- + New Debate
- Debate News
- About
- Debra AI More
frame
Best Fallacy Content
-
Does Morality Mean "Obeying Gods"?
Neither of you like to admit it, but you both know I'm right. Atheism does not offer an objective source of what is good and evil. Good and evil is just your personal opinion, or the opinion of a group. Either of which can be subjugated by a more powerful person or group. You can't say that something is objectively good or evil, only that it is your preference. Atheism is a substandard system of morality, because it really isn't about justice or defending the weak, but defending the interests of the most powerful. And we all know I'm right - and it angers you that it is true.Joeseph said:
-
Does Morality Mean "Obeying Gods"?
The debate isn't about your hate of God. My point is that there can not be objective morals within an atheistic framework - either morals are what an individual says they are, or what a group says they are. Both individuals and groups are flawed and subject to personal prejudices. Within atheism there is no objective source of morality to appeal to. Your morals are no better than the morals of a pedophiles - both of you do what you think is best for yourself. You may not like how I frankly frame the discussion, but it is the truth.Factfinder said:@just_sayin
Its not that atheists can't be moral people - its that atheism offers no basis for an objective morality
Kudos on your preaching abilities but as you know this is a debate site of which you've lost this debate numerous times already. No matter how many times you preach fallacy, it remains false.
Where your illogic always fails you is claiming an imaginary god derived from 66 fictious myth books combined into one, somehow dispenses morals when the violence contained within the writings are subject to human oversight and correction through the canonization process. In other words humans condoned acts of violence on behalf of their god as it is written and that just signifies human approval based in fantasy. Subjective. Open to interpretation. Far from objective. -
Is Religion a Mental Illness?
Well, atheism is not a formally recognized religion, though SCOTUS did claim humanism can be considered one. The Church of Satan has atheism as a principal belief, so it is indeed an atheistic religion - with a 503C classification.xlJ_dolphin_473 said:@RickeyHoltsclaw
Atheism is not a religion; it is better thought of as a-theism rather than athe-ism. The only factor uniting all atheists is the lack of belief in a god. There are many claims you do not believe - that does not make you a member of thousands of religions, one for each claim.
While atheism is not a religion unto itself, it does require a lot of extraordinary beliefs. You have to believe that everything can from nothing. That order came from chaos. That life came from non-life. That consciousness came from non-consciousness, and that morals came from matter. At least when a magician pulls a rabbit out of his hat, he has a hat. Many atheists assert that the universe came from zero space. How much stuff can you fit in zero space. If you have the faith of an atheist, you can fit a whole universe. I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist.
-
Does Morality Mean "Obeying Gods"?
Its not that atheists can't be moral people - its that atheism offers no basis for an objective morality. Atheists pretty much 'borrow' theistic moral systems. If you believe the universe came from nothing, then there ultimately is no right nor wrong. You are just the product of natural processes which created you. You have no certainty that your mind works without flaws, so you are using a brain created by imperfect processes to determine what is good and evil. Kinda sus. Further, since there is no objective moral foundation, the atheists morality is based on their own mind, which is an imperfect creation, and who is to say that your morals are any better than a serial killers morals. Your morality may conflict with the serial killers. So in this world view, might makes right. The morals of the powerful will prevail.
If you claim that morals are based on what the group says, then it is still not objective, as one group's morals may differ from yours. If one group decides its moral to kill your group, then might makes right.
If you argue that some things are right or wrong, no matter what the group claims, then you believe there is objective truth. However, there is no basis for such a thing within atheism. The atheist finds his feet firmly planted in midair - for their is no objective moral foundation in their world view. When you appeal to objective morals, know that they can only come from an objective moral lawgiver - and none exists in the atheists world view. -
How were people in the Old Testament (before Jesus) saved from the "second death" in Hell?
@Factfinder
You're attributing that quote to the wrong person dummy. Ricky said these things. Still waiting.
No need for a personal attack. -
How were people in the Old Testament (before Jesus) saved from the "second death" in Hell?
You're attributing that quote to the wrong person dummy. Ricky said these things. Still waiting.21CenturyIconoclast said:@Factfinder
.FACTDENIER,
Addressing your initial post at your laughable expense once again, how sad!
3. YOUR THIRD MISGUIDED JUDEO-CHRISTIAN QUOTE IN FRONT OF THE MEMBERSHIP: “Jesus is the divine “Door” (John 10:9-16) to the Kingdom for all who “believe” by “faith” that He, alone, is Messiah who died for the sins of the whole World Subsequent Messiah’s blood sacrifice,……….”
Again, your bible STU-PIDITY is shown once again when you proffer to believe by “faith alone,” where see proposition #1 in my post above in correcting your bible ineptness!
Then when the above bible mistakes you have made isn’t enough, then you erroneously state that Jesus is the Messiah, where you are WRONG again in front of the membership and RickeyHoltsclaw!!!
JESUS IS NOT THE MESSIAH FOR DUMMIES LIKE FACTDENIER AND RICKEYHOLTSCLAW, THE SHORT VERSION:
According to the prophecies within the JUDEO-Christian bible, the Messiah of the Christian faith must be a descendant of King David “through the flesh,” aka, sexual relations, whereas Paul substantiates this biblical axiom herewith: “Jesus the Messiah, our Lord, who was descended from David according to the flesh.” (Romans 1:3).
"Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;" (Acts 2:30)
Barring the FACT that Jesus never was raised up to sit on David’s throne, which is another biblical LIE, the following biblical facts are presented in Jesus not being the Messiah because Jesus was not born "through the flesh" of King David, period!
1. Luke claims that Mary was the cousin of Elizabeth, who he says was a descendant of Aaron, the high priest: “In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron.” This passage directly places Mary in the tribe of Levi because Aaron was a Levite, therefore Elizabeth being a cousin of Mary was a Levite too, therefore through family relations MARY IS A LEVITE! (Exodus 4:14-15)
2. Therefore, Mary's incestuous celestial impregnation by her own son Jesus, as being the Jewish god Yahweh incarnate, though his spirit, and Mary being a Levite, then Jesus IS NOT from the “fruit of the loins” from the House of David as a requirement for Jesus to be the Messiah as shown above! 2+2=4!
3. Deduced to its irreducible primary, Mary was NOT from the line of David, but the line of Levi, and Joseph being from the line of David was not the paternal father “through the fruit of the loins “ of David, therefore Jesus is in NOT the Messiah as biblically deduced, period! 2+2=4.
FACTDENIER, if you erroneously want to be more bible STU-PID than you are now, mention that Luke 3:28-38 is Mary’s tribal affiliation through King David, and I will BIBLE SLAP YOU SILLY AGAIN®️, understood?! YES?!
FACTDENIER, maybe next time, just don’t make an entire thread upon your own, because unfortunately, your bible STU-PIDITY has no bounds, and when you make a thread of your own, it stands out immensely at your bible inept expense!
Oh, and don’t forget to copy and paste my easy refutation herewith to use at another time to hopefully not make you the continued bible fool that you are “at this time,” okay? You’re welcome! LOL!
NEXT ASSUMED ATHEIST LIKE ….”FACTDENIER, AKA, FACTFINDER”…. THAT GIVES ATHEISM A BAD NAME FOR BEING SO BIBLE IN HIS RESPONSES TO THIS FORUM, WILL BE …..?
.
-
Gay at birth?
@just_sayin
One thing I do have for you, though, is a challenge: Find someone to whom you are not physically (it doesn't matter what sex) attracted and then choose to be physically attracted to them for a week. Then, choose to be physically no longer attracted to them.
Remember, this isn't about engaging in behaviour but physical attraction. Since you see these two concepts as the same thing anyway, this challenge shouldn't be too hard for you. -
How were people in the Old Testament (before Jesus) saved from the "second death" in Hell?
Yep, there I go. This is a religious thread in a religious forum so being in 'sin' means not believing and following all the Hindu and Greek gods. You transgress their laws. It's also a sin to spread vile bigoted hate against all others like you do. And these claims by me has equal standing as with all your claims in this specific thread.RickeyHoltsclaw said:@Factfinder ; Well there you go. -
Gay at birth?
@MayCaesar
One thing I am confused by what you said is that orientation may very well be purely environmental. Surely you can't be suggesting that biology plays no part in physical attraction? I'm not saying you are saying this. I am just asking for clarification.
I mean there might be some outlier cases where sexual orientation seems to be very much environmentally influenced but that doesn't negate any biological influence here and wouldn't make any sense to suggest that since you need biological underpinnings in the first place for biological organisms to be influenced by their environmental factors.
-
How were people in the Old Testament (before Jesus) saved from the "second death" in Hell?
The word sin is, unsurprisingly, not one of the newer additions to our vocabulary; it has been in use for well over a thousand years. Our current form of the word comes from the Middle English sinne, which is itself from the Old English syn. The original meanings of sin were largely concerned with religious matters (“a transgression of religious law,” “an offense against God”) https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/what-is-sin#:~:text=Our current form of the,an offense against God”).RickeyHoltsclaw said:Sin is a Greek word meaning to "miss the mark" an archery term. As far as its origin...do you own work...lazy atheist.
