Being an athiest doesn't mean they lack morality - Page 2 - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


Communities

The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Being an athiest doesn't mean they lack morality
in Religion

24


Arguments

  • Atheists do not lack morality, but they look for it in a different way than religious people do. Religious people look in the Holy Books to find morality. Atheists get some sense of morality from God and they get morality from other places. Basically, atheists have morality, just their access to God's morals is less because they are atheists.

    "Despite the Bible, the Qur'an and other religious books support immoral things like violence, racism, slavery etc."

    Evidence please...
    Zombieguy1987
  • edited December 2018
    @anonymousdebater Here you go
    @anonymousdebater ;

    Here you go!

    Image result for violent quran verses

     And I've already pointed out how immoral the bible is towards women.

    Deuteronomy 22:20-21 ~ If a woman has sex before marriage, she must be killed in front of her father by having stones thrown at her (and she is guilty until proven innocent), unless it is known that she was raped (Deuteronomy 22:28-29), in which case she must marry her rapist, or unless she is a slave, but she still must be punished if she is a slave, even if she was raped (Leviticus 19:20-22). If she is the daughter of a priest, she must be burned alive (Leviticus 21:9).

    Did I forget to mention these lovely verses:

    Numbers 31:17-18

    Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

    But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

    (the bible continues to demonstrate that it sees women as little more than brides and baby factories)

    But why be cruel to just women when you can be cruel and violent to EVERYONE!


    2 Chronicles 15:13 ~ Anyone who rejects Christianity must be executed.

    Did I forget to mention:

    SilverishGoldNova said:


    I'd imagine this is familiar for Zombieguy 

    AND MANY MORE 
    http://bibviz.com/

    Zombieguy1987Evidence
  • @SilverishGoldNova ;

    I know very little about the Koran, so I am not even going to do anything about those verses. I can give a few links:
    https://www.alislam.org/library/articles/why-does-the-quran-say-that-infidels-should-be-killed/
    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/kabir-helminski/does-the-quran-really-adv_b_722114.html

     I can, however, debate against your use of Bible quotes.

    https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/why-was-god-so-harsh-in-the-old-testament-but-more-forgiving-in-the-new
    https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/should-we-obey-old-testament-law

    “In the Old Testament, God always intended for the consummation and end of the ceremonial laws.”

    As a Christian, much of Old Testament Law was significantly altered by the coming of Jesus. However, the New Testament is still valid, so I will look at those quotes.

    https://www.bibleref.com/1-Peter/2/1-Peter-2-18.html
    1 Peter 2:18
    "After commanding all Christians to submit to every human authority, including emperors, kings, and governors, Peter specifically says the same to Christian servants (or slaves) about their masters. The word used here is not the Greek douli, the classic term for "slaves." Rather, it is oiketai, probably best translated as "servants." That being said, the line between servants and slaves was blurry in Peter's time. Slavery had little to do with race, as modern readers often process the idea, and more to do with economics and social class. "

    "It's important to recognize here that God's commands to slaves about submission are not an endorsement of slavery as an institution. It was simply a reality of the day."

    2 Peter 2:7-8
    Ummm… "and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)—" (NIV)
    How is this supporting gang rapes of young women again?

    Matthew 5:18-19
    Not referencing ceremonial law, but moral laws (https://biblehub.com/commentaries/matthew/5-19.htm)
    But people who teach that breaking the laws of the Bible is acceptable will be called least in the kingdom of heaven.

    https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/what-made-it-okay-for-god-to-kill-women-and-children-in-the-old-testament
    Zombieguy1987
  • @piloteer ;

    The morality of a Christian though, is objective, and applies to everyone, regardless of what anyone thinks of it."

    >This looks like a claim that Christian morality applies to everyone.

    Or maybe I'm saying Christians follow objective morality, and that objective morality applies to everyone. There exists only objective morality. Anything else is not morality.

    >But if that's not what you're saying, then I'll just move on. (But it really sounds like that's what you're saying)!!!

    Because you have trouble telling your opinion from reality.

    >I get the feeling that you're trying to argue that the moral code that you live by is the Christian code of morality. Oh, and looky looky, it just so happens that the moral code YOU live by is the only true code for all humanity because it's the only one that is founded in authority.

    Incredulity is not good argumentation. We need not guess. It can be logically demonstrated that morality, to apply to anyone, needs to be authoritative. Otherwise, you believe all moralities are equally valid. Do you?

    >Lets take a closer look at that opinion, shall we? If a Christian were to consider someone to be immoral, would they not consider that person to be living a life of sin?

    >James 2:10, "For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of it all.

    >Romans 3:10 as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one;

    >Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

    >Does not the bible tell us that we are all born of, and will die from sin? If we are all sinners, how can we ever expect God to welcome us into the kingdom of heaven? By embracing Jesus Christ as our Lord and savior. 

    >God's authority is in his plan, not in how we choose to live our lives….

    This is untrue. But I'm listening and following for now.

    >…..because no matter how we choose to live our lives, it will be a life of sin.

    This also is untrue. But again,  I'm listening and following for now.

    >God wants us to be free, he wants us to be free to sin, he wants us to be free to atone for our sin. If we aren't free to sin, we aren't free to atone for our sins. I'm not saying the bible says that God is not an authority, but God chose not to impede on our choice to live our lives how we feel fit. 

    >God gave every person the free will to choose to either follow the word of God (however they may interpret his word), or to not follow his word. 

    >That is NOT an authority, it's a hands off approach.

    Untrue. Authority does not mean God only has choice, but that we are accountable for our free choices to His authority.

    >You are not able to make an OBJECTIVE argument for morality based on this.

    If the “this” is your faulty logic and unwarranted assumptions, sure.

    But I can make an argument for objective morality based on logic, reason, and truth.

    >Of course you could easily claim that I have misinterpreted God's words, but unfortunately for you, that's just further proof of the subjective nature of morality, because there are Christians who would agree with me.

    Persons calling themselves “Christians” mean nothing. And I have not quoted the bible in this thread or in my argument. You have. I rely on logic. You seem to be appealing to the bible. Your failure is not in a wrong interpretation of God's words, but in poor logic borne of poor thinking.

    >That means it's based on a point of view, not objective fact! If your moral code is based on an interpretation, it is subjective. Relative. Based on an opinion. NOT objective.

    lol. If I were not used to the convoluted “logic” atheists use to escape this conundrum, your mental gymnastics here would have confused me.

    >If morality were truly objective, we would live by the same moral standards across all borders, and throughout all time.

    Sorry, but this is illogical and untrue. It is another baseless assumption made from poor thinking.

    >Obviously this isn't the case.

    That should clue you in to it's untruth.

    >You and I could live by the United States constitution and never break the law, but still we could live by vastly different moral codes that  conflict with each other, but still could live within the confines of the law. Morality is relative, and not an authority. The law is an authority.

    Morality is not relative. Not if you know the definition of objective. But you undercut your own argument. The law is violated everyday even with it being an authority.

    “The law” is subjective. And subjectivity has nothing to do with authority. But if you believe morality is only subjective, and that no objective morality exists, we cannot continue, as you are not coming from a place of logic, and reasoned debate with you on this subject is impossible.

    You go believe that any morality is as valid as any other, and I will stick to logic. But when I see you condemning others based on your subjective morality, excuse me when I call you on it.
  • @anonymousdebater Here you go
    @anonymousdebater ;

    Here you go!

    Image result for violent quran verses

     And I've already pointed out how immoral the bible is towards women.

    Deuteronomy 22:20-21 ~ If a woman has sex before marriage, she must be killed in front of her father by having stones thrown at her (and she is guilty until proven innocent), unless it is known that she was raped (Deuteronomy 22:28-29), in which case she must marry her rapist, or unless she is a slave, but she still must be punished if she is a slave, even if she was raped (Leviticus 19:20-22). If she is the daughter of a priest, she must be burned alive (Leviticus 21:9).

    Did I forget to mention these lovely verses:

    Numbers 31:17-18

    Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

    But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

    (the bible continues to demonstrate that it sees women as little more than brides and baby factories)

    But why be cruel to just women when you can be cruel and violent to EVERYONE!


    2 Chronicles 15:13 ~ Anyone who rejects Christianity must be executed.

    Did I forget to mention:

    SilverishGoldNova said:


    I'd imagine this is familiar for Zombieguy 

    AND MANY MORE 
    http://bibviz.com/
    And this...





    SilverishGoldNova
    https://www.google.com/search?q=victims+of+religion&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=x&ved=0ahukewihu9jugorfahwkmeakhbtib00q_auidigb&biw=1920&bih=963&safe=active

    Socialism/Communism are great on paper, but all you need to do is look at Venezuela or North Korea see why these economic systems fail

    Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom 

    http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  • @TTKDB
    @WordsMatter

    >I just asked what your answeres would be to 5 moral dilemma questions and asked you to show where religion would cause different answers or logic given by atheists.

    They are trick questions TTKDB. He isn't asking what the bible teaches, but how people who call themselves Christians would respond. But the validity of Christian morality is not based on how people respond.

    Each case is easy for Christian doctrine because the doctrine  assumes God is real. The difficulty is for the atheist because he judges morality as being human pleasure, and is confused when the pleasure (or suffering) of two people conflict.
    Zombieguy1987
  • WordsMatterWordsMatter 370 Pts
    edited January 1
    @ethang5 morals aren't just some magically little thing you can tell yourself you have. Morals directly influence the choices you make in life. If Christian morals are somehow more specific then there should be answers to these questions. Plenty of different philosophies can provide answers to these questions, and those answers can vary, but nonetheless the moral code a philosophy teaches can tell you what to do in these situations.

    My point of these questions is there is no way that any kind of 'Christian morality' gives you actual guidance on how to actual act in tough moral scenarios in the world. The answers to these questions among Christians would vary just as much as the answers given by atheists, therefore giving neither group a moral high ground.

    These aren't trick questions at all, the answers to these questions in one form or another have been debated for thousands of years. I'll gladly answer them if you can answer them and show me what part of Christianity led you to those answers. Your and @TTKDB avoidance of answering these questions makes it appear like Christianity offers no explainable moral code that can direct your actions across all situations.
    Zombieguy1987
  • >morals aren't just some magically little thing you can tell yourself you have. Morals directly influence the choices you make in life. If Christian morals are somehow more specific then there should be answers to these questions.

    Christian morality is not more specific. How specific a morality is means nothing to validity. Christian morality is authoritative. That is the difference.

    >Plenty of different philosophies can provide answers to these questions, and those answers can vary, but nonetheless the moral code a philosophy teaches can tell you what to do in these situations.

    Any moron can teach us what to do, but is what is taught authoritative? That is the question.

    >My point of these questions is there is no way that any kind of 'Christian morality' gives you actual guidance on how to actual act in tough moral scenarios in the world.

    I don't see how your questions show that. As you said, these are old questions. And the bible tackles these questions easily. History has shown us how Christians have answered these throughout the ages.

    >The answers to these questions among Christians would vary just as much as the answers given by atheists, therefore giving neither group a moral high ground.

    Untrue. The behavior of anyone following Christian morality would be the same every time. Christian morality comes from the Bible, and the Bible doesn't change.

    >These aren't trick questions at all, the answers to these questions in one form or another have been debated for thousands of years.

    They have been trick questions for years. The only consistent behaviors would be from people following the moral code, not from what those people call themselves. Your questions try to conflate those things.

    >I'll gladly answer them if you can answer them and show me what part of Christianity led you to those answers….

    I can answer. I don't care what you answer, if your moral code is just your opinion, then no answer you gave can be valid.

    >Your and @TTKDB avoidance of answering these questions makes it appear like Christianity offers no explainable moral code that can direct your actions across all situations.

    Please don't be silly. You asked me no questions, and thus I could not be avoiding answering. My post was to TTKDB telling him of the fakery in your questions. I was under no obligation to answer them. If you want me to, just ask.

    Jesus had a similar dilemma. He could let us all die, or could sacrifice Himself to save us. Do you know what He decided? Do you know why?
  • @ethang5

    "Untrue. The behavior of anyone following Christian morality would be the same every time. Christian morality comes from the Bible, and the Bible doesn't change."

    So what is that behavior specifically? Morality is defined as "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior." Above you claim that Christian morality is objective ((of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.)

    Therefore there must be a clear objective answer to what a Christian should do if they are faced with a situation where they must kill one innocent person to save 10 innocent lives. To what degree exactly is war permissable? Thou shalt not kill is a commandment yet many Christians have supported various wars.

    Where your entire argument falls apart is your inability to tell me the specifics of Christian morality. If they are objective it should be a simple task to do. I've been to Roman Catholic School for all but one year of schooling. I've gone to Roman Catholic Church until I was 19. I received confirmation, marking me as an educated adult in the Catholic Church. I've read the Bible. No where along that way was any official, clear, objective moral code given to me. So just give me that code.
    Zombieguy1987
  • @WordsMatter

    >So what is that behavior specifically?

    To have the mind of Christ.

    >Morality is defined as "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior."

    Yes.

    >Above you claim that Christian morality is objective (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.) 

    True.

    >Therefore there must be a clear objective answer to what a Christian should do if they are faced with a situation where they must kill one innocent person to save 10 innocent lives.

    Sure. But you have to ask specific questions if you want specific answers. General questions will only get you general answers.

    A christian must not take a innocent unwilling life to save 10 others. When faced with the same choices, God didn't do it.

    >To what degree exactly is war permissable?

    1. In defense of innocents.
    2. Upon commandment from God

    >Thou shalt not kill is a commandment yet many Christians have supported various wars.

    True. And many others they have not. So?

    >Where your entire argument falls apart is your inability to tell me the specifics of Christian morality.

    Please stop being silly. This is the first time you've asked, how can my argument fall apart before I  have had a chance to reply? Your biased anticipation is not fact. Calm down.

    >If they are objective it should be a simple task to do.

    It is, but not if you don't wait for replies hector.

    >I've been to Roman Catholic School for all but one year of schooling. I've gone to Roman Catholic Church until I was 19. I received confirmation, marking me as an educated adult in the Catholic Church.

    An "educated" adult in the Catholic Church is virtually indistinguishable from an atheist when it comes to biblical knowledge.

    >I've read the Bible. No where along that way was any official, clear, objective moral code given to me.

    This only confirms my suspicion that you have not read the bible. Something common for Catholics.

    >So just give me that code.

    The code is in the entire Bible, and bibles are free. As the bible is written for adults, the code is not in a simplistic juvenile list, but taught throughout the bible in adult stories, parables, and questions.
  •  Morality is an arbitrary concept. Anyone can say "I'm moral!" and no one can object to that statement even if the person is a child molester or killer. Moral laws are not universal and deciding what is moral or not depends on what moral laws you accept. 

     "Human life is valuable" majority agree with this statement but it is no more than an axiom that people accept without any reason. Why is human life valuable really?

     My point is: If you live according to your own moral laws, you are moral. It doesn't matter what those moral laws are and it doesn't matter where they stem from. 
    "Killing is moral." thus, killing is moral.
    "Raping women is moral." thus, raping women is moral.
    "I am an atheist, but I am still moral." thus, this atheist is moral.
    Zombieguy1987anonymousdebaterEvidence
  • @AlexOland ;


    This is probably not what you were implying in any sense, but without a definite standard of right and wrong that can only be provided by God, then all morality is simply subjective, thus making it so that anyone, regardless of their deeds, can set their own standards and claim to be moral.
    Evidence
  • Until humanity comes to understand that "no Organized Religion" (which is very different than being religious about 'finding the truth') can allow our One and Only Possible Infinite and Eternal Creator God, or His son Word aka Jesus Christ into their church, .. and so; the truth will be hidden from them!

    I'm not talking about the Christian sun-god, but about Christ; who was sent by His father God to be the light of the world, as he said: "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life". He taught us that truth (which included morality) cannot come by the law, or enforcement of ANY law which is so evident when we read the O.T. Bible.
    So what did Jesus teach about where morality should come from? He summed it up beautifully when the Jews brought a woman caught in adultery to him! What did he say?
    "Let him without sin cast the first stone".

    Love, .. is the fulfillment of the Law. Like in: "Love the sinner, not their sin". We are to 'hate sin' in the sinner, and make sure they know that.
    Look how the devil took this "love one another" which he twisted, and perverted to fit his agenda in this LGBT militant group!? On earth, they did become "Champions of the world"  who are led by none other than the god of this world and his demons, like that plural demon who called himself "Legion", ..as the glorified gay Rock-group 'Queen' sang it.
    Christianity (just as any Organized Religion) was created by the devil. He perverted Gods "Agape- Love" and turned into 'lust' or 'Eros'.

    Eros- Often described as a son of Aphrodite by her lover Ares, the god of war, Eros was a Greek god of lust and primal sexual desire. In fact, the word erotic comes from his name.

    And look how pleasing the devil is, if you don't like one version of this mockery of God and His son 'Christian' Religion, he offers 40,000 more Christian-versions for us to choose from!?

    I will also add this:

    Revelation 3:15 I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other!
    16 So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.
    17 You say, ‘I am rich (I'm a Christian); I have acquired wealth (I read the Bible) and do not need a thing.’
    But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked
    .

    Here is proof:
    desiringgod.org



    Time 1:12 -
    "The Bible teaches unwavering, that there is One true and living God (true, that is exactly what the Bible teaches), and that the Father is God (holiest of fathers the Pope), ..  and that the son is God (aka the sun-god Christians worship) .. and the spirit (Mary to whom Christians pray to) is God!" ..what a liar! That there is blasphemy, making our One and Only Infinite Creator God a demon. No, actually a whole team of demons:

    * The only plural demon mentioned in the N.T is "Legion": the one-who-is-many.
    * The "holiest of fathers" (which we all know is the Vicar of sun-god Jesus) is father-god
    * The son-god is actually the sun-god that Romans, AKA Roman-Christians have always worshipped
    * and the spirit of the "Mother-of-all-gods Mary" that billions of Christians pray to.

    I'm telling you the truth, .. prove me wrong?
  • piloteerpiloteer 185 Pts
    edited January 4
    @ethang5

    Yes, I consider all morality to be valid, because morality is relative. It's nothing more than a social construct!!! What logical evidence have you brought to this discussion that shows morality is objective???? You said.....

    ***"Or maybe I'm saying Christians follow objective morality, and that objective morality applies to everyone. There exists only objective morality. Anything else is not morality."***

    There's no evidence here. For you to make an objective argument about the nature of morality, you'll need to have some kind of convincing evidence to back your claim. Those are just claims with nothing to back it. It's an empirical claim, and empiricism is the antithesis of objectivism. When I made the argument that morality is not authoritative, you retorted with......

    ***"We need not guess. It can be logically demonstrated that morality, to apply to anyone, needs to be authoritative."***

     Okay then, feel free to logically demonstrate this, but so far, all we've got here is a claim that you can logically demonstrate this, but you've done nothing in the way of actually demonstrating anything. Just so you know, this is an open forum, feel free to make an argument anytime. When I quoted the bible to show that God gave us free will to choose whatever path we want, you made this counter argument.

    ***"Untrue. Authority does not mean God only has choice, but that we are accountable for our free choices to His authority.***

    You've just summed up exactly why Christian morality is not authoritative when you said "Authority does not mean God only has choice". Yes that's absolutely true, we all have a choice in what path we choose. If we have the free will to choose whichever path we want, then morality cannot be considered authoritative. 

     Do you claim that we have no choice to dispel Gods word, and choose a path to hell and eventually "true death"? Do you claim that we are not free to disregard the teachings of Gods word and accept that there is no such thing as heaven or hell? Do you claim that we are not free to try and embrace Gods word by accepting Jesus Christ, and we will do everything in our power to never stray from his word? Do you claim that we cannot falter and eventually realize our wicked ways and embrace Gods word? Do you claim that we are not free to be devout Christians, but eventually reject Gods word and become athiest? God leaves us free to choose whatever path we want, even if that path only leads to the fire! It is NOT in Gods plan that any of us have a predetermined path, if we did, that would mean God created some people simply for the purpose of sending them to hell. For your argument to work, you would have to prove that God has a predetermined path for all of us, and for some of us, that means we were created for the purpose of eventually going to hell because it was worked into his plan that way. God gave everyone the free will to choose. Our free will IS Gods plan.

    Corinthians 10:13. No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it.

    Joshua 24:15.  But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.”

    Isaiah 55:6-7. Seek the Lord while he may be found; call on him while he is near. 7 Let the wicked forsake their ways and the unrighteous their thoughts. Let them turn to the Lord, and he will have mercy on them, and to our God, for he will freely pardon.

    ***"But I can make an argument for objective morality based on logic, reason, and truth."***

    Okay then, we're waiting!!!! I get the feeling that we might be waiting a little bit longer though!

    ***"Persons calling themselves “Christians” mean nothing. And I have not quoted the bible in this thread or in my argument. You have. I rely on logic. You seem to be appealing to the bible. Your failure is not in a wrong interpretation of God's words, but in poor logic borne of poor thinking."***

    I quoted the bible to show the subjective nature of Christian morality. You call yourself a Christian, do you not? So, I guess that means nothing?!?! Where is your evidence that says there's only one true interpretation of the bible, therefore there can be only one true interpretation of Christian morality? We all have a personal relationship with God according to the bible. With that evidence in place, it's difficult to claim that there's only one true interpretation of Christian morality. I claimed that Christian morality is subjective because it can be interpreted differently by differently people. Your counter was....

    ***"lol. If I were not used to the convoluted “logic” atheists use to escape this conundrum, your mental gymnastics here would have confused me.***

    Again, there's no argument here. The only conundrum I can see here is your assumption that your interpretation of Christian morality is the only true one. You show no evidence in scripture, in nature, and in a social manner that your interpretation of morality is objective. All we have from you is a claim, but again, nothing at all to back your claim. 

    I made the claim that morality is not objective, because if it were, the same morality code would be in place across all borders, and throughout all time. Obviously, this is not the case. What was your counter argument to this??????

    ***"Sorry, but this is illogical and untrue. It is another baseless assumption made from poor thinking."***

    This is not an argument here, it's just a claim without any evidence....woop woop whoa, I'm starting to see a pattern here. This is just another one of those claims that I'm wrong, but without any evidence. I do know that the definition of an objectivist argument as it's written, does require some logical evidence. I also know that making a claim of the fallacious nature of my arguments without any evidence at all, does not even approach objectivism. Lets take a look at your train wreck of an argument of whether the law is objective.

    ***"Applies to" does not mean, "they accept it". It means it is authoritative, just as the law " applies" to you whether you accept it or not."***

    ***"The law” is subjective. And subjectivity has nothing to do with authority."***

    So ya, you made an argument that contradicted your own argument. It seems your having a little trouble with keeping your arguments consistent. In an earlier post made by you, you claimed "It means it's authoritative, just as the law applies", but in your last post you claimed, "The law is subjective. And subjectivity has nothing to do with authority". I just want to point out the contradictory hole you've dug for yourself here. First you claim the law is objective and applies to all, which I agree with, but then you go way out into left field and do an about face on your original argument and claim that the law is subjective, and subjectivity has nothing to do with authority. Wow, talk about a claim without any logical basis at all. Perhaps you could clarify this obvious discrepancy in your argument.

    ***"Morality is not relative. Not if you know the definition of objective. But you undercut your own argument. The law is violated everyday even with it being an authority."***

    And just to keep us on our toes, you switched back to the law being an authority again, but this time you claimed that even with this authority in place, it's still violated everyday. Not sure what point you're trying to make here.

    I may do something that you may consider to be immoral, but that won't put me at risk of being pursued, then summoned to court, then ultimately prosecuted and convicted and sentenced. If I violate the law, I certainly run the risk of all of that happening to me. The law may be violated everyday, but there are consequences for doing so, and those consequences are true for everybody. That is an authority that applies to all, however, me breaking someone else's moral code while being within the context of the law, won't cause any authorative ramifications. Even if what I've done was sinful in the eyes of God, that doesn't necessarily mean that I won't be forgiven for my infraction, I may atone for my sin. So what does all this mean? The law is an authority, morality is not!!!!

    ***"You go believe that any morality is as valid as any other, and I will stick to logic. But when I see you condemning others based on your subjective morality, excuse me when I call you on it."***

    Well, if there is a God, I'd like to thank him for giving me the free will to choose to condemn others based on my subjective morality, because I've chosen that to be my purpose on this earth. I fail to find any convincing arguments here on whether morality is authoritative and objective!!!!


      

  • @Evidence

    Dude!!!!! Queen was NOT a "glorified gay rock group". They were selling out huge stadiums before anybody even knew whether Freddie Mercury was gay or not. Furthermore, Freddie Mercury was the only gay member of that band, there were three other members of that band who were not gay and all of them contributed to the process of songwriting. I also fail to see what would be wrong with a gay rock band. None of the members of led zepplin were gay, and they couldn't hold a candle to the awsomenimity of Queen. Ya, that's right, Queen was so f#cking awesome that I had to make up a new word to describe them. 
    Zombieguy1987
  • EvidenceEvidence 799 Pts
    edited January 5
    piloteer said:
    @Evidence

    Dude!!!!! Queen was NOT a "glorified gay rock group". They were selling out huge stadiums before anybody even knew whether Freddie Mercury was gay or not. Furthermore, Freddie Mercury was the only gay member of that band, there were three other members of that band who were not gay and all of them contributed to the process of songwriting. I also fail to see what would be wrong with a gay rock band. None of the members of led zepplin were gay, and they couldn't hold a candle to the awsomenimity of Queen. Ya, that's right, Queen was so f#cking awesome that I had to make up a new word to describe them. 
    @piloteer
    Such superficial comment, .. it's almost like saying: "we went to the moon, .. the earth is a globe, .. planets and space is real, .. gravity exists in mass", etc....
    all based on the pictures, CGI cartoons, a lot of "we are your .gov so it's true because we say so, and we collect billions a month so we should know better!"

    Yes, Queens songs were catchy no denying that, and if you know who Lucifer was, you'd understand why that is. This agenda leads into a really deep rabbit hole. Even his name Mercury was specifically chosen, it's supposedly a secret government code/plan, and with all the FTM's and MTF's in charge of entertaining (brainwashing) us, we now know what that "code" is, or what the "secret agenda" is.
    The LGBT.gov is waging a war on humanity, especially altering, even destroying the human emotion, .. and the movies, the new laws, Trannies or "Queens" in the Whitehouse etc. show this, like the movies "Beauty and the Beast" (glorifying bestiality), .. "Frozen" (cold hearted) ESPECIALLY this last Transformer movie called 'BumbleBee" my son just took me to last night, where the little MTF actor falls in love with a robot, who is "more compassionate then any human ever could be", .. yeah right, .. now ain't that special!? Who needs human contact when the kids have Siri, their "smart phones" and all these other 
    • Jibo. Jibo is a cute little robot that reminds me of Wall-E from the Pixar film. ...
    • Asus Zenbo. ...
    • Ubtech Lynx. ...
    • Budgee by 5 Elements Robotics. ...
    • Emotech Olly Robot. ...
    • Robo Temi. ...
    • Aido by Ingen Dynamic. ...
    • Personal Robot by Robot Base.
    .. just to name a few, add this to the Queen/Lady Gag-me Gaga and the other MTF/FTM musicians music, and "being normal" is almost illegal anymore.
    I do like your new word though: "awsomenimity", .. it's like, really "heavy man!".

    Look, Queen Is A Glorified Rock Group and you know it, with a "Queen" leading the group. Besides that, when was the last time you heard anything about the "AIDS epidemic"? In the 80's that's all we heard on TV and Radio, at the coffee machine at work, yet today, as if it no longer existed? But of course "Being an atheist" this new kind of morality would be normal.
    Why?
    Because "being an atheist" means your morality is dictated by popularity, .. whatever is popular, is accepted as morally right. And of course our One World .gov seals each moral change by making it into law.



  • >Yes, I consider all morality to be valid, because morality is relative. It's nothing more than a social construct!!! What logical evidence have you brought to this discussion that shows morality is objective?         

    Please stop being silly. I've posted only a single post to you. First I tell you my position, and then I defend it. That is why this site allows more than one post. Calm down.

    >You said.....
    >***"Or maybe I'm saying Christians follow objective morality, and that objective morality applies to everyone. There exists only objective morality. Anything else is not morality."***

    >There's no evidedence here. 

    None was needed.

    >For you to make an objective argument about the nature of morality, you'll need to have some kind of convincing evidence to back your claim.

    Only if I pretend along with you that only I need evidence for claims. I don't pretend. Morality being subjective is a claim. Do you have any evidence for it?

    >Those are just claims with nothing to back it. It's an empirical claim, and empiricism is the antithesis of objectivism.

    You obviously don't get the forum concept. Pay attention now. Make a claim first, and after present evidence. This happens over more than one post. Calm down.

    >When I made the argument that morality is not authoritative, you retorted with......

    ***"We need not guess. It can be logically demonstrated that morality, to apply to anyone, needs to be authoritative."***

    >Okay then, feel free to logically demonstrate this, but so far, all we've got here is a claim that you can logically demonstrate this, but you've done nothing in the way of actually demonstrating anything.

    Because this is only my 2nd post to you Jethro. Calm down.

    >Just so you know, this is an open forum, feel free to make an argument anytime.

    Thanks for the permission.

    >When I quoted the bible to show that God gave us free will to choose whatever path we want, you made this counter argument.

    ***"Untrue. Authority does not mean God only has choice, but that we are accountable for our free choices to His authority.***

    >You've just summed up exactly why Christian morality is not authoritative when you said "Authority does not mean God only has choice". Yes that's absolutely true, we all have a choice in what path we choose. If we have the free will to choose whichever path we want, then morality cannot be considered authoritative. 

    You obviously don't know what “authority” means in the context of philosophy. I will help you. But you are currently so lacking in knowledge, I will have to bring you up to speed slowly.

    >Do you claim that we have no choice to dispel Gods word, and choose a path to hell and eventually "true death"?

    No.

    >Do you claim that we are not free to disregard the teachings of Gods word and accept that there is no such thing as heaven or hell?

    As there is a Heaven and Hell, your question is nonsensical.

    >Do you claim that we are not free to try and embrace Gods word by accepting Jesus Christ, and we will do everything in our power to never stray from his word?

    No. This claim is both illogical and irrelavant to any argument I wish to make.

    >Do you claim that we cannot falter and eventually realize our wicked ways and embrace Gods word?

    How is this relevant?

    >Do you claim that we are not free to be devout Christians, but eventually reject Gods word and become athiest?

    How is this relevant?

    >God leaves us free to choose whatever path we want, even if that path only leads to the fire! It is NOT in Gods plan that any of us have a predetermined path, if we did, that would mean God created some people simply for the purpose of sending them to hell.

    How is this relevant?

    >For your argument to work, you would have to prove that God has a predetermined path for all of us, and for some of us, that means we were created for the purpose of eventually going to hell because it was worked into his plan that way. God gave everyone the free will to choose. Our free will IS Gods plan.

    lol. First you say I've presented no argument, and then are now telling me what my argument is. None of what you've said here is my argument, or has any relevance to my actual argument.

    ***"But I can make an argument for objective morality based on logic, reason, and truth."***

    >Okay then, we're waiting!!!! I get the feeling that we might be waiting a little bit longer though!

    You seem to have a poor understanding of what waiting is. You're already impatient at only my 2nd post to you. I will not be held to your silly skepticism borne of impatience. Calm down.

    ***"Persons calling themselves “Christians” mean nothing. And I have not quoted the bible in this thread or in my argument. You have. I rely on logic. You seem to be appealing to the bible. Your failure is not in a wrong interpretation of God's words, but in poor logic borne of poor thinking."***

    >I quoted the bible to show the subjective nature of Christian morality.

    The bible shows the opposite.

    >You call yourself a Christian, do you not? So, I guess that means nothing?!?! 

    To whether you are right or wrong, absolutely.

    >Where is your evidence that says there's only one true interpretation of the bible, therefore there can be only one true interpretation of Christian morality?

    How is this relevant? You may need the bible. I don't. Why do you keep assuming I need to refer to it or some interpretation of it?

    >We all have a personal relationship with God according to the bible.

    Untrue. Not all of us do.

    >With that evidence in place, it's difficult to claim that there's only one true interpretation of Christian morality.

    Lol. That's your “evidence”?

    >I claimed that Christian morality is subjective because it can be interpreted differently by differently people.

    Anything can be “interpreted” differently. You as yet don't know what subjective and objective mean in a philosophical context.

    >Your counter was....

    ***"lol. If I were not used to the convoluted “logic” atheists use to escape this conundrum, your mental gymnastics here would have confused me.***

    >Again, there's no argument here.

    None was needed.

    >The only conundrum I can see here is your assumption that your interpretation of Christian morality is the only true one.

    I have not made any assumptions. And I am still not talking about Christian morality but objective morality. Please pay attention. Are you always so hysterical?

    >You show no evidence in scripture, in nature, and in a social manner that your interpretation of morality is objective. All we have from you is a claim, but again, nothing at all to back your claim.

    It's like I'm talking to an AI not.  What are you talking about?

    >I made the claim that morality is not objective, because if it were, the same morality code would be in place across all borders, and throughout  time. Obviously, this is not the case. What was your counter argument to this??????

    ***"Sorry, but this is illogical and untrue. It is another baseless assumption made from poor thinking."***

    >This is not an argument here, it's just a claim without any evidence....woop woop whoa,...

    It is illogical. Morality being objective has nothing to do with whether the same morality code would be in place across all borders, and throughout  time. Your simply saying it doesn't make it true.

    >I'm starting to see a pattern here.

    After only one post? Lol. The “pattern” exists only between your ears.
  • @piloteer

    >This is just another one of those claims that I'm wrong, but without any evidence.

    You have to prove your claims, I do not have to prove them wrong. Your claim is illogical, your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise.

    >I do know that the definition of an objectivist argument as it's written, does require some logical evidence.

    I said nothing about an objective argument. I don't even know what that would be. I spoke about objective morality. Are you confused?

    >I also know that making a claim of the fallacious nature of my arguments without any evidence at all, does not even approach objectivism. Lets take a look at your train wreck of an argument of whether the law is objective.

    Lol. Again, I made no argument. And I did not say the law was objective, I said it was authoritative. Do you have a problem with reading comprehension?

    ***"Applies to" does not mean, "they accept it". It means it is authoritative, just as the law " applies" to you whether you accept it or not."***

    ***"The law” is subjective. And subjectivity has nothing to do with authority."***

    >So ya, you made an argument that contradicted your own argument.

    Lol. The law is subjective, but authoritative. You may need a dictionary.

    >It seems your having a little trouble with keeping your arguments consistent.

    Lol.

    >In an earlier post made by you, you claimed "It means it's authoritative, just as the law applies", but in your last post you claimed, "The law is subjective. And subjectivity has nothing to do with authority". I just want to point out the contradictory hole you've dug for yourself here.

    Lol. You think authoritative means objective. Funny. How old are you?

    >First you claim the law is objective and applies to all, which I agree with, but then you go way out into left field and do an about face on your original argument and claim that the law is subjective, and subjectivity has nothing to do with authority.

    Perhaps you could then post where I said the law was objective?

    >Wow, talk about a claim without any logical basis at all. Perhaps you could clarify this obvious discrepancy in your argument.

    Sorry. The “discrepancy” is only in your head. Poor reading comprehension.

    ***"Morality is not relative. Not if you know the definition of objective. But you undercut your own argument. The law is violated everyday even with it being an authority."***

    >And just to keep us on our toes, you switched back to the law being an authority again, but this time you claimed that even with this authority in place, it's still violated everyday. Not sure what point you're trying to make here.

    You think I switched…lol.

    >I may do something that you may consider to be immoral, but that won't put me at risk of being pursued, then summoned to court, then ultimately prosecuted and convicted and sentenced. If I violate the law, I certainly run the risk of all of that happening to me.

    So?

    >The law may be violated everyday, but there are consequences for doing so, and those consequences are true for everybody.

    Do you really believe this? How old are you really? This only means the law is authoritative, it does not mean it is objective.

    >That is an authority that applies to all, however, me breaking someone else's moral code while being within the context of the law, won't cause any authorative ramifications.

    I agree, and if I was talking about someone else's moral code, you would have a point.

    >Even if what I've done was sinful in the eyes of God, that doesn't necessarily mean that I won't be forgiven for my infraction, I may atone for my sin. So what does all this mean? The law is an authority, morality is not!!!!

    The law can be an authority, but is subjective, morality, to be authoritative, cannot be subjective. It isn't complicated or hard to understand if you read slowly and tune down the hysteria.

    ***"You go believe that any morality is as valid as any other, and I will stick to logic. But when I see you condemning others based on your subjective morality, excuse me when I call you on it."***

    Well, if there is a God, I'd like to thank him for giving me the free will to choose to condemn others based on my subjective morality, because I've chosen that to be my purpose on this earth. I fail to find any convincing arguments here on whether morality is authoritative and objective!!!!

    Because you are free to do something does not automatically mean it is moral to do it. And if you think morality is subjective, condemning others becomes an act of hubristic stupidity. If morality is subjective, then there is no morality at all. And I will call out your stupidity if I see you morality condemn anyone.

    Have a nice day.
    piloteerZombieguy1987
  • @Evidence

    The LGBT community is not waging a war on humanity, that war has already been fought and won. Homosexuality is accepted in America. It sounds to me like you identify as some kind of a Christian. You know, I think I've heard of that, it's sort of a popular religion I guess. Whoa, I just thought of something, you criticized me for basing my morality on what's popular, but it seems to me that your morality is based on a popular belief too. Wow, isn't that so weird that you do exactly the thing that you criticized me for doing. You're wrong about my morality being based on popular culture, I have no morality. The law thats been outlined by the US constitution is the only authority I abide by. Morality is nothing more than a social construct, it's not a real thing. If I may quote the great David Bowie,  let me make it plain, gotta make way for the homo superior!!!
  • @ethang5

    You didn't have to post that you don't know what an objective argument is, we already know you don't!!! Look it up, it is a thing. You'd think that if someone claims that something is objective, they'd know what objectivism actually is, I guess you proved us all wrong on that one!
  • @Evidence dude i wish Lucifer was real, I've been trying to sell my soul to him since I was 10 and I've gotten no responses or payment yet. screw a heaven that might not exist Id love to be in as successful of a band as Queen and if the devil can give me that I'll take it.
    Zombieguy1987
  • @ethang5

    • OBJECTIVE arguments are often those that have to do with logos, that is, reason, evidence and logic, generally dealing with material questions (things that can be sensed or measured and have to do with the real outside world, outside of oneself).
    (Sigh) Okay, let me walk you through this so you can understand it. (feel free to take notes)Objectivity means that no matter how YOU feel about something, it is factual or false regardless of your feelings. For instance, your feeling that "arguments can't be objective", doesn't change the fact that objective arguments do exist. It seems like you're the type of person that when someone gives you an objective argument on why not to eat lead paint chips, you'll not be convinced unless you find out for yourself. I'm sorry about your lead paint poisoning, it's an affliction that often gets ignored in todays society, it's really not a laughing matter :D. I have no qualms with "remaking an aggressive militant", milititants don't scare me, especially when they're on a debate page and obviously cannot actually harm me. It's pretty easy to make aggressive militants foam at the mouth, just prove them wrong. 
  • Yes it does. If there is no God, there are no morals.
    SilverishGoldNovapiloteerEvidenceZombieguy1987JackNewton
  • edited January 6
    Zombieguy1987
  • piloteer said:
    @Evidence

    The LGBT community is not waging a war on humanity, that war has already been fought and won. Homosexuality is accepted in America. It sounds to me like you identify as some kind of a Christian. You know, I think I've heard of that, it's sort of a popular religion I guess. Whoa, I just thought of something, you criticized me for basing my morality on what's popular, but it seems to me that your morality is based on a popular belief too. Wow, isn't that so weird that you do exactly the thing that you criticized me for doing. You're wrong about my morality being based on popular culture, I have no morality. The law thats been outlined by the US constitution is the only authority I abide by. Morality is nothing more than a social construct, it's not a real thing. If I may quote the great David Bowie,  let me make it plain, gotta make way for the homo superior!!!
    @piloteer said: If I may quote the great David Bowie,  let me make it plain, gotta make way for the homo superior!!!

    Wow, nice, so you get your morals from the likes of David Bowie!?

    So morality is a social construct nothing more? Do you have any idea what Communists did to Believers who followed Christs teaching of "Love your enemies, and do good to them that hate you"?
    They tortured them day and night. Some were skinned alive in a shack just outside of town, where all night the residents could hear him screaming as each night they peeled a long strip of skin off his back telling him to renounce his allegiance to Christ!

    Tortured, burnt alive, .. for what? For refusing to hate, refusing to kill? For saying they loved Jesus and refused to deny him? No, Christs morality is NOT "based on popular culture", and Christians have waged brutal wars throughout their 1,700 year history.
    Just because Christians read the Bible and claim they follow Jesus Christ doesn't mean they do, and all we have to do is look at their history.

    I am no longer a Christian because I have seen first hand their hypocritical ways. I used to go to a nice, Bible based Christian Baptist Church, and on Veterans Day, they would call up on stage Vietnam, or Gulf-War veterans, and glorify their deeds, they praised their bravery, and their dedication to "God and Country" and everyone cheered and clapped.
    I so wanted to speak up and ask those poor deceived Christian-Veterans on stage: "Can you tell us in detail as to what you did in Vietnam, or in the Golf War? How many kills did you have, and whom did you kill? Who gave you the orders, and did you have Free Will to obey, or refuse them orders? Did you pray for your fellow Christians in that country you were ordered to attack?"

    During WWII the Pope used to go and bless the soldiers on both sides of the war, including Hitler and the Nazi Gestapo.

    Look, we have to have a moral code that is just for everyone, which is to hate the sin, and make sure they know it, .. and love the sinner back to repentance. We were all sinners, and it wasn't the Christian Pope who died for our sins. 
  • @Evidence dude i wish Lucifer was real, I've been trying to sell my soul to him since I was 10 and I've gotten no responses or payment yet. screw a heaven that might not exist Id love to be in as successful of a band as Queen and if the devil can give me that I'll take it.

    @WordsMatter Sounds like he already owns you, that's why he doesn't contact you, .. and is most likely working on how he could kill you.
    The reward part only comes dependent on your talent, and how many souls you are able to corrupt and bring to him? If it was up to Satan, he would kill every human at the drop of a hat, he hates us created in Gods Image.
  • Yes it does. If there is no God, there are no morals.

    @YeshuaBought .. I would say: "WHERE there is no God, there is no morals!" God is there always, just missing in these arguments on morality, .. right?
  • Yes it does. If there is no God, there are no morals.

    mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm…

    So, when Manifest Destiny which according to Americans was that God wanted them to expand the U.S to go west, which resulted in several wars, and thousands if not millions of deaths, that's MORAL!?

    But atheists/agnostics are the immoral ones,,,



    https://www.google.com/search?q=victims+of+religion&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=x&ved=0ahukewihu9jugorfahwkmeakhbtib00q_auidigb&biw=1920&bih=963&safe=active

    Socialism/Communism are great on paper, but all you need to do is look at Venezuela or North Korea see why these economic systems fail

    Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom 

    http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  • @ethang5

    Ya, I'm no longer addressing this issue with you any longer, this guy @Evidence is able to actually make arguments worth addressing. It would be a waste of words to address this any longer with you. Thank you for sharing!
    Zombieguy1987
  • piloteerpiloteer 185 Pts
    edited January 7
    @Evidence

    If the communists threw all the Russian Christians into a meat grinder and fed all the remains to all the authoritarian communist pigs without even cooking it first, who would truly be to blame? One may argue the communists are, but was it not the Christian Russians and the Russian people who let these atrocious crimes happen to them? Case in point, after WW2, in the United States there was a tremendous backlash against people who were openly communist in the 30s and 40s. Even everyday common folks were accused of being communists simply because they voted for FDR in the 30s and 40s. Obviously they were wrongly accused and ridiculed unjustly, but were they "skinned alive in a shack just outside of town, where all night the residents could hear (them) screaming as each night they peeled a long strip of skin off (their) backs, telling (them) to renounce (their) allegiance to Christ? No they weren't, because the people of America wouldn't let that happen, or I'd like to think they wouldn't(?). I'd like to think that the people of America would recognize that we already have a system in place that acts as an authority for us all. The law!!!! I would like to think that any supposed obligation, beyond the law, to anybody else's moral code would be an infringement on our individual liberty.

     Since when have I become responsible for the safety or justice of the Russian Christians? Maybe you think you are, but as for my responsibility to them, perhaps it would be better fitting for you to consult the American constitution. If you find anything that says I must take arms and fight for the safety or justice of anybody outside of the United States, please let me know. Until then, as far as I'm concerned, if they can't fight for and gain freedom on their own accord, whose to say they ever deserved It? Perhaps Russian matters are best left to Russian people.

    Beyond the authority of the law, would not any other moral authority be superfluous? How is your moral code any different from anybodies a$$hole? You know, we all have one, but somehow everybody seems to think theirs don't stink. How can I consider my supposed obligation to anybody elses moral authority (outside of the law) anything but an intrusion on my individual freedom? I have no qualms with Christians, just as I have none with communists, Muslims, Buhddists, Jews, white supremacists, black supremacists, beige supremacists, liberals, conservatives or Justin Beiber fans (or any other culture/religious group), so long as their moral code can be applied within the context of the law. The only true infraction I would hold any of them accountable for, is if they were to violate the law, or become some kinda moral vigilante group bent on altering the law to fit their own moral needs. Whatever moral code YOU may adhere to is your choice, but if you try to force any obligation on me, or alter the law to fit your own "moral needs" , don't worry, I'll be here to oppose you!!!!!
    Evidence
  • @Evidence how did he own me at ten? All for a B on that spelling test!? I should have held out for more. Jokes on Satan I want to die so if he kills me I get my wish. I never asked God to make me, so I'll ask Satan to take me.
  • @piloteer

    Yes, .. that's the whole argument; "the Law", who makes or changes it, and what's their agenda behind it. 

    In Communism the governments used poverty and the collapse of the economy to bring about "Communism as thethe Law"! Communism sounds real good on paper, it's actually a take on Christs teaching; to share what you have, in love, .. this "Love Your Neighbor as you love yourself" thingy. In the Old Christian tradition, like the Spanish Inquisition, torture was to: "save the soul from eternal torment". I mean on the surface that sounds right, .. better to torture someone for a while in hopes of saving their soul from eternal hellfire, .. right?

    So again, who makes or changes the law, and what's their agenda behind it? Communism claimed to put an end to poverty, and equal out the gap between the Rich, and the poor. Instead, they created the very rich, and very powerful and the very poor, and very powerless. And when it became obvious this wasn't working, who did they blame it on, .. was it communism? Oh no, they convinced everyone that it was the people. They wanted to own their own stores and markets, their own farms again, .. so selfish. So they start killing anyone and everyone who "opposed" working FOR the people, for the Motherland, or Fatherland, took everything they had. And oh yeah, made sure they understand that "there is no God", thus altering the heart, soul and mind of people, just as we have it today. In the U.S. the altering is still going on, but the "fight, for your right" in people is gone. And whatever "fight/protest" that does exist, is orchestrated, just like the 1967 Detroit Riots.

    piloteer said - Whatever moral code YOU may adhere to is your choice, but if you try to force any obligation on me, or alter the law to fit your own "moral needs" , don't worry, I'll be here to oppose you!!!!! 

    Are you opposing this?



    especially time: 2:18 and on?

    Zombieguy1987
  • @Evidence how did he own me at ten? All for a B on that spelling test!? I should have held out for more. Jokes on Satan I want to die so if he kills me I get my wish. I never asked God to make me, so I'll ask Satan to take me.
    @WordsMatter I don't get it my friend, you believe that God "made you", .. yet you want Satan to "take you"? Why not turn to God and see if He will let you understand why he made you, to let you know what's your purpose in living? 

    What I meant about Satan already having you, or owning you is because after Adams fall, we are born into sin, .. so Satan owns us. But we have Free Will, and can fight for our freedom from being a slave to Satan/sin.

    God provided a way to free us from slavery, sent His son Word. If "Words really Matter" to you, then you should check out the Word, not from an Organized Religions perspective like this one:


    , but from your God given Free Will.
    I really believe know how you feel, .. at least about what you wrote. Just remember that "fame" is a show, .. they get paid to act to look famous, and no matter how miserable they are, they have to keep acting. It's a job, and many commit suicide, and those who can't, wish they were dead.

    Just because it's popular to deny the existence of God, which we were trained to believe through Religious Doctrines like the Big-Bang and Evolution stories, why not truly put an effort into getting to know Him? What's the worst thing that could happen, .. what, get ridiculed?
    Zombieguy1987
  • @Evidence the best inoculation to Christianity is 12 years in Catholic School. It's laughable to think I'll ever believe in there Christian god. If you want to talk Buddhist philosophy Id do that
    Zombieguy1987
  • @Evidence the best inoculation to Christianity is 12 years in Catholic School. It's laughable to think I'll ever believe in there Christian god. If you want to talk Buddhist philosophy Id do that
    @WordsMatter ;

    Why, you think the Buddhist gods are any more real than the Christian ones? Why would you think I was talking about "Christian gods"? I said: God provided a way to free us from slavery, sent His son Word. If "Words really Matter" to you, then you should check out the Word, not from an Organized Religions perspective like this one:
    No wonder you want Satan to kill you, .. get out of, and away from the Christian gods, the Bible aka Gods Word is NOT Christian, just as not everyone who owns a Bible is a Believer, or follower of Jesus Christ.
    Zombieguy1987
  • @Evidence easy answer to your entire post. Many Buddhists don't believe in a God, which makes everything you just said moot. How do you know the Bible is right if you know so little about other religions?
    Zombieguy1987
  • @piloteer

    >Ya, I'm no longer addressing this issue with you any longer,....

    Lol. When did you begin addressing it? You stayed away from objective morality like a roach from a can of raid.

    >this guy @Evidenceis able to actually make arguments worth addressing.

    You couldn't justify subjective morality. You thought authoritative and objective meant the same thing, you tried to shift the burden of proof. But Evidence makes the cookie cutter arguments your paint by the numbers atheism is used to, so you're there. Have fun "addressing" your caricatures.

    >It would be a waste of words to address this any longer with you.

    As I told you 3 posts ago. If you think morality is subjective, calling anyone immoral is stupidity. Arguing against morality is stupidity. You finally agree.

    >Thank you for sharing!

    I shared nothing. I exposed the vacuous nature of your argument. But you're welcome.
    piloteer
  • @ethang5

    Even if those arguments are cookie cutter arguments, at least they ARE arguments. If you don't have any, then you should probably just go back to your coloring book and leave the debating up to the big boys and girls. 
    Zombieguy1987
  • @Evidence

    I'm not quite sure what point your trying to make. Your rant about communism is compelling, but the video with the cross dresser kinda confuses me. What does that have to do with communism? Could you perhaps clarify what specific message you're trying to make?
    Zombieguy1987
  • @Evidence easy answer to your entire post. Many Buddhists don't believe in a God, which makes everything you just said moot. How do you know the Bible is right if you know so little about other religions?

    There are 7 billion gods, ..  in Buddhism, you are the god-self, only lost, so Buddha sat alone till he found god through some mental mazes, within himself. But you're right, Buddhists don't believe in a God, they don't know what they believe, . The monks search their minds in some modern Yoga position till a spirit enters them, and let it take them over, thus "Enters the Dragon", and now that's their god.

    I shown you the video of the Pope too, he doesn't know what he believes either. I mean for someone to have read the Bible and come up with "God created the Big Bang and let nature evolve everything" is not operating on his own mind, but some spirit is yanking his chains. That's why I said to get out of Organized Religion, take Gods Word the Bible, and then do like Buddha, and seek God just you, and Gods Word. People who go into these religious rituals like self-seeking can end up worse then before they started their search. There are many spirits waiting to be your god.
    "Man murders wife and kids claiming 'god told him to do it'" .. things like that.

    It's like trying to put a car together without instructions from its maker. I mean maybe you get close, but it'll never run. Even with instruction it's hard, let alone when you get your instruction from an Organized Religious leader. They'll never give you the whole truth, because then you wouldn't need them anymore, won't depend on them, so they give people just enough to keep them coming back.
    Religion is a Yoke no one can bear. And when you complain, they tell you the real yoke is your money in your pocket, and ask you to give it up for "enlightenment", .. lol.

    Matthew 11:28-30 King James Version (KJV)

    28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

    29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

    30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

    Zombieguy1987
  • piloteer said:
    @Evidence

    I'm not quite sure what point your trying to make. Your rant about communism is compelling, but the video with the cross dresser kinda confuses me. What does that have to do with communism? Could you perhaps clarify what specific message you're trying to make?

    You were talking about the authority of the law, and if anyone tried to change that, they would have to contend with you (not verbatim)
    So I was just showing how bad, even sickening the Law could get, like in that Tranny video teaching our children. That would never have happened 50 years ago. But the Laws change, and not always to protect us or our children.

    But God NEVER changes, and even though Heaven and earth will pass away, His Word will never change, or pass away.

    In Communism, they offered promises in exchange for Jesus Christ. And now, they have a Russian traffic cop Jesus in Siberia that people are flocking to.



    Even though this commune looks good, we know that there is no real man-made Paradise. Like the Quakers and Shakers (and many other cults), without the Bible (Gods Word instructing them), it is destined to fail, .. unless of course this Jesus of theirs takes them all away on some space ship or something?
  • @Evidence how am I to trust the Bible over an organized religion when the decisions over what gospels to include and exclude was made by an organized religion and has changed since the time of Jesus? 

    Also what exactly is the problem with t it-he video of the drag queen (not a transgender person)? What law in there supposed to be here? Drag queens don't identify as women they are putting on an exaggerated performance for entertainment. Not only that but the more popular ones make Bank, just look at RuPaul.

    It seems like the guy in the video thinks that parents are trying to force their kids into becoming drag performers? Parents try to force their kids to become endless things, like let's say Christians for example, they will drag their kids to church and force religion down their throats. 50 years ago parents would force their children to get jobs. What law do you want here? That parents can't make their kids do anything or expose them to anything?
  • @piloteer

    >Even if those arguments are cookie cutter arguments, at least they ARE arguments.

    How would you know? You couldn't justify subjective morality. You thought authoritative and objective meant the same thing, you tried to shift the burden of proof. I doubt you'd know a good argument if it bit your nose.

    > If you don't have any,........

    I had, but either your poor reading comprehension or low IQ kept steering you to everything other than objective morality.

    But you go be a "big boy". I'll stick with logic thank you. Like I said, you are vacuous. Keep patting yourself on the back, your great debating ability warrants it.
    piloteerZombieguy1987
  • Zombieguy1987
  • @Evidence

    When you put your argument under a magnifying glass, you'll realize it doesn't actually address my argument. Perhaps a cross dressing storyteller would have been SOCIALLY unacceptable 50 years ago, but would it have been prohibited by the constitution? This argument falls apart quickly when you point out some other truths. 200 years ago, slavery was acceptable in America. 100 years ago, eugenics was all the rage. Are you trying to say that cross dressing is more of a sin than slavery or eugenics? In fact, exactly what scale can you point to that says some sins are worse than others? Is it not true that if we're guilty of one sin, we're guilty of them all? What says your sins are more acceptable than the sins of cross dressers? If you dig deep enough into the bible, you'll find that we ALL dress in a sinful manner. Perhaps you may think that a persons freedom to dress how they want, or freedom to love who they want, or freedom to not embrace social gender roles is somehow worse than owning other people, which inhibits their freedom in all manners. Or maybe you think that people who look different, or learn differently, or just plain, don't fit in, should be sterilized, or euthanized. Those things are sins too.

    You seem to have a real issue with communism, but why then do your arguments possess the very same mentality of the communists. Do the sins of the cross dresser somehow make us all more sinful? Since when did sin become a collective phenomenon? Are you more sinful in God's eyes because a cross dresser was invited to tell stories to kids? Communism is the belief that we are all one, we are a collective. So if you're opposed to communism, wouldn't it be best NOT to identify all of society as a collective? We all have a personal relationship with God, we are all individuals in God's eyes, so others peoples supposed sins shouldn't reflect badly on you in God's eyes. In fact, if all of society succumbed to decadence and began worshipping pop culture icons and forgot about God, except you, wouldn't it look better for you in God's eyes? Think about it. If every one on earth willfully rejected God's word except you, you would look like a saint. The last saint. Maybe they'll make a movie about you. Who would you want to play your part? Dude, Patton Aswolt is your spittin. Do I smell a golden globe award? You should probably start thinking about what your gonna wear. And if you aren't comfortable with accepting your award because of your disdain for pop culture, don't worry, your pal Pilot will be there to accept the award in your honor. No need to thank me, that's what friends are for. Oh geez, I gotta go figure out what I'm gonna wear. Later!!!
  • @Evidence how am I to trust the Bible over an organized religion when the decisions over what gospels to include and exclude was made by an organized religion and has changed since the time of Jesus? 

    Also what exactly is the problem with t it-he video of the drag queen (not a transgender person)? What law in there supposed to be here? Drag queens don't identify as women they are putting on an exaggerated performance for entertainment. Not only that but the more popular ones make Bank, just look at RuPaul.

    It seems like the guy in the video thinks that parents are trying to force their kids into becoming drag performers? Parents try to force their kids to become endless things, like let's say Christians for example, they will drag their kids to church and force religion down their throats. 50 years ago parents would force their children to get jobs. What law do you want here? That parents can't make their kids do anything or expose them to anything?
    Evidence how am I to trust the Bible over an organized religion when the decisions over what gospels to include and exclude was made by an organized religion and has changed since the time of Jesus? 

    I used to struggle with them same questions too, .. like why would God allow to have the pagan, multi-god worshipping Religion like the RCC take both the OT and the NT writings, and even allow them to pick and choose which should be included in one book which we now call the Bible?
    But then I read Exodus and other stories how God allowed pagan god worshippers to rule over the world, His people, and individuals like Joseph, and then I understood. God wants men who will "seek, knock, search and fight/debate for the truth", .. even if it cost us our lives. God made Pharaoh for just this purpose, .. that is; His purpose.
    Well the same with the pagan-gods RCC, had them put together the OT and NT writings, and they chose what God instructed them to choose to put in there. The "decision" was really Gods. The few things that the RCC changed are pretty obvious and anyone with a true desire to know God can "see that". Like the Dead Sea Scrolls, or gravity, it should be obvious to all that all it is, is men trying to be like God, .. they need it to create their own little Heaven and earth, or universe, and alter and reinstate Gods Word to fit their agenda. Sort of kick God out of their lives.

    WordsMatter -Also what exactly is the problem with t it-he video of the drag queen (not a transgender person)? What law in there supposed to be here? Drag queens don't identify as women they are putting on an exaggerated performance for entertainment. Not only that but the more popular ones make Bank, just look at RuPaul.

    I guess you wouldn't mind Kindergarteners be introduced to naked pole dancers, go-go-bar exotic dancers, and prostitutes? After all, they say it's the 'oldest trade in the world". And after the show, ask them: "Now who want's to be a Prostitute, .. huh? You can make a lot of money! Here; put this on and try pole dancing!
    Image result for barbie hooker Image result for barbie hooker  Related image  Image result for barbie hooker L.A. Hooker Barbie set.


    WordsMatter - It seems like the guy in the video thinks that parents are trying to force their kids into becoming drag performers?

    Naaw, .. you think?

    WordsMatter - Parents try to force their kids to become endless things, like let's say Christians for example, they will drag their kids to church and force religion down their throats. 50 years ago parents would force their children to get jobs. What law do you want here? That parents can't make their kids do anything or expose them to anything?

    Oh dear, .. you're right. What's next, force them to read the Bible? So you would expose your children to anything and everything?
    Kindergarten teacher: "Ok kids, today we will learn how to be a high payed prostitute. Who want's to dress up as 'Hooker Barbie' first? Billy, Tom, .. would you like to go first, .. and you'll get to take home a RuPaul doll free!"

    Related image

  • @piloteer

    Still doing your stupid act eh?

    Do you find that .gifs really help you when your stupidity is pointed out?

    Morality cannot be objective unless it is authoritative. Any online moron can simply claim that morality is subjective.

    You say morality is subjective and then talk as if your moral POV is anything more than ignorant opinion.

    Quick, post another .gif. You might fool a few lemmings into thinking you're a thinking debater.
  • piloteer said:

    @piloteer said: When you put your argument under a magnifying glass, you'll realize it doesn't actually address my argument. Perhaps a cross dressing storyteller would have been SOCIALLY unacceptable 50 years ago, but would it have been prohibited by the constitution? This argument falls apart quickly when you point out some other truths. 200 years ago, slavery was acceptable in America. 100 years ago, eugenics was all the rage. Are you trying to say that cross dressing is more of a sin than slavery or eugenics? In fact, exactly what scale can you point to that says some sins are worse than others? Is it not true that if we're guilty of one sin, we're guilty of them all? What says your sins are more acceptable than the sins of cross dressers? If you dig deep enough into the bible, you'll find that we ALL dress in a sinful manner. Perhaps you may think that a persons freedom to dress how they want, or freedom to love who they want, or freedom to not embrace social gender roles is somehow worse than owning other people, which inhibits their freedom in all manners. Or maybe you think that people who look different, or learn differently, or just plain, don't fit in, should be sterilized, or euthanized. Those things are sins too.

    Deuteronomy 22:5 A woman must not wear men’s clothing, and a man must not wear women’s clothing, for whoever does these things is detestable to the LORD your God. 
    .. I know I don't have to list the rest for you, you know it.

    God created us, created nature, he despises those who go against nature causing us to suffer because of it. Yet look how man rebels, and all under the pretense of "caring for and saving nature". 

    Go Green, .. Recycle, .. Children's Cancer Foundation, .. Bionics, .. GMO-foods, .. Chem-trailing to save the planet from Global Warming, .. Free Flu-shots, .. Gender equality, .. Free Abortion, .. Free breast examinations, .. Welcoming UFO Alien bacterial life, .. and there are organizations to support this, like the LGBT, .. Planned Parenthood, .. Sustainable development, .. One World Order, .. NASA.gov, oh wait, I already said One World Order.

    You are conflating sin, with sinners. A sinner can always change his ways, it's called repentance. But sin is sin, it remains an act against nature and is destructive. We don't combat sin by introducing our Children to Transgender issues which confuses them about their very nature.
    Like you mention history, yes, .. this all came slowly and really started to take off 1,700 years ago when the RCC created the Christian Religion, which they did with a good thing, compiling the OT and the New writings of the Prophets of God, and the Apostles, into a book we call the Bible. Only they could never accept Bible God, so they invited their own gods instead through a Doctrine called the Trinity-gods.

    As with all dangerous ideologies like Communism, Satan offers something that on the surface sounds good, but it is sure to destroy us. He knows this, and he started right after God created man in His image, and put him in the same spot; "Eden" where Lucifer used to be the ruler/god over, .. until of course his actions, his rebellion against God and nature ruined it, devastated it, turned it into chaos and left it in darkness, useless, unsustainable, as he is doing it again, and again. Noah's flood was the second time Lucifer aka Satan the devil  had the earth destroyed, and this next one will be his last. Neither he, nor his angels, nor men who are so dedicated to destroy the earth along with him, will be there to ruin it for us ever gain.

    piloteer - You seem to have a real issue with communism, but why then do your arguments possess the very same mentality of the communists. Do the sins of the cross dresser somehow make us all more sinful? Since when did sin become a collective phenomenon? Are you more sinful in God's eyes because a cross dresser was invited to tell stories to kids?

    What's next, .. invite a pedophile to class, or a representative from NAMBLA? Inviting, or even allowing such unnatural act to go by as if it was something natural is a sin in itself.
    The issue I have with "communism" is that it offers solutions by taking God out of peoples lives, out of their hearts and minds, and we seen the result of that haven't we? It will haunt us for many generations to come. 

    piloteer - Communism is the belief that we are all one, we are a collective. So if you're opposed to communism, wouldn't it be best NOT to identify all of society as a collective? We all have a personal relationship with God, we are all individuals in God's eyes, so others peoples supposed sins shouldn't reflect badly on you in God's eyes. In fact, if all of society succumbed to decadence and began worshipping pop culture icons and forgot about God, except you, wouldn't it look better for you in God's eyes? Think about it. If every one on earth willfully rejected God's word except you, you would look like a saint. The last saint. Maybe they'll make a movie about you. Who would you want to play your part? Dude, Patton Aswolt is your spittin. Do I smell a golden globe award? You should probably start thinking about what your gonna wear. And if you aren't comfortable with accepting your award because of your disdain for pop culture, don't worry, your pal Pilot will be there to accept the award in your honor. No need to thank me, that's what friends are for. Oh geez, I gotta go figure out what I'm gonna wear. Later!!!

    Yes, that's what Communism is about, that we are all to be One, under One Rule, One ideology, and resistance will not be tolerated, much less praised.

    You want my answer to this, you'll find it in Genesis chapter 19:1 - (whole chapter)

    19:1 Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them, and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground. 2 And he said, “Here now, my lords, please turn in to your servant’s house and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you may rise early and go on your way.”

    Sodom’s Depravity

    4 Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. 5 And they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally.”

    LOL,now that you mention about Patton Oswalt, I looked him up and .. yeah, I guess he does look like me, only it's nothing how I looked at 49. Oh, and from his info it looks like he's only 5'3", so I tower over him with my 5'5" height, .. lol. Also, I never really worried about what I'm going to wear, you know, it's that "I'm too sexy for my shirt" thingy. Just kidding
    It is funny though, him being a comedian, .. which I know I could have easily become, and have you accept all my awards for me, .. were it not for my Love for God and my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
    I still try to bring a little "comedy" into my debates, .. only I think that my comments on the subject of the debate keeps people from laughing!?
    "Hey, this evidence guy is funny, .. wait, did he just suggest I'm going to hell? Nope, he's not funny anymore, mark him 'irrelevant'!"

    Here is a group I like, well kind of, and agree with their message, not totally on their presentation of it, .. not that it's not Biblical!


    God bless you piloteer.
  • @ethang5

    You are absolutely correct. Morality cannot be objective unless it's authorative, and you cannot even come close to point out who or what or where that authority is. Let me save time for you, you won't ever be able to so don't waste your time looking!!! 
    Zombieguy1987
  • dboxdbox 25 Pts
    I agree, it does not mean an atheist lacks morality. I would say that the moral code they do have is without a solid foundation, however. An atheistic worldview does not provide the necessary framework for building a consistent ethical code. 
    piloteer
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch