When atheists go too far

dvpower

Seachmall wrote: »

He believes God will send your friend to hell. He believes God is all good. He believes God's ultimate decisions are moral.

Yes. I understand all that - he thinks it is just that my friend be punished for eternity in hell.

Seachmall wrote: »

He is not judging your friend.

As I've said he is just judging the depraved punishment that God hands down - and he supports it.

Seachmall wrote: »

The crux of it is that it's a personal opinion he holds, he does not force it on anyone. He has not attacked you personally for rejecting God (which is the ultimate sin, and thus immoral in Christian belief).

The personal opinion that he holds is that I am a sinner and unless I change my ways should be subjected to eternal punishment.
The personal opinion that I hold is that he is depraved and, until he changes his views, should be subjected to no more than moral condemnation.

Seachmall wrote: »

He has addressed your arguments respectfully. It's common decency to return the favour.

If I can figure out how to do it, I will try to keep my comdemnation of him respectful

CerebralCortex

philologos wrote: »

I don't believe ethical behaviour and altruism are the same thing. Altruism is "I'll scratch my back if you scratch mine" behaviour. Ethical behaviour is genuinely caring for your fellow man in and of itself even if it is of detriment to you. The latter is the example that Christians have in Christ. It's something I'm striving for but admittedly it is difficult.

But it's never to you're detriment, it's like putting money in the next world bank!

dpe

Seachmall wrote: »

Because it's a personal opinion he holds and he's not forcing it on anyone.

From what I can see Philologos has not attacked anyone here on a personal level, you may disagree with his opinions so attack his arguments; not his person.

I'd take issue with that. he called me a liar.

Seachmall

philologos wrote: »

Ethical behaviour is genuinely caring for your fellow man in and of itself even if it is of detriment to you.

This also falls under [Evolutionary] Altruism. We evolved as communal animals, we do self-sacrifice for "the greater good".

If an ape is being attacked by two lions another ape from the same pack will risk his life to save the first ape.

It comes down to each individual being more likely to pass on their genes if the pack is strong and healthy. It might at first seem counter-intuitive but it's how we evolved and it works.

dvpower wrote:

As I've said he is just judging the depraved punishment that God hands down - and he supports it.

Maybe it's not depraved in his opinion. Morals are subjective hence why we should attack the arguments and reasoning that support those morals and not the holder of the morals (as it'll achieve nothing except a ban).

dvpower

Cú Giobach wrote: »

A comment regarding dv's argument.

Lets put this into a human crime & punishment context, say the stoning of adulterous women in certain countries.
Now I could say, I think that law is just, I don't want to see anyone stoned and women have the opportunity not to be stoned by not committing the crime but if they do, then they receive the punishment. Me not wanting to see someone stoned doesn't take away from the fact I agree with a barbaric punishment.
I wonder how someone would be received with that attitude?

Indeed if someone was to post on these boards calling for us to stone adulterous women, there would be no call for us to respect them or their views.

Seachmall

dvpower wrote: »

Indeed if someone was to post on these boards calling for us to stone adulterous women, there would be no call for us to respect them or their views.

I'm not saying respect his views, I'm saying respect him as a person. He hasn't done anything wrong even if you disagree with him.

Don't make the argument personal, keep it objective and directed at his reasoning.

Also he's not calling for anyone to be hurt and injured, he's not praying you go to Hell, he's just suggesting you probably will if you don't repent. As far as he sees it you've been given an option to save yourself, if you refuse that option then you're pretty much volunteering for hell.

I could easily be misrepresenting Philologos' views, sorry if I am,

dvpower

Seachmall wrote: »

Maybe it's not depraved in his opinion. Morals are subjective hence why we should attack the arguments and reasoning that support those morals and not the holder of the morals (as it'll achieve nothing except a ban).

Just because morals are subjective doesn't mean that all moral stances are equal. We wouldn't apply the same kind of reasoning to other morally corrupt people like those who agree with stoning adulterers etc...

smash

Seachmall wrote: »

Also he's not calling for anyone to be hurt and injured, he's not praying you go to Hell, he's just suggesting you probably will if you don't repent. As far as he sees it you've been given an option to save yourself, if you refuse that option then you're pretty much volunteering for hell.

But he's also saying that if you dismiss his god, then you deserve it.

Does he believe those who flew into the twin towers are in hell? Or that they did right by their own god and are now living the life of luxury in their heaven with all those virgins that their god promised them?

Seachmall

dvpower wrote: »

Just because morals are subjective doesn't mean that all moral stances are equal.

That too is subjective :pac:

steve06 wrote:

But he's also saying that if you dismiss his god, then you deserve it.

If you're given an option to get your head kicked in or not get your head kicked in and you choose the former you deserve to get your head kicked in. It's a choice you made.

Of course the guy who forced that choice on you is a bit of a dick.

dvpower

Seachmall wrote: »

Also he's not calling for anyone to be hurt and injured, he's not praying you go to Hell, he's just suggesting you probably will if you don't repent. As far as he sees it you've been given an option to save yourself, if you refuse that option then you're pretty much volunteering for hell.

My deceased atheist friend, according to Philologos' beliefs is destined for hell and there is no way he can escape it. He will be punished for eternity. Philologos agrees that this punisment is just and supports the God dealing out the punishment in his judgement.

I can't see how this substancially differs from calling on my friend to be hurt or injured. He is certainly not neutral and he is certainly not calling for my friend to be spared.

ScumLord

Seachmall wrote: »

I'm not saying respect his views, I'm saying respect him as a person. He hasn't done anything wrong even if you disagree with him.

Don't make the argument personal, keep it objective and directed at his reasoning.

But it is personal, I don't believe in his god so he thinks I deserve to burn in fire for all eternity. He supports a god that deems eternal never ending torture a fitting punishment for simply not believing in him. Not for wrong doing but for not bowing at his feet like peasants would bow at the feet of their king. Why isn't god any more advanced than a spiteful king?

He's complacency in torture is apprehensible as far as I'm concerned. It's not even in the same league as the Germans that where complacent in the eradication of the Jews, as those Germans had the threat of death should they speak out. Christians think their god is right to torture because of he's selfish need to be feared and worshipped. It's only one short step to thinking if it's good enough for god to hate these people then it's good enough for me.

I really don't see how these kind of things can be ignored just because Christians say a prayer or two.

smash

Seachmall wrote: »

If you're given an option to get your head kicked in or not get your head kicked in and you choose the former you deserve to get your head kicked in. It's a choice you made.

But there's actually nothing to say you're going to get your head kicked in other than rumours written by drunks centuries ago. So being a rational person, should you accept it or live in fear?

Seachmall

dvpower wrote: »

My deceased atheist friend, according to Philologos' beliefs is destined for hell and there is no way he can escape it. He will be punished for eternity. Philologos agrees that this punisment is just and supports the God dealing out the punishment in his judgement.

I can't see how this substancially differs from calling on my friend to be hurt or injured. He is certainly not neutral and he is certainly not calling for my friend to be spared.

Because he believes God's decisions are moral. And because he believes your friend had a choice.

I don't share his beliefs and I'm not going keep arguing them. My only point was do not make it personal. Do not attack him. He holds a belief regarding your friend. He did not force those beliefs on your friend. He is simply sharing his beliefs on a public forum. If you don't want to hear those beliefs there is no need to click into the topic.

old hippy

dvpower wrote: »

Certainly we should show respect for people even if they have ridiculous views, but why would we show respect for people who hold depraved views, like the view that it is just that people who don't believe in God should suffer eternal pain and suffering?

I couldn't respect people like that. Don't care about respecting their belief systems; they are beneath contempt, in my "book".

Cú Giobach

ScumLord wrote: »

But it is personal, I don't believe in his god so he thinks I deserve to burn in fire for all eternity. He supports a god that deems eternal never ending torture a fitting punishment for simply not believing in him. Not for wrong doing but for not bowing at his feet like peasants would bow at the feet of their king. Why isn't god any more advanced than a spiteful king?

Nice one.
This it what you get when you follow a belief system with its roots in a time when such bowing and scraping was the norm, and expected.

dvpower

Seachmall wrote: »

That too is subjective :pac:

It is. But we don't have to go too far down the morals are subjective road before we need to abolish all of our systems of justice.

Put it this way - we certainly wouldn't pass a law to torture non believers here (or at least we would think it reprehensible), why would it be acceptable in the afterlife.

philologos

ScumLord wrote: »

He supports a god that deems eternal never ending torture a fitting punishment for simply not believing in him. Not for wrong doing but for not bowing at his feet like peasants would bow at the feet of their king. Why isn't god any more advanced than a spiteful king?

It isn't for not believing in Him. It's for how we've disobeyed His standards throughout our lives. The penalty isn't because of not believing in Him, it's because of what we have done wrong. God has given us a second chance by taking away that penalty so that we can come to know Him more. It is up to you if you want to accept this.

It's for precisely for wrongdoing.

ScumLord wrote: »

Christians think their god is right to torture because of he's selfish need to be feared and worshipped. It's only one short step to thinking if it's good enough for god to hate these people then it's good enough for me.

This hasn't been given as a reason by anyone. I don't believe God needs to be worshipped actually. Even if nobody gave a fiddles about Him He would still be God.

I believe simply put that God has the right to judge accordingly for our wrongdoing. He has offered us a chance to start again, but it is up to us to take it.

I don't understand the "hate" argument you've presented either.

smash

philologos wrote: »

It isn't for not believing in Him. It's for how we've disobeyed His standards throughout our lives.

It is for not believing in him. Because if you don't believe in him, then why follow his make believe rules for sinning?

You also believe we're born with sin, yet we've done nothing? Therefore your god has sentenced you to hell before you even breath or think!

brosy

Asry wrote: »

But the stuff I believe in include ... Intelligent Design

It is pretty handy when you get told up front how to never take somebody seriously ever again.

ScumLord

Seachmall wrote: »

Because he believes God's decisions are moral. And because he believes your friend had a choice.

It's not a choice. It's believe me or suffer. It's like blaming the victim of a rape for not choosing to have sex with her attacker, The attacker could say well I gave you the choice of consensual sex or rape and you chose rape.

If I give someone a choice I won't threaten them to make the choice I want and I won't bully them for choosing another option that I don't like.

dvpower

Seachmall wrote: »

Because he believes God's decisions are moral. And because he believes your friend had a choice.

I don't share his beliefs and I'm not going keep arguing them. My only point was do not make it personal. Do not attack him. He holds a belief regarding your friend. He did not force those beliefs on your friend. He is simply sharing his beliefs on a public forum. If you don't want to hear those beliefs there is no need to click into the topic.

It is my belief that he personally ought to be held to account for his position. I wouldn't want to force this belief on you - you should carry on not attacking him.
I'm simply sharing my beliefs on a public forum. Of course if you don't want to hear my beliefs...

ScumLord

philologos wrote: »

It isn't for not believing in Him. It's for how we've disobeyed His standards throughout our lives.

So what's the very first commandment about? Seems like he's first and foremost wish is that everyone believe in him.

The penalty isn't because of not believing in Him, it's because of what we have done wrong.

How can his creation, created by him go wrong?

This hasn't been given as a reason by anyone. I don't believe God needs to be worshipped actually. Even if nobody gave a fiddles about Him He would still be God.

funny the bible goes on about his believers getting into heaven.

I believe simply put that God has the right to judge accordingly for our wrongdoing. He has offered us a chance to start again, but it is up to us to take it.

That's not a choice it's a threat.

Mark200

philologos wrote: »

It isn't for not believing in Him. It's for how we've disobeyed His standards throughout our lives. The penalty isn't because of not believing in Him, it's because of what we have done wrong. God has given us a second chance by taking away that penalty so that we can come to know Him more. It is up to you if you want to accept this.

It's for precisely for wrongdoing.

You can spin it all you want, but not being a believer is considered 'wrongdoing' and so what scumlord said is right.

As I said before: Your belief is that your god has created us sick and commanded us to be better. How ridiculous is that? I'm quite glad that such a thing is not true. If your god cared so much about these things then maybe he wouldn't have created us with the instincts to, for example, lust after others.

I think it's a disgrace to human intelligence that you unashamedly believe these things.

But what's worse than that is that, not only do you believe them to be true, but that you feel that this being is good, worthy of respect or worship, and someone that should be obeyed.

You'd make a good slave. I think you'd like North Korea.

Turtwig

Seachmall wrote: »

Don't make the argument personal, keep it objective and directed at his reasoning.

Ideally that's brilliant. Practically it's not. No matter how hard you try you are never going to make this argument in any way more objective. Philogos believes in God, He's a real entity who had a real impact in Philogos's life. Every argument he makes is in light of the fact that God impacted in his life and is merely thus a self rationalisation of his beliefs. That may seem harsh but the proof is in the posting, push him on any issue from abortion to death and he'll usually just end up with 'I believe' regardless of how flawed his argument turns out to be.

For some people, they could not personally fathom the idea of saying "**** off you assehole" to their God. If they cannot do that then no amount of logic, objective reasoning is going to make them doubt their position on one various aspect or another. It just leads to time wasted. If you want to have a dialectic with them you're gonna first have to dabble in the emotional side of things. Sure that may seem unconventional and defy common sense, but it's what works. Take anybody out of their comfort zone and their rational minds suddenly starts to kick in. This applies to all of us and anyone who thinks it is logic that persuades a crowd really needs to luck at democracy in action with a microscope. As long as a world without God appears bleak to philogos, or conversely the world with God appears terrible to the non believer you guys are just going to keep going in circles ad infinitum.

philologos

ScumLord wrote: »

So what's the very first commandment about? Seems like he's first and foremost wish is that everyone believe in him.

The penalty is for every wrongdoing (wrong in a Christian sense is what is against God's standards).

ScumLord wrote: »

How can his creation, created by him go wrong?

We chose to do what was wrong according to our free will.

ScumLord wrote: »

funny the bible goes on about his believers getting into heaven.

Precisely because they have accepted Him and His offer of forgiveness along the lines of the Parable of the Prodigal Son. If we are too stubborn to do this then we determine our own fate. As far as I'm concerned this is great news and I thank Him daily for allowing me to start again and for being a part of my life.

ScumLord wrote: »

That's not a choice it's a threat.

It's a choice. It's down to you.

smash

philologos wrote: »

The penalty is for every wrongdoing (wrong in a Christian sense is what is against God's standards).

'God's' standards were written by man.

philologos wrote: »

We chose to do what was wrong according to our free will.

Wrong according to a book, not even written by the man who made the rules?

philologos wrote: »

If we are too stubborn to do this then we determine our own fate.

Maybe if he proved himself to be an actual entity, then people would believe.

Seachmall

dvpower wrote: »

It is my belief that he personally ought to be held to account for his position. I wouldn't want to force this belief on you - you should carry on not attacking him.
I'm simply sharing my beliefs on a public forum. Of course if you don't want to hear my beliefs...

Listen, if you can't understand his position you're not going to be able to argue it. No need to get sarcastic about it. No one said he shouldn't be held accountable for his position, I was merelysuggesting you keep the discussion focused on the arguments and don't sink to insults.

old hippy

This god non-entity can't prove it exists because it's not there in the first place. That's the get out of jail card the faithers use; you can't test god. You must show your unswerving support by not testing him.

Your gods are cruel, vain and preening - because we created them in man's image; not the other way round.

MagicMarker

Asry wrote: »

Maybe I used the wrong term? Maybe I mean the Watchmaker Theory one. I'm just reading about that on wikipedia now. I just mean the idea that for everything to be so complex and perfect and in such delicate symbiosis...surely someone must have made it that way? The designer for the design?

You do realise that evolution explains perfectly the complexities of all life?

dvpower

Seachmall wrote: »

Listen, if you can't understand his position you're not going to be able to argue it. No need to get sarcastic about it.

I understand his position only too well - he never tires of annunciating it. It is utterly pointless trying to argue against God, because God is a figment of his own imagination.

I wasn't attempting to be sarcastic. I was attempting, perhaps badly, to say that we two have conflicting beliefs. Mine that he should be personally held to account, your's that we should try and seperate the post from the poster. Naturally, you'll want to respect my right to my view.