William Lane Craig Utterly Destroys Sam Harris

[Jope]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcYUimKWz4A

[Virgil]

In article
<7bd7163f-b6b3-495d...@n2g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
Jope <jop...@gmail.com> wrote:

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoYUimKWz4A

Nothing of note, as usual.
--

[Dakota]

It's certainly no surprise that Harris mopped the floor with Craig.

[SkyEyes]

On Mar 10, 8:54 pm, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcYUimKWz4A

Did you not actually *watch* that video, or did you just not
understand it?

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com

[hypatiab7]

On Mar 10, 11:54 pm, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcYUimKWz4A

Is this BroilJAB writing under a new nym?

[hypatiab7]

On Mar 11, 2:53 am, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Mar 10, 8:54 pm, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcYUimKWz4A
>
> Did you not actually *watch* that video, or did you just not

> understand it? He didn't expect anyone to check it, so he
didn't bother reading past the first couple sentences.

[Jope]

On Mar 11, 2:53 am, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:

William Lane Craig stated:"Atheism cannot explain the objective
reality of moral values."
In other word,there are no specific reasons why an atheist should be
moral.
He only follows the path of least resistance.
Religion on the other hand clearly defines moral values, the only way
that they can be defined:"Thy shall not or else"
Undefined morality will only work when it is convenient.If it no
longer feels good to be moral,the atheist will simply discard the
annoying morality.

[Dreamer In Colore]

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 15:33:15 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jop...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Atheism is not responsible for the explanation of objective reality of
moral values. Atheism is not a philosophy or a religion.

It is laughable that one holds up religion as something that defines
moral values, when the moral values in question include misogyny,
advocate murder, venerate rape, and so on.

There is no such thing as "undefined morality". Morality is defined
according to the society one inhabits, and is practiced according to
choice. I choose not to hurt others, and it's entirely unnecessary for
a supernatural entity to tell me this. It's a fairly simple choice,
actually, because I want to be part of a society, and I'm quite sure
that society wouldn't tolerate me hurting anyone in it, regardless of
religious beliefs.

It's not even a question of being "moral" because it feels good. It's
a question of doing the right thing. It's not the right thing to kill
someone because of their religious belief, or to blindly accept
someone's faith without exceptional evidence. For me, it's moral to
question the precepts by which others live their lives, just as it's
moral for me to defend my own stance without resorting to the
supernatural.

Dreamer

[Smiler]

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 15:33:15 -0700, Jope wrote:

> On Mar 11, 2:53 am, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Mar 10, 8:54 pm, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcYUimKWz4A
>>
>> Did you not actually *watch* that video, or did you just not understand
>> it?
>>
>

> William Lane Craig stated:"Atheism cannot explain the objective reality
> of moral values."
> In other word,there are no specific reasons why an atheist should be
> moral.
> He only follows the path of least resistance. Religion on the other hand
> clearly defines moral values, the only way that they can be defined:"Thy
> shall not or else" Undefined morality will only work when it is
> convenient.If it no longer feels good to be moral,the atheist will simply
> discard the annoying morality.

If it no longer feels good to believe in your supposed god character,
would you lose all sense of morality and go on a murder, rape and pillage
spree?

--
Smiler,

The godless one. a.a.# 2279

All gods are tailored to order. They're made to

exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 03:25:40 +0000, Smiler <Youm...@JoeKing.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 15:33:15 -0700, Jope wrote:
>
>> On Mar 11, 2:53 am, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> On Mar 10, 8:54 pm, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcYUimKWz4A
>>>
>>> Did you not actually *watch* that video, or did you just not understand
>>> it?
>>>
>>
>> William Lane Craig stated:"Atheism cannot explain the objective reality
>> of moral values."
>> In other word,there are no specific reasons why an atheist should be
>> moral.
>> He only follows the path of least resistance. Religion on the other hand
>> clearly defines moral values, the only way that they can be defined:"Thy
>> shall not or else" Undefined morality will only work when it is
>> convenient.If it no longer feels good to be moral,the atheist will simply
>> discard the annoying morality.
>
>If it no longer feels good to believe in your supposed god character,
>would you lose all sense of morality and go on a murder, rape and pillage
>spree?

The liars who tell us that without their god atheists can't be moral,
certainly don't themselves show any basic human decency towards others
even with it.

[nature bats_last]

On Mar 11, 3:33 pm, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 11, 2:53 am, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 10, 8:54 pm, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcYUimKWz4A
>
> > Did you not actually *watch* that video, or did you just not
> > understand it?
>
> > Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist
> > BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
> > EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
> > skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
> > skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
>


;
> William Lane Craig stated:"Atheism cannot explain the objective
> reality of moral values."

Except that they have. Empathy, compassion, grief,
guilt are found in the social animals we call "humans"
just as they are found in other social animals, such as
wolves or elephants. They are in our wiring; they are
what allow us to be social animals. Had they not
evolved to be part of our inherited package, we would
instead be solitary animals, such as orangutans.

;

> In other word,there are no specific reasons why an atheist should be
> moral.

And yet we are. How about that?

;

> He only follows the path of least resistance.

Well, if you're simply going to make up shit, shit
which is not observed in most actual atheists in this actual
world, then there's no arguing with that.

Honest debaters, on the other hand, try very hard to
stick with demonstrable facts. I realize that's not
nearly as much fun, but there you have it.

;

> Religion on the other hand clearly defines moral values, the only way
> that they can be defined:"Thy shall not or else"

Funny, I've not ever needed that "or else". The reason
that I don't steal, rape, murder is that I find the
very ideas repellent. Neither religious superstitions
or even secular law enters into that.

You, on the other hand, appear to be saying that it's
only hellfire that could stop you yourself from raping,
stealing, murdering.

I do hope your neighbors keep a close eye on you, if
that's the case.

;

> Undefined morality will only work when it is convenient.If it no
> longer feels good to be moral,the atheist will simply discard the
> annoying morality.

We'll add that just-made-up pile of shit to the pile you began
accreting a bit above.

When you have some actual documentable information on
how people in the real world really do behave -- as
opposed to your fantasies of how you'd do it if and when
you lose your religion -- then get back to us, hear?

In the meantime, do reflect that the argument termed
"Because I said so", does not get you very far in
this group.


NBL

[SkyEyes]

On Mar 11, 3:33 pm, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:

But moral behaviors have evolved along with us, and is demonstrated by
our close cousins the chimps.

In my 63 years of life, I've never met a theist who *didn't* discard
their morals when they became annoying. Trying to scare people into
morality flatly doesn't *work*. That's why they regularly cut off
heads and hands and feet from people who have gone against the law in
some way in islamic countries - never mind some theoretical punishment
*after* death.

And why do you think morality ever stops "feeling good"? Sometimes
one is torn between the good feelings one will get from doing the
right thing verses the good feelings one will get from doing that
thing which one wants to do, but then again, nobody ever said this
morality gig was easy, did they?

People being moral under threat - "or else" - aren't really moral
people, no matter how many moral deeds they may do. They're simply
cowards. The really moral people are the people who don't believe in
any kind of divine retribution, but behave themselves morally anyway,
even without fear of punishment.

[Dakota]

From Jope's post:

William Lane Craig stated:"Atheism cannot explain the objective
reality of moral values."

-------
So-called moral values are subjective rather than objective. Paradoxes
abound in discussions about morality. That is why mankind continues to
argue about what is moral and what is not.

Unless Craig can provide convincing evidence otherwise, he fails once
again.

[jope]

On Mar 12, 3:56 am, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/11/2013 9:49 PM, Dreamer In Colore wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 15:33:15 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jope...@gmail.com>

Now ,this is more sincere statement.Atheists normally believe that
morality is based on currently accepted social conventions, a
utilitarian instrument shaped by evolution, that is likely to evolve,
when members of society mutually agree to a different morality.
Religion on the other hand ,defines morality as absolute directives
from the Almighty.Not subject to change.Not subject to evolve.
And that is the very point:For atheists morality is a purely
subjective notion.A matter of opinion,if you will.

[Flasherly]

On Mar 11, 11:25 pm, Smiler <Youmus...@JoeKing.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 15:33:15 -0700, Jope wrote:
> > On Mar 11, 2:53 am, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Mar 10, 8:54 pm, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcYUimKWz4A
>
> >> Did you not actually *watch* that video, or did you just not understand
> >> it?
>
> > William Lane Craig stated:"Atheism cannot explain the objective reality
> > of moral values."
> > In other word,there are no specific reasons why an atheist should be
> > moral.
> > He only follows the path of least resistance. Religion on the other hand
> > clearly defines moral values, the only way that they can be defined:"Thy
> > shall not or else" Undefined morality will only work when it is
> > convenient.If it no longer feels good to be moral,the atheist will simply
> > discard the annoying morality.
>
> If it no longer feels good to believe in your supposed god character,
> would you lose all sense of morality and go on a murder, rape and pillage
> spree?

Need the pre-dawn ritual of stomping around a fire in a rhythmic
trance under the stars feel other than good, if simply to look above
before waking a sister for incest and the purpose of future food
stock? Good is to eat and good is take pleasure to an innate man. He
may even periodically say as much, indirectly between contemporary
lines when the particularly heinous is invariably picked up by media.
But, is it merely outside the habit of convenience to ensure such
readership, the novel practically encompasses, or of a more ominous
nature to judge pragmatically what sway, periodicity - wider or
increasing by demographics - are within such events, and what then
might that portend from the cultural perspective of liberal relativism?

[linuxgal]

jope wrote:
> Religion on the other hand ,defines morality as absolute directives
> from the Almighty.Not subject to change.Not subject to evolve.

If that was true, we'd still burn witches and stone homosexuals.

--
Halftime at Circvs Maximvs, and the Lions lead the Christians 326-0

[Dreamer In Colore]

>
>>So-called moral values are subjective rather than objective.
>Now ,this is more sincere statement.Atheists normally believe that
>morality is based on currently accepted social conventions, a
>utilitarian instrument shaped by evolution, that is likely to evolve,
>when members of society mutually agree to a different morality.
>Religion on the other hand ,defines morality as absolute directives
>from the Almighty.Not subject to change.Not subject to evolve.
>And that is the very point:For atheists morality is a purely
>subjective notion.A matter of opinion,if you will.

So by extension, you're saying that theists only act morally because
their religion tells them to do so? And how does this square with
theists acting immorally?

It's difficult for me to understand why theists don't just run about
willy-nilly killing people that don't follow their tenets....

Oh wait....

Dreamer.

[Dakota]

If religion defines morality as absolute directives
from the Almighty, why do different religions disagree about it? Why
is it moral for Hindus to worship hundreds of gods but Jews,
Christians, and Muslims are limited to one? Why is there not one
religion but tens of thousands of them?

If religiously defined morality is not subject to change, why was it
moral to execute someone who worked on the Sabbath in Old Testament
days but not moral to do so today? Claiming that the old morality was
replaced by the teachings of the Bible's Jesus character won't help
your case. If it's not subject to change, it matters not who changes
it. Why was it moral for Christians to torture and murder heretics and
so-called witches in the middle ages but immoral to do so today?

The reality is that the morals of religions are not absolute
directives from a god. They are the changing rules written by the
leaders of various religions and entirely subjective.

[Syd M.]

On Mar 11, 11:25 pm, Smiler <Youmus...@JoeKing.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 15:33:15 -0700, Jope wrote:
> > On Mar 11, 2:53 am, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Mar 10, 8:54 pm, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcYUimKWz4A
>
> >> Did you not actually *watch* that video, or did you just not understand
> >> it?
>
> > William Lane Craig  stated:"Atheism cannot explain the objective reality
> > of moral values."
> > In other word,there are no specific reasons why an atheist should be
> > moral.
> > He only follows the path of least resistance. Religion on the other hand
> > clearly defines moral values, the only way that they can be defined:"Thy
> > shall not or else" Undefined morality will only work when it is
> > convenient.If it no longer feels good  to be moral,the atheist will simply
> > discard the annoying morality.
>
> If it no longer feels good to believe in your supposed god character,
> would you lose all sense of morality and go on a murder, rape and pillage
> spree?
>
>

Sadly, this clown prolly would...

PDW

[Smiler]

Would Sir like some dressing for that word salad?

[SkyEyes]

On Mar 11, 3:33 pm, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mar 11, 2:53 am, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 10, 8:54 pm, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcYUimKWz4A
>
> > Did you not actually *watch* that video, or did you just not
> > understand it?
>
> > Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist
> > BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
> > EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
> > skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
> > skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
>
> William Lane Craig  stated:"Atheism cannot explain the objective
> reality of moral values."
> In other word,there are no specific reasons why an atheist should be
> moral.

He's right - atheism cannot explain anything. But it doesn't try to.
Atheism is merely a lack of belief in gods. Unlike theism, it doesn't
pretend to be a lifeway.

We don't get our moral values from religion or faith; they evolved in
our forebears, and are still with us. They're behaviors that make it
possible for humans to be social animals who live in groups.

Basic versions of moral codes can be observed in several animal
species, notably chimps and bonobos, our closest living relatives.
They're not unique to human beings.

> He only follows the path of least resistance.

Speak for yourself. I certainly don't, and the other atheist regulars
on here don't, either. That's just a presumption of yours to paint
yourself in the best light. It isn't true.

> Religion on the other hand clearly defines moral values, the only way
> that they can be defined:"Thy shall not or else"
> Undefined morality will only work when it is convenient.

"Thou shalt not or else" is NOT moral. Anyone who does right merely
because they're afraid of doing wrong is not a moral person. I don't
do right because I'm afraid to be punished, I do right because that's
my inclination. And I know *plenty* of religious people who do wrong
in spite of the fact that they believe it will get them punished.

>If it no
> longer feels good  to be moral,the atheist will simply discard the
> annoying morality.

As I said above, speak for yourself.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 22:10:37 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net>
wrote:

>On Mar 11, 3:33�pm, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Religion on the other hand clearly defines moral values, the only way
>> that they can be defined:"Thy shall not or else"
>> Undefined morality will only work when it is convenient.
>
>"Thou shalt not or else" is NOT moral. Anyone who does right merely
>because they're afraid of doing wrong is not a moral person. I don't
>do right because I'm afraid to be punished, I do right because that's
>my inclination. And I know *plenty* of religious people who do wrong
>in spite of the fact that they believe it will get them punished.

And it certainly hasn't made Jope, Craig or any of the other theists
we get here or who are cited here, moral.

[jope]

It is rather shocking how many "atheists saints" are posting on
usenet.
Since you believe that morality is the product of evolution , you
could at least be honest enough to admit your belief that morality is
an evolving concept.If you behave morally simply because it is the
right thing to do.Who then decide what is right and what is wrong?
Yourself of course.No matter which way you try to put it,the idea of
morality without an objective purpose is absurd.
Hypocrisy is immoral,you know.

[Les]

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 23:58:47 -0700 (PDT), jope <jop...@juno.com>
wrote:

I put it to you that a morality based on the reasons why we should
or should not do certain should be based on first principles and
reason and not the kind of lazy Biblical cook-book morality that you
seem to think is of value.

Why, for example do you think societies should be based around
unions, or marriages between one man and one woman? This has been
the basis of all successful societies of all relgions and none
so it would seem to trancend your lazy Christian morality which tells
you to rely and what some ancienct Jewish priests thought was moral
and which you choose to pretend come from some god.

Is beyond your simple undersanding to realise that they writers
simply refected what was already known at the time based on
the Jewish philosophy. Jewish culturehas not been exactly the
most successful of societies has it?



Les Hellawell
Greeting from:
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County

"For the assertion that �There is no God� is just as much a claim to
knowledge as is the assertion that �There is a God.� Therefore, the
former assertion requires justification just as the latter does. "
- William Lane Craig, "Reasonable Faith"

[Dakota]

Atheism does not have saints.

Morality does have an objective purpose but that purpose is not
constant. Therefore, the values we consider moral must and do evolve.

That being said, why did you not respond to a single one of my
questions? Could you not come up with a reason for the changes I
mentioned, Jope? Not for a single one, Jope? C'mon, Jope. Just one?

If you can't answer the questions, just admit that you are out of your
league here at alt.atheism. That admission will come as no surprise to
any of us I assure you.

[nature bats_last]

;

> >So-called moral values are subjective rather than objective.
> Now ,this is more sincere statement.Atheists normally believe that
> morality is based on currently accepted social conventions, a
> utilitarian instrument shaped by evolution, that is likely to evolve,
> when members of society mutually agree to a different morality.
> Religion on the other hand ,defines morality as absolute directives
> from the Almighty.

More generally, directives from the "Almighty" of your
own personal choice, depending on the religion you
choo...were born into.

This ignoring, of course, the fact that very few of the
Earth's many many religions have an "Almighty".

;

> Not subject to change.Not subject to evolve.
> And that is the very point:For atheists morality is a purely
> subjective notion.A matter of opinion,if you will.

When you find a single everyday vanilla American
atheist who thinks that to rape or not to rape is a
matter of taste, please draw him into this discussion.

(although one of those "exploding" atheists you
referred to a bit back could be more entertaining)


NBL

[Jope]

>why do different religions disagree about it?

Morality is not necessary linked to the ultimate veracity of a
religion.If you want to create your own religion,you will have to
include some basic tenets of morality to make it acceptable.Those
religions therefore, are a mixture of moral goods with much evil.
Either way,religion has always been the traditional vehicle to
transmit morality.

>If religiously defined morality is not subject to change, why was it
>moral to execute someone who worked on the Sabbath in Old Testament
>days but not moral to do so today?

Let me take this opportunity to answer a couple of other questions as
well.
The world that you are currently living in ,is a dysfunctional
world.It is a world that is under the influence of the Devil.That is
the reason why you are seeing so much pain and misery.
God gave the earth to the first man ,Adam.But when put to the
test ,Adam decided that the the Devil was telling the truth and God
was a liar.
Because of that fact,faith is required in order to gain access to
God .You must believe first.No other way about it.That is the reason
why,it is pointless to ask for the physical manifestation of God.If
the atheist wants evidence, he can only get the evidence that comes
trough acknowledging the hand of God in the universe.From that Adam's
fall,man inherited a fundamental flaw ;which causes him to decide
that he can outthink the Almighty himself and find faults with
him.Thus, you are hearing atheists, accusing God of cruelty and other
injustices.
Now ,God did not create man to be wiser than himself or to be able to
find fault with himself.Where else would that ability come from?
Anyway,God is perfectly just ,even though some things do require
explaination.The fact that a creature has decided that he can outthink
the creator is the origin of evil.
God however, did not give up on mankind.He first gave the law of
Moses which included the sabbath and animal sacrifices ,but man could
not keep the law.But through Jesus Christ,God offered the ultimate
solution ,the nuclear option if you will,which is :by accepting Jesus
Christ ,you become identified with his death and considered to have
paid the sentence of the law.In essence, you get to start over with a
clean slate just by accepting Christ.

"Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or
with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a
Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the
reality, however, is found in Christ. "
Colossians 2v16

" God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing
their trespasses unto them, and hath committed unto us the word of
reconciliation."
2 Corinthians 5:19

[Jope]

Morality is not necessary linked to the ultimate veracity of a
religion.If you want to create your own religion,you will have to
include some  basic tenets of morality to make it acceptable.Those
religions therefore, are a mixture of moral goods with much evil.
Either way,religion has always been the traditional vehicle to
transmit morality.

>If religiously defined morality is not subject to change, why was it
>moral to execute someone who worked on the Sabbath in Old Testament
>days but not moral to do so today?

[Budikka666]

On Mar 10, 10:54 pm, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcYUimKWz4A

Why don't you invite him here? I'll take him on on the objective
independent evidence for a creator god.

Budikka

[Budikka666]

On Mar 11, 5:33 pm, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 11, 2:53 am, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 10, 8:54 pm, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcYUimKWz4A
>
> > Did you not actually *watch* that video, or did you just not
> > understand it?
>
> > Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist
> > BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
> > EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
> > skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
> > skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
>
> William Lane Craig  stated:"Atheism cannot explain the objective
> reality of moral values."

Yet the countries of Europe, which are largely atheistic these days,
still somehow manage to get along just fine! lol!

I'm sorry, but your juvenile lies are once again exposed.

Or do you want to see if you can dredge up the guts to go toe-to-toe
with me on where morality comes from?

Budikka

[Dreamer In Colore]

>> If religiously defined morality is not subject to change, why was it
>> moral to execute someone who worked on the Sabbath in Old Testament
>> days but not moral to do so today? Claiming that the old morality was
>> replaced by the teachings of the Bible's Jesus character won't help
>> your case. If it's not subject to change, it matters not who changes
>> it. Why was it moral for Christians to torture and murder heretics and
>> so-called witches in the middle ages but immoral to do so today?
>>
>> The reality is that the morals of religions are not absolute
>> directives from a god. They are the changing rules written by the
>> leaders of various religions and entirely subjective.
>
>It is rather shocking how many "atheists saints" are posting on
>usenet.
>Since you believe that morality is the product of evolution , you
>could at least be honest enough to admit your belief that morality is
>an evolving concept.If you behave morally simply because it is the
>right thing to do.Who then decide what is right and what is wrong?
>Yourself of course.No matter which way you try to put it,the idea of
>morality without an objective purpose is absurd.
>Hypocrisy is immoral,you know.

I'm not exactly sure where you got the idea that I thought that morals
are carved in stone for me. Morals are carved in stone for theists...
you think you get your morals from ancient tomes, and yet you're
unwilling to accept that the morals presented there aren't exactly
wholesome.

I act according to the morals of the society in which I live. I'm
lucky enough to live in a country that believes in free speech
(mostly) and tolerates all sorts of belief structures (even though
they're unfounded). People here don't go around killing each other for
religious or faith-based reasons, and if they did, the courts wouldn't
accept the faith-based reasons as adequate defense.

So, society determines what is right and what is wrong, and then laws
are made. I decide for myself whether I want to follow them, and the
reality is that I choose to do so because I'm not inclined to any of
the things that are objectively bad.

I never said morality doesn't have an objective purpose: don't put
words in my mouth. What I said was "morality is subjectively defined
based on the society one inhabits." If you think that you act morally
because God told you to do so, then I'm forced to believe that you'd
act immorally if you didn't have God to guide you.

Don't be smug, either. I didn't attack you on a personal level.

Dreamer

[Dreamer In Colore]

>
>Let me take this opportunity to answer a couple of other questions as
>well.
>The world that you are currently living in ,is a dysfunctional
>world.It is a world that is under the influence of the Devil.That is
>the reason why you are seeing so much pain and misery.

So let me get this straight. World's dysfunctional because it's under
the influence of the Devil? And God made the Devil? Knowing ahead of
time that the Devil was going to unduly influence the rest of God's
creation?

And you choose willingly to follow this God?

>God gave the earth to the first man ,Adam.But when put to the
>test ,Adam decided that the the Devil was telling the truth and God
>was a liar.
>Because of that fact,faith is required in order to gain access to
>God .You must believe first.No other way about it.That is the reason
>why,it is pointless to ask for the physical manifestation of God.If
>the atheist wants evidence, he can only get the evidence that comes
>trough acknowledging the hand of God in the universe.From that Adam's
>fall,man �inherited a fundamental flaw ;which causes him to decide
>that he can outthink the Almighty himself and find faults with
>him.Thus, you are hearing atheists, accusing God of cruelty and other
>injustices.

Nope. Nope nope nope. Not accusing God of anything.

Accusing human beings of cruelty in the name of God.

Please get it right.

>Now ,God did not create man to be wiser than himself or to be able to
>find fault with himself.Where else would that ability come from?
>Anyway,God is perfectly just ,even though some things do require
>explaination.The fact that a creature has decided that he can outthink
>the creator is the origin of evil.

What? God did not creat man to be able to find fault with himself?
That's crap. Both theists and atheists find fault with each other all
the time.

Are all the Gods perfectly just?

Why is the origin of evil so important? The fact is that evil exists,
and it's incumbent on human beings to try to stop it as much as
possible. You can't do that by hand-wringing and supplication, and you
can't do it by rationalizing as the product of a supernatural being
either, otherwise you're condoning honor killings.

>God however, did not give up on mankind.He first gave the law of Moses
>�which included the sabbath and animal sacrifices ,but man could not
>keep the law.But through Jesus Christ,God offered the ultimate
>solution ,the nuclear option if you will,which is :by accepting Jesus
>Christ ,you become identified with his death and considered to have
>paid the sentence of the law.In essence, you get to start over with a
>clean slate just by accepting Christ.
>

I'm pretty sure God did give up on mankind. There was a flood which
was the metaphor for wiping the slate clean and starting over... and
that just begs the question... why bother leaving just a couple of
flawed humans and pairs of animals on the ark? Why not just eradicate
the whole thing and start from scratch?

If you trot out the old canard about how I'm not supposed to know the
mind of God, I'm just going to keep thinking that this entity is
clinically insane. Support your thesis with facts, or go someplace
else and preach.

Cheers,
Dreamer

[Mr. B1ack]

On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 20:40:33 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
<budi...@netscape.net> wrote:

>On Mar 11, 5:33=A0pm, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 11, 2:53=A0am, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> > On Mar 10, 8:54=A0pm, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DWcYUimKWz4A

>>
>> > Did you not actually *watch* that video, or did you just not
>> > understand it?
>>
>> > Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist
>> > BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
>> > EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
>> > skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
>> > skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
>>

>> William Lane Craig =A0stated:"Atheism cannot explain the objective

>> reality of moral values."
>
>Yet the countries of Europe, which are largely atheistic these days,
>still somehow manage to get along just fine! lol!

Also there IS no "objective reality" to "moral values" ...
people just made that shit up dontchaknow. It may have
*appeal*, but it's not like an element or proton or whatever.

>I'm sorry, but your juvenile lies are once again exposed.
>
>Or do you want to see if you can dredge up the guts to go toe-to-toe
>with me on where morality comes from?

People without religion can't get along - any more
than people WITH religion can get along. :-)

[nature bats_last]

EXACTLY! Finally, we agree: the basic fundamentals of
what we call "morality" come pre-packaged in our wiring
as social animals, and are found in cultures worldwide,
regardless of whatever gods they have created as
puppets to preach those tenets.

Which observation of course utterly contradicts these
silly straw atheists you keep on building, imaginary
beings unfettered by moral restraints -- we come with
exactly the same inherent indwelling moral compass as
the rest of humanity.

;

> Those
> religions therefore, are a mixture of moral goods with much evil.
> Either way,religion has always been the traditional vehicle to
> transmit morality.

But we's all growed up now.
(at least some of us)

;

> >If religiously defined morality is not subject to change, why was it
> >moral to execute someone who worked on the Sabbath in Old Testament
> >days but not moral to do so today?

;
> Let me take this opportunity to answer a couple of other questions as
> well.

;
> The world that you are currently living in ,is a dysfunctional
> world.It is a world that is under the influence of the Devil.That is
> the reason why you are seeing so much pain and misery.
> God gave the earth to the first man ,Adam.But when put to the
> test ,Adam decided that the the Devil was telling the truth and God
> was a liar.

Yep. And in contrast to the way any human parent would
regard with amused tolerance the first time the little
kid says "NO!", this god of yours threw the most
momentual hissy fit in the history of the world, kicked
the toddlers out the front door, cursed all the
innocent animals of the world in the bargin, and
proceded to tear down the scenery.

Sorry, but as avatars of morality go, this one got
stuck in the starting gate.


NBL

Hlmighty himself and find faults with