody
> > > > > can really say that shooting Chris dead in the street, breaking into
> > > > > Allan's home and stabbing him in the throat with a piece of glass,
> > > > > dumping hydrochloric acid all over Treebeard and putting him in a
> > > > > windtunnel, etc. would be a massive loss to the other seven billion or
> > > > > so people in the world. We can only assume that objections to doing
> > > > > things like that are simply superficial, selfish and essentially
> > > > > aesthetic.
> > > > > But fine. Fuck it. What about slavery? The Bible and Koran say it's
> > > > > okay, so isn't this really the perfect compromise? I could imagine
> > > > > Brock being a good slave, for example, as long as you beat him a lot.
> > > > > You know how they put a carrot on a string in front of a mule to get
> > > > > it to move? Do the same thing with a dildo and Chris will be ready to
> > > > > go. checkers we'd still probably have to euthanize--he's clearly not
> > > > > good for even rudimentary labor. I'm afraid this would be a problem
> > > > > with a lot of theists, but I see a solution in this: feed the ones who
> > > > > don't work to the ones who do. The Catholics are already keen on
> > > > > cannibalism, so this shouldn't be much of a transition.
> > > > > Or maybe we should just kill them. Even in shackles, they're clearly a
> > > > > danger to society. I dunno. How about a poll? Should we kill theists,
> > > > > or enslave them? Feel free to back up your vote with an argument.
> > > > chx
> > > > wow! i thought you don't do thumb sucking anymore. i'll ignore most of
> > > > your fable and dive into the topic title.
> > > > this is 2008, you are still living in the past...or wait, you atheists
> > > > wish to revive this phenomena, hmmm!
> > > > so you want me dead anyway - will that be because i am seen as a
> > > > danger to your plot and an instigator among your slaves. oh!!!! i am
> > > > seen as MOSES whahahaha. ok, the ten plagues are on their way :P
> 'Or maybe we should just kill them. Even in shackles, they're clearly
> a
> danger to society. I dunno. How about a poll? Should we kill theists,
> or enslave them? Feel free to back up your vote with an argument.'
> and
> 'checkers we'd still probably have to euthanize'
> now let us see how many atheist in the group supports this. i would
> also like to know so i can see to what level i can generalise in
> future.
> On Nov 16, 7:56 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > checkers, it's established that unless dishonesty, stupidity and
> > hypocrisy can be argued to make the world a better place, that
> > _anyone_ who cares about anyone else in the world agrees that you
> > should be killed whether you like it or not. That's just common sense:
> > you are essentially arguing that everything that's bad is good by
> > saying you shouldn't be executed. I disagree. I think caring about
> > other people and making the world a better place is important, which
> > is why anyone with a conscience would be happy to kill you.
> > On Nov 16, 10:49 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > > On Nov 16, 7:36 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > > > Answer my question checkers: what's so horrible about making the world
> > > > a better place that it shouldn't be legal to break into your home and
> > > > end your life?
> > > chx
> > > some 200 saddened people will be a good reason. actually, one is more
> > > than enough. but then you are heartless as all your posts testify and
> > > you obviously kill for self indulgence, yes?
> > > all your posts testify to you having no morals at all. since most
> > > atheists support what you say i can spread a cloak over all the
> > > atheists to this effect, yes?
> > > more proof of your logic; even when an atheist does not agree with
> > > you, he receives the same treatment you wish on theists, point to
> > > ponder!!!
> > > my conclusion; you are not an atheist, you work for the devil.
> > > > On Nov 16, 10:27 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 16, 6:15 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > > > > > Now, if we assume that morality involves having standards regarding
> > > > > > consequences, and consequences refer to something in reality, it
> > > > > > follows that you have to have consistent standards for what reality is
> > > > > > to have morals, and obviously no theist has those because theism
> > > > > > requires relaxing standards of truth in the area of belief. So no
> > > > > > theist has a conscience. Many of you simply know from experience that
> > > > > > at least most theists have no consciences, but if you suspect that
> > > > > > it's possible for a theist to have a conscience that you just haven't
> > > > > > met, rest assured that there isn't one. It's absolutely impossible,
> > > > > > and that's why they are the way they are on this group.
> > > > > > There is an interesting problem that comes up with theists: obviously,
> > > > > > they shouldn't be allowed to have children--even if they don't wind up
> > > > > > in the paper with the headline "Jesus said to microwave my baby" their
> > > > > > lack of standards regarding the differentiation of truth and fiction
> > > > > > leave them all with equally insane if not equally consequential
> > > > > > premises, and of course religiosity of parents does correlate with
> > > > > > infant mortality worldwide. Clearly, driving or having a position of
> > > > > > authority requires consistent standards for determining what is real
> > > > > > and what is not--theists should not have any power or driver's
> > > > > > licenses. Suggesting they be allowed to vote is not only unfair to
> > > > > > sane people, it's unfair to them--the consequences of theists voting
> > > > > > in democracies have affected them adversely as well.
> > > > > > Now, we all know by now that nobody can give an argument for why
> > > > > > killing any of the theists on this group wouldn't make the world a
> > > > > > better place. Lots of stupid posters get all cranky when this is
> > > > > > suggested, but they _never_ explain why they aren't just objecting to
> > > > > > an obviously true thing that they would rather not acknowledge. I
> > > > > > mean, if I was actually wrong about this, there might be...oh, I don't
> > > > > > know...a counterargument somewhere? Of course there isn't one. Nobody
> > > > > > can really say that shooting Chris dead in the street, breaking into
> > > > > > Allan's home and stabbing him in the throat with a piece of glass,
> > > > > > dumping hydrochloric acid all over Treebeard and putting him in a
> > > > > > windtunnel, etc. would be a massive loss to the other seven billion or
> > > > > > so people in the world. We can only assume that objections to doing
> > > > > > things like that are simply superficial, selfish and essentially
> > > > > > aesthetic.
> > > > > > But fine. Fuck it. What about slavery? The Bible and Koran say it's
> > > > > > okay, so isn't this really the perfect compromise? I could imagine
> > > > > > Brock being a good slave, for example, as long as you beat him a lot.
> > > > > > You know how they put a carrot on a string in front of a mule to get
> > > > > > it to move? Do the same thing with a dildo and Chris will be ready to
> > > > > > go. checkers we'd still probably have to euthanize--he's clearly not
> > > > > > good for even rudimentary labor. I'm afraid this would be a problem
> > > > > > with a lot of theists, but I see a solution in this: feed the ones who
> > > > > > don't work to the ones who do. The Catholics are already keen on
> > > > > > cannibalism, so this shouldn't be much of a transition.
> > > > > > Or maybe we should just kill them. Even in shackles, they're clearly a
> > > > > > danger to society. I dunno. How about a poll? Should we kill theists,
> > > > > > or enslave them? Feel free to back up your vote with an argument.
> > > > > chx
> > > > > wow! i thought you don't do thumb sucking anymore. i'll ignore most of
> > > > > your fable and dive into the topic title.
> > > > > this is 2008, you are still living in the past...or wait, you atheists
> > > > > wish to revive this phenomena, hmmm!
> > > > > so you want me dead anyway - will that be because i am seen as a
> > > > > danger to your plot and an instigator among your slaves. oh!!!! i am
> > > > > seen as MOSES whahahaha. ok, the ten plagues are on their way :P
> > > > > ;-)- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> chx
> hey wow! i really am good, look at the stars ;)
> On Nov 16, 8:31 pm, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > chx
> > let's look at this again;
> > 'Or maybe we should just kill them. Even in shackles, they're clearly
> > a
> > danger to society. I dunno. How about a poll? Should we kill theists,
> > or enslave them? Feel free to back up your vote with an argument.'
> > and
> > 'checkers we'd still probably have to euthanize'
> > now let us see how many atheist in the group supports this. i would
> > also like to know so i can see to what level i can generalise in
> > future.
> > On Nov 16, 7:56 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > > checkers, it's established that unless dishonesty, stupidity and
> > > hypocrisy can be argued to make the world a better place, that
> > > _anyone_ who cares about anyone else in the world agrees that you
> > > should be killed whether you like it or not. That's just common sense:
> > > you are essentially arguing that everything that's bad is good by
> > > saying you shouldn't be executed. I disagree. I think caring about
> > > other people and making the world a better place is important, which
> > > is why anyone with a conscience would be happy to kill you.
> > > On Nov 16, 10:49 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 16, 7:36 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > > > > Answer my question checkers: what's so horrible about making the world
> > > > > a better place that it shouldn't be legal to break into your home and
> > > > > end your life?
> > > > chx
> > > > some 200 saddened people will be a good reason. actually, one is more
> > > > than enough. but then you are heartless as all your posts testify and
> > > > you obviously kill for self indulgence, yes?
> > > > all your posts testify to you having no morals at all. since most
> > > > atheists support what you say i can spread a cloak over all the
> > > > atheists to this effect, yes?
> > > > more proof of your logic; even when an atheist does not agree with
> > > > you, he receives the same treatment you wish on theists, point to
> > > > ponder!!!
> > > > my conclusion; you are not an atheist, you work for the devil.
> > > > > On Nov 16, 10:27 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > > > > > On Nov 16, 6:15 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > > > > > > Now, if we assume that morality involves having standards regarding
> > > > > > > consequences, and consequences refer to something in reality, it
> > > > > > > follows that you have to have consistent standards for what reality is
> > > > > > > to have morals, and obviously no theist has those because theism
> > > > > > > requires relaxing standards of truth in the area of belief. So no
> > > > > > > theist has a conscience. Many of you simply know from experience that
> > > > > > > at least most theists have no consciences, but if you suspect that
> > > > > > > it's possible for a theist to have a conscience that you just haven't
> > > > > > > met, rest assured that there isn't one. It's absolutely impossible,
> > > > > > > and that's why they are the way they are on this group.
> > > > > > > There is an interesting problem that comes up with theists: obviously,
> > > > > > > they shouldn't be allowed to have children--even if they don't wind up
> > > > > > > in the paper with the headline "Jesus said to microwave my baby" their
> > > > > > > lack of standards regarding the differentiation of truth and fiction
> > > > > > > leave them all with equally insane if not equally consequential
> > > > > > > premises, and of course religiosity of parents does correlate with
> > > > > > > infant mortality worldwide. Clearly, driving or having a position of
> > > > > > > authority requires consistent standards for determining what is real
> > > > > > > and what is not--theists should not have any power or driver's
> > > > > > > licenses. Suggesting they be allowed to vote is not only unfair to
> > > > > > > sane people, it's unfair to them--the consequences of theists voting
> > > > > > > in democracies have affected them adversely as well.
> > > > > > > Now, we all know by now that nobody can give an argument for why
> > > > > > > killing any of the theists on this group wouldn't make the world a
> > > > > > > better place. Lots of stupid posters get all cranky when this is
> > > > > > > suggested, but they _never_ explain why they aren't just objecting to
> > > > > > > an obviously true thing that they would rather not acknowledge. I
> > > > > > > mean, if I was actually wrong about this, there might be...oh, I don't
> > > > > > > know...a counterargument somewhere? Of course there isn't one. Nobody
> > > > > > > can really say that shooting Chris dead in the street, breaking into
> > > > > > > Allan's home and stabbing him in the throat with a piece of glass,
> > > > > > > dumping hydrochloric acid all over Treebeard and putting him in a
> > > > > > > windtunnel, etc. would be a massive loss to the other seven billion or
> > > > > > > so people in the world. We can only assume that objections to doing
> > > > > > > things like that are simply superficial, selfish and essentially
> > > > > > > aesthetic.
> > > > > > > But fine. Fuck it. What about slavery? The Bible and Koran say it's
> > > > > > > okay, so isn't this really the perfect compromise? I could imagine
> > > > > > > Brock being a good slave, for example, as long as you beat him a lot.
> > > > > > > You know how they put a carrot on a string in front of a mule to get
> > > > > > > it to move? Do the same thing with a dildo and Chris will be ready to
> > > > > > > go. checkers we'd still probably have to euthanize--he's clearly not
> > > > > > > good for even rudimentary labor. I'm afraid this would be a problem
> > > > > > > with a lot of theists, but I see a solution in this: feed the ones who
> > > > > > > don't work to the ones who do. The Catholics are already keen on
> > > > > > > cannibalism, so this shouldn't be much of a transition.
> > > > > > > Or maybe we should just kill them. Even in shackles, they're clearly a
> > > > > > > danger to society. I dunno. How about a poll? Should we kill theists,
> > > > > > > or enslave them? Feel free to back up your vote with an argument.
> > > > > > chx
> > > > > > wow! i thought you don't do thumb sucking anymore. i'll ignore most of
> > > > > > your fable and dive into the topic title.
> > > > > > this is 2008, you are still living in the past...or wait, you atheists
> > > > > > wish to revive this phenomena, hmmm!
> > > > > > so you want me dead anyway - will that be because i am seen as a
> > > > > > danger to your plot and an instigator among your slaves. oh!!!! i am
> > > > > > seen as MOSES whahahaha. ok, the ten plagues are on their way :P
> > > > > > ;-)- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
"Now, we all know by now that nobody can give an argument for why
killing any of the theists on this group wouldn't make the world a
better place. "
It's not nice to threaten the lives of others on the internet, in
person. Your narcissism, astounding ignorance don't count. Reality
abounds. You put it out there.
On Nov 16, 11:15 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Now, if we assume that morality involves having standards regarding
> consequences, and consequences refer to something in reality, it
> follows that you have to have consistent standards for what reality is
> to have morals, and obviously no theist has those because theism
> requires relaxing standards of truth in the area of belief. So no
> theist has a conscience. Many of you simply know from experience that
> at least most theists have no consciences, but if you suspect that
> it's possible for a theist to have a conscience that you just haven't
> met, rest assured that there isn't one. It's absolutely impossible,
> and that's why they are the way they are on this group.
> There is an interesting problem that comes up with theists: obviously,
> they shouldn't be allowed to have children--even if they don't wind up
> in the paper with the headline "Jesus said to microwave my baby" their
> lack of standards regarding the differentiation of truth and fiction
> leave them all with equally insane if not equally consequential
> premises, and of course religiosity of parents does correlate with
> infant mortality worldwide. Clearly, driving or having a position of
> authority requires consistent standards for determining what is real
> and what is not--theists should not have any power or driver's
> licenses. Suggesting they be allowed to vote is not only unfair to
> sane people, it's unfair to them--the consequences of theists voting
> in democracies have affected them adversely as well.
> Now, we all know by now that nobody can give an argument for why
> killing any of the theists on this group wouldn't make the world a
> better place. Lots of stupid posters get all cranky when this is
> suggested, but they _never_ explain why they aren't just objecting to
> an obviously true thing that they would rather not acknowledge. I
> mean, if I was actually wrong about this, there might be...oh, I don't
> know...a counterargument somewhere? Of course there isn't one. Nobody
> can really say that shooting Chris dead in the street, breaking into
> Allan's home and stabbing him in the throat with a piece of glass,
> dumping hydrochloric acid all over Treebeard and putting him in a
> windtunnel, etc. would be a massive loss to the other seven billion or
> so people in the world. We can only assume that objections to doing
> things like that are simply superficial, selfish and essentially
> aesthetic.
> But fine. Fuck it. What about slavery? The Bible and Koran say it's
> okay, so isn't this really the perfect compromise? I could imagine
> Brock being a good slave, for example, as long as you beat him a lot.
> You know how they put a carrot on a string in front of a mule to get
> it to move? Do the same thing with a dildo and Chris will be ready to
> go. checkers we'd still probably have to euthanize--he's clearly not
> good for even rudimentary labor. I'm afraid this would be a problem
> with a lot of theists, but I see a solution in this: feed the ones who
> don't work to the ones who do. The Catholics are already keen on
> cannibalism, so this shouldn't be much of a transition.
> Or maybe we should just kill them. Even in shackles, they're clearly a
> danger to society. I dunno. How about a poll? Should we kill theists,
> or enslave them? Feel free to back up your vote with an argument.
On Nov 17, 1:13 pm, dead kennedy <dead.kenne...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 16 Nov, 17:49, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > chx
> > some 200 saddened people will be a good reason.
> whoa, thats one big basement you've got there...how do you feed them
> all?
chx
the basement is big, very big. some in Australia, others in GB and
more in USA. the rest are across SA...i told you it was big ;) and
they all feed themselves ;-)
On Nov 16, 12:36 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Answer my question checkers: what's so horrible about making the world
> a better place that it shouldn't be legal to break into your home and
> end your life?
To do so would violate God's objective moral commands. :)
Of course, atheism that is based on humanistic or existential premises
ultimately has no such objective basis with which to assert such
behavior is wrong or right.
"Labeling Atheists
Some Christians have labeled atheists as stupid, devil-worshippers, or
morally void. Though there may be some atheists who fit these
categories (as would many in the general population), atheists are not
categorically stupid, devil-worshipping, degenerates with no morals.
Many of them are fine citizens, honest, caring, loving, and patient.
For a Christian, or anyone for that matter, to make a blanket
statement about atheists in a derogatory manner is wrong. It is the
same thing atheists sometimes do when they accuse Christians of being
irrational, psychotic, or stupid. Such accusations have no place on
either side of the argument of truth.
Generally speaking, atheists are not stupid. Many of them have thought
through their position over a long period of time and arrive at
conclusions after much thought. Some were raised in religious homes,
have seen what religion has to offer, and have rejected it. Of course,
I think that atheists have drawn incorrect conclusions about God, but
it doesn't mean they are dumb. Some atheists have presented very
cogent arguments against the existence of God, which need to be
addressed.
So, just because someone believes in God and encounters someone who
doesn't, that does not mean that either side is stupid. Labeling and
name-calling have no place in the discussion.
Ignoring Atheists' Questions
If you were standing on a railroad track and a train was heading your
way, closing your eyes and ignoring the locomotive will not make it go
away. If an atheist asks a question and you ignore it repeatedly, it
would be fair for him to conclude you were incapable of answering the
objection. Of course, this does not mean you have to always answer
everything because dialogue flows both ways. But, it is important
that you face issues. If you don't have an answer, admit it. That's
okay. It doesn't mean you are wrong. It means you don't have an
answer. Go study and get an answer and get back to him.
Stating that Atheism is a religion
Atheists will repeatedly tell you that they are not in a religion. A
religion almost always is defined to include belief in a deity of some
sort. Atheism is non-belief in a deity. It isn't necessarily a "belief
that there is no God," (though it can be)but is "not believing either
way."
To label an atheist as a religious person is to put up a roadblock to
effective communication. It would be like someone saying to a
Christian, "You believe in a mean, tyrannical being who likes to
torture people." The Christian would simply roll his eyes and think
that the person doesn't know what he's talking about. So, how much
effective conversation could there be in either instance? Not much.
Stating unsupportable facts
No one has all documentation for everything they say. It is not
reasonable to require proof from an atheist on everything said.
Nevertheless, if you are going to state a fact or two, it is good to
have the documentation at the tip of your tongue -- at least
occasionally, of have access to it. It adds to your credibility. Of
course, you don't have to document everything, but if you have some
illustrious fact to use, try and have it documented.
Never admitting when you are wrong
Pride is a harmful thing. It caused the fall. It ruins marriages.
It leads to anger and self-righteousness. It has no place in the
Christian's life. Never admitting you are wrong is being prideful.
If an atheist, or anyone, proves you wrong is something, be kind and
courteous. Admit you made a mistake and go on. Everyone makes
mistakes, even atheists. There is nothing wrong with admitting an
error. It no more proves you are wrong about Christianity than being
wrong about the color of a boat means boats don't exist. But, if you
never admit when you are wrong, you will not be able to convince
anyone in a discussion of your position. You will simply lose the
respect of the one with whom you are debating."
On Nov 18, 10:50 am, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 16, 12:36 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > Answer my question checkers: what's so horrible about making the world
> > a better place that it shouldn't be legal to break into your home and
> > end your life?
> To do so would violate God's objective moral commands. :)
> Of course, atheism that is based on humanistic or existential premises
> ultimately has no such objective basis with which to assert such
> behavior is wrong or right.
No violation of labeling of atheists present in the text:
>> To do so would violate God's objective moral commands. :)
>> Of course, atheism that is based on humanistic or existential premises >> ultimately has no such objective basis with which to assert such >> behavior is wrong or right.
"Labeling Atheists
Some Christians have labeled atheists as stupid, devil-worshippers, or
morally void. Though there may be some atheists who fit these
categories (as would many in the general population), atheists are not
categorically stupid, devil-worshipping, degenerates with no morals.
Many of them are fine citizens, honest, caring, loving, and patient.
For a Christian, or anyone for that matter, to make a blanket
statement about atheists in a derogatory manner is wrong. It is the
same thing atheists sometimes do when they accuse Christians of being
irrational, psychotic, or stupid. Such accusations have no place on
either side of the argument of truth.
Generally speaking, atheists are not stupid. Many of them have thought
through their position over a long period of time and arrive at
conclusions after much thought. Some were raised in religious homes,
have seen what religion has to offer, and have rejected it. Of course,
I think that atheists have drawn incorrect conclusions about God, but
it doesn't mean they are dumb. Some atheists have presented very
cogent arguments against the existence of God, which need to be
addressed.
So, just because someone believes in God and encounters someone who
doesn't, that does not mean that either side is stupid. Labeling and
name-calling have no place in the discussion.
Ignoring Atheists' Questions
If you were standing on a railroad track and a train was heading your
way, closing your eyes and ignoring the locomotive will not make it go
away. If an atheist asks a question and you ignore it repeatedly, it
would be fair for him to conclude you were incapable of answering the
objection. Of course, this does not mean you have to always answer
everything because dialogue flows both ways. But, it is important
that you face issues. If you don't have an answer, admit it. That's
okay. It doesn't mean you are wrong. It means you don't have an
answer. Go study and get an answer and get back to him.
Stating that Atheism is a religion
Atheists will repeatedly tell you that they are not in a religion. A
religion almost always is defined to include belief in a deity of some
sort. Atheism is non-belief in a deity. It isn't necessarily a "belief
that there is no God," (though it can be)but is "not believing either
way."
To label an atheist as a religious person is to put up a roadblock to
effective communication. It would be like someone saying to a
Christian, "You believe in a mean, tyrannical being who likes to
torture people." The Christian would simply roll his eyes and think
that the person doesn't know what he's talking about. So, how much
effective conversation could there be in either instance? Not much.
Stating unsupportable facts
No one has all documentation for everything they say. It is not
reasonable to require proof from an atheist on everything said.
Nevertheless, if you are going to state a fact or two, it is good to
have the documentation at the tip of your tongue -- at least
occasionally, of have access to it. It adds to your credibility. Of
course, you don't have to document everything, but if you have some
illustrious fact to use, try and have it documented.
Never admitting when you are wrong
Pride is a harmful thing. It caused the fall. It ruins marriages.
It leads to anger and self-righteousness. It has no place in the
Christian's life. Never admitting you are wrong is being prideful.
If an atheist, or anyone, proves you wrong is something, be kind and
courteous. Admit you made a mistake and go on. Everyone makes
mistakes, even atheists. There is nothing wrong with admitting an
error. It no more proves you are wrong about Christianity than being
wrong about the color of a boat means boats don't exist. But, if you
never admit when you are wrong, you will not be able to convince
anyone in a discussion of your position. You will simply lose the
respect of the one with whom you are debating."
> No violation of labeling of atheists present in the text:
Yes it did.
> >> To do so would violate God's objective moral commands. :)
> >> Of course, atheism that is based on humanistic or existential premises
> >> ultimately has no such objective basis with which to assert such
> >> behavior is wrong or right.
<Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote: > Violation of Christian Code of Conduct #2, 4, 5: >> No violation of labeling of atheists present in the text:
> Yes it did.
Analysis of the text:
>> >> To do so would violate God's objective moral commands. :)
>> >> Of course, atheism that is based on humanistic or existential premises >> >> ultimately has no such objective basis with which to assert such >> >> behavior is wrong or right.
"Labeling Atheists
Some Christians have labeled atheists as stupid, devil-worshippers, or
morally void. Though there may be some atheists who fit these
categories (as would many in the general population), atheists are not
categorically stupid, devil-worshipping, degenerates with no morals.
Many of them are fine citizens, honest, caring, loving, and patient.
For a Christian, or anyone for that matter, to make a blanket
statement about atheists in a derogatory manner is wrong. It is the
same thing atheists sometimes do when they accuse Christians of being
irrational, psychotic, or stupid. Such accusations have no place on
either side of the argument of truth.
Generally speaking, atheists are not stupid. Many of them have thought
through their position over a long period of time and arrive at
conclusions after much thought. Some were raised in religious homes,
have seen what religion has to offer, and have rejected it. Of course,
I think that atheists have drawn incorrect conclusions about God, but
it doesn't mean they are dumb. Some atheists have presented very
cogent arguments against the existence of God, which need to be
addressed.
So, just because someone believes in God and encounters someone who
doesn't, that does not mean that either side is stupid. Labeling and
name-calling have no place in the discussion.
Ignoring Atheists' Questions
If you were standing on a railroad track and a train was heading your
way, closing your eyes and ignoring the locomotive will not make it go
away. If an atheist asks a question and you ignore it repeatedly, it
would be fair for him to conclude you were incapable of answering the
objection. Of course, this does not mean you have to always answer
everything because dialogue flows both ways. But, it is important
that you face issues. If you don't have an answer, admit it. That's
okay. It doesn't mean you are wrong. It means you don't have an
answer. Go study and get an answer and get back to him.
Stating that Atheism is a religion
Atheists will repeatedly tell you that they are not in a religion. A
religion almost always is defined to include belief in a deity of some
sort. Atheism is non-belief in a deity. It isn't necessarily a "belief
that there is no God," (though it can be)but is "not believing either
way."
To label an atheist as a religious person is to put up a roadblock to
effective communication. It would be like someone saying to a
Christian, "You believe in a mean, tyrannical being who likes to
torture people." The Christian would simply roll his eyes and think
that the person doesn't know what he's talking about. So, how much
effective conversation could there be in either instance? Not much.
Stating unsupportable facts
No one has all documentation for everything they say. It is not
reasonable to require proof from an atheist on everything said.
Nevertheless, if you are going to state a fact or two, it is good to
have the documentation at the tip of your tongue -- at least
occasionally, of have access to it. It adds to your credibility. Of
course, you don't have to document everything, but if you have some
illustrious fact to use, try and have it documented.
Never admitting when you are wrong
Pride is a harmful thing. It caused the fall. It ruins marriages.
It leads to anger and self-righteousness. It has no place in the
Christian's life. Never admitting you are wrong is being prideful.
If an atheist, or anyone, proves you wrong is something, be kind and
courteous. Admit you made a mistake and go on. Everyone makes
mistakes, even atheists. There is nothing wrong with admitting an
error. It no more proves you are wrong about Christianity than being
wrong about the color of a boat means boats don't exist. But, if you
never admit when you are wrong, you will not be able to convince
anyone in a discussion of your position. You will simply lose the
respect of the one with whom you are debating."
> <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
> > Violation of Christian Code of Conduct #2, 4, 5:
> >> No violation of labeling of atheists present in the text:
> > Yes it did.
> Analysis of the text:
> >> >> To do so would violate God's objective moral commands. :)
> >> >> Of course, atheism that is based on humanistic or existential premises
> >> >> ultimately has no such objective basis with which to assert such
> >> >> behavior is wrong or right.
>> > Violation of Christian Code of Conduct #2, 4, 5: >> >> No violation of labeling of atheists present in the text:
>> > Yes it did.
>> Analysis of the text:
>> >> >> To do so would violate God's objective moral commands. :)
>> >> >> Of course, atheism that is based on humanistic or existential premises >> >> >> ultimately has no such objective basis with which to assert such >> >> >> behavior is wrong or right.
>> Indicates otherwise.
> Prove it
Indicates that the specified violations are not present in the referenced text.
"Labeling Atheists
Some Christians have labeled atheists as stupid, devil-worshippers, or
morally void. Though there may be some atheists who fit these
categories (as would many in the general population), atheists are not
categorically stupid, devil-worshipping, degenerates with no morals.
Many of them are fine citizens, honest, caring, loving, and patient.
For a Christian, or anyone for that matter, to make a blanket
statement about atheists in a derogatory manner is wrong. It is the
same thing atheists sometimes do when they accuse Christians of being
irrational, psychotic, or stupid. Such accusations have no place on
either side of the argument of truth.
Generally speaking, atheists are not stupid. Many of them have thought
through their position over a long period of time and arrive at
conclusions after much thought. Some were raised in religious homes,
have seen what religion has to offer, and have rejected it. Of course,
I think that atheists have drawn incorrect conclusions about God, but
it doesn't mean they are dumb. Some atheists have presented very
cogent arguments against the existence of God, which need to be
addressed.
So, just because someone believes in God and encounters someone who
doesn't, that does not mean that either side is stupid. Labeling and
name-calling have no place in the discussion.
Ignoring Atheists' Questions
If you were standing on a railroad track and a train was heading your
way, closing your eyes and ignoring the locomotive will not make it go
away. If an atheist asks a question and you ignore it repeatedly, it
would be fair for him to conclude you were incapable of answering the
objection. Of course, this does not mean you have to always answer
everything because dialogue flows both ways. But, it is important
that you face issues. If you don't have an answer, admit it. That's
okay. It doesn't mean you are wrong. It means you don't have an
answer. Go study and get an answer and get back to him.
Stating that Atheism is a religion
Atheists will repeatedly tell you that they are not in a religion. A
religion almost always is defined to include belief in a deity of some
sort. Atheism is non-belief in a deity. It isn't necessarily a "belief
that there is no God," (though it can be)but is "not believing either
way."
To label an atheist as a religious person is to put up a roadblock to
effective communication. It would be like someone saying to a
Christian, "You believe in a mean, tyrannical being who likes to
torture people." The Christian would simply roll his eyes and think
that the person doesn't know what he's talking about. So, how much
effective conversation could there be in either instance? Not much.
Stating unsupportable facts
No one has all documentation for everything they say. It is not
reasonable to require proof from an atheist on everything said.
Nevertheless, if you are going to state a fact or two, it is good to
have the documentation at the tip of your tongue -- at least
occasionally, of have access to it. It adds to your credibility. Of
course, you don't have to document everything, but if you have some
illustrious fact to use, try and have it documented.
Never admitting when you are wrong
Pride is a harmful thing. It caused the fall. It ruins marriages.
It leads to anger and self-righteousness. It has no place in the
Christian's life. Never admitting you are wrong is being prideful.
If an atheist, or anyone, proves you wrong is something, be kind and
courteous. Admit you made a mistake and go on. Everyone makes
mistakes, even atheists. There is nothing wrong with admitting an
error. It no more proves you are wrong about Christianity than being
wrong about the color of a boat means boats don't exist. But, if you
never admit when you are wrong, you will not be able to convince
anyone in a discussion of your position. You will simply lose the
respect of the one with whom you are debating."
> <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
> > Violation of Christian Code of Conduct #2, 4, 5:
> As noted earlier:
> >> > Violation of Christian Code of Conduct #2, 4, 5:
> >> >> No violation of labeling of atheists present in the text:
> >> > Yes it did.
> >> Analysis of the text:
> >> >> >> To do so would violate God's objective moral commands. :)
> >> >> >> Of course, atheism that is based on humanistic or existential premises
> >> >> >> ultimately has no such objective basis with which to assert such
> >> >> >> behavior is wrong or right.
> >> Indicates otherwise.
> > Prove it
> Indicates that the specified violations are not present in the referenced text.
<Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote: > Violation of Christian Code of Conduct #2, 4, 5:
For referenced text:
>> >> Analysis of the text:
>> >> >> >> To do so would violate God's objective moral commands. :)
>> >> >> >> Of course, atheism that is based on humanistic or existential premises >> >> >> >> ultimately has no such objective basis with which to assert such >> >> >> >> behavior is wrong or right.
>> >> Indicates otherwise.
>> > Prove it
>> Indicates that the specified violations are not present in the referenced text.
> Prove it
The premises that are indicated above are not supported by an analysis of the text.
"Labeling Atheists
Some Christians have labeled atheists as stupid, devil-worshippers, or
morally void. Though there may be some atheists who fit these
categories (as would many in the general population), atheists are not
categorically stupid, devil-worshipping, degenerates with no morals.
Many of them are fine citizens, honest, caring, loving, and patient.
For a Christian, or anyone for that matter, to make a blanket
statement about atheists in a derogatory manner is wrong. It is the
same thing atheists sometimes do when they accuse Christians of being
irrational, psychotic, or stupid. Such accusations have no place on
either side of the argument of truth.
Generally speaking, atheists are not stupid. Many of them have thought
through their position over a long period of time and arrive at
conclusions after much thought. Some were raised in religious homes,
have seen what religion has to offer, and have rejected it. Of course,
I think that atheists have drawn incorrect conclusions about God, but
it doesn't mean they are dumb. Some atheists have presented very
cogent arguments against the existence of God, which need to be
addressed.
So, just because someone believes in God and encounters someone who
doesn't, that does not mean that either side is stupid. Labeling and
name-calling have no place in the discussion.
Ignoring Atheists' Questions
If you were standing on a railroad track and a train was heading your
way, closing your eyes and ignoring the locomotive will not make it go
away. If an atheist asks a question and you ignore it repeatedly, it
would be fair for him to conclude you were incapable of answering the
objection. Of course, this does not mean you have to always answer
everything because dialogue flows both ways. But, it is important
that you face issues. If you don't have an answer, admit it. That's
okay. It doesn't mean you are wrong. It means you don't have an
answer. Go study and get an answer and get back to him.
Stating that Atheism is a religion
Atheists will repeatedly tell you that they are not in a religion. A
religion almost always is defined to include belief in a deity of some
sort. Atheism is non-belief in a deity. It isn't necessarily a "belief
that there is no God," (though it can be)but is "not believing either
way."
To label an atheist as a religious person is to put up a roadblock to
effective communication. It would be like someone saying to a
Christian, "You believe in a mean, tyrannical being who likes to
torture people." The Christian would simply roll his eyes and think
that the person doesn't know what he's talking about. So, how much
effective conversation could there be in either instance? Not much.
Stating unsupportable facts
No one has all documentation for everything they say. It is not
reasonable to require proof from an atheist on everything said.
Nevertheless, if you are going to state a fact or two, it is good to
have the documentation at the tip of your tongue -- at least
occasionally, of have access to it. It adds to your credibility. Of
course, you don't have to document everything, but if you have some
illustrious fact to use, try and have it documented.
Never admitting when you are wrong
Pride is a harmful thing. It caused the fall. It ruins marriages.
It leads to anger and self-righteousness. It has no place in the
Christian's life. Never admitting you are wrong is being prideful.
If an atheist, or anyone, proves you wrong is something, be kind and
courteous. Admit you made a mistake and go on. Everyone makes
mistakes, even atheists. There is nothing wrong with admitting an
error. It no more proves you are wrong about Christianity than being
wrong about the color of a boat means boats don't exist. But, if you
never admit when you are wrong, you will not be able to convince
anyone in a discussion of your position. You will simply lose the
respect of the one with whom you are debating."
> <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
> > Violation of Christian Code of Conduct #2, 4, 5:
> For referenced text:
> >> >> Analysis of the text:
> >> >> >> >> To do so would violate God's objective moral commands. :)
> >> >> >> >> Of course, atheism that is based on humanistic or existential premises
> >> >> >> >> ultimately has no such objective basis with which to assert such
> >> >> >> >> behavior is wrong or right.
> >> >> Indicates otherwise.
> >> > Prove it
> >> Indicates that the specified violations are not present in the referenced text.
> > Prove it
> The premises that are indicated above are not supported by an analysis
> of the text.
Okay, let's talk about reality abounding for a minute, shouldn't we?
I've never threatened anyone on this group. The fact that I've said
the world would be better off without Brock Organ but defended his
right to post is enough for all the humans here. Making a judgment
call or asking a question is not a threat. To say that human beings
don't understand that...it just degrades human beings. Is degrading
human beings okay? If so, then child rape is okay, because it
certainly degrades human beings. Since I'm against child rape, I don't
consider you a human being. Everyone who is against child rape and has
read your bullshit agrees that you aren't one.
You're just a liar, is the problem. We know you're liar, and we
certainly know you're militantly retarded. You actually bitch about
the fact that people post here while you won't go away. What the fuck?
Now, if I'm truly "ignorant" of this profound argument for why the
world wouldn't be better off without you, be my teacher, my educator,
my sensai on this fucking issue. Go for it! What is so great about
militant retardation and lying that the world wouldn't be better off
without you?
Oh, wait. I was just _right_, which is always the problem with
thetards. They hate it when someone is right.
On Nov 17, 1:37 am, 29fan <go...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Now, we all know by now that nobody can give an argument for why
> killing any of the theists on this group wouldn't make the world a
> better place. "
> It's not nice to threaten the lives of others on the internet, in
> person. Your narcissism, astounding ignorance don't count. Reality
> abounds. You put it out there.
> On Nov 16, 11:15 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > Now, if we assume that morality involves having standards regarding
> > consequences, and consequences refer to something in reality, it
> > follows that you have to have consistent standards for what reality is
> > to have morals, and obviously no theist has those because theism
> > requires relaxing standards of truth in the area of belief. So no
> > theist has a conscience. Many of you simply know from experience that
> > at least most theists have no consciences, but if you suspect that
> > it's possible for a theist to have a conscience that you just haven't
> > met, rest assured that there isn't one. It's absolutely impossible,
> > and that's why they are the way they are on this group.
> > There is an interesting problem that comes up with theists: obviously,
> > they shouldn't be allowed to have children--even if they don't wind up
> > in the paper with the headline "Jesus said to microwave my baby" their
> > lack of standards regarding the differentiation of truth and fiction
> > leave them all with equally insane if not equally consequential
> > premises, and of course religiosity of parents does correlate with
> > infant mortality worldwide. Clearly, driving or having a position of
> > authority requires consistent standards for determining what is real
> > and what is not--theists should not have any power or driver's
> > licenses. Suggesting they be allowed to vote is not only unfair to
> > sane people, it's unfair to them--the consequences of theists voting
> > in democracies have affected them adversely as well.
> > Now, we all know by now that nobody can give an argument for why
> > killing any of the theists on this group wouldn't make the world a
> > better place. Lots of stupid posters get all cranky when this is
> > suggested, but they _never_ explain why they aren't just objecting to
> > an obviously true thing that they would rather not acknowledge. I
> > mean, if I was actually wrong about this, there might be...oh, I don't
> > know...a counterargument somewhere? Of course there isn't one. Nobody
> > can really say that shooting Chris dead in the street, breaking into
> > Allan's home and stabbing him in the throat with a piece of glass,
> > dumping hydrochloric acid all over Treebeard and putting him in a
> > windtunnel, etc. would be a massive loss to the other seven billion or
> > so people in the world. We can only assume that objections to doing
> > things like that are simply superficial, selfish and essentially
> > aesthetic.
> > But fine. Fuck it. What about slavery? The Bible and Koran say it's
> > okay, so isn't this really the perfect compromise? I could imagine
> > Brock being a good slave, for example, as long as you beat him a lot.
> > You know how they put a carrot on a string in front of a mule to get
> > it to move? Do the same thing with a dildo and Chris will be ready to
> > go. checkers we'd still probably have to euthanize--he's clearly not
> > good for even rudimentary labor. I'm afraid this would be a problem
> > with a lot of theists, but I see a solution in this: feed the ones who
> > don't work to the ones who do. The Catholics are already keen on
> > cannibalism, so this shouldn't be much of a transition.
> > Or maybe we should just kill them. Even in shackles, they're clearly a
> > danger to society. I dunno. How about a poll? Should we kill theists,
> > or enslave them? Feel free to back up your vote with an argument.- Hide quoted text -
|
