Was Hitler a christian? and atheist morallity

[Kralizec]

I never said any society never had morals, we were all created by a moral god as moral beings, I said atheist are being inconstant saying there is such a thing as absolute morals. Few societies have been based on atheism, all recent. Hitler,stalin,pol pot etc all murdered millions.

I don't think morals are necessarily "absolute". There are, however, a few basic rules that are universally used across history because a functioning society would be unthinkable without them. A ban on arbitrary killing, i.e. murder being one of them.

I'm not convinced that Hitler was an atheist. Stalin and his buddies definitely were; but it's not atheism as such that inspired them to do the killing.

In fact a atheist brought it up as if the bible condoned slavery. I showed very diffident.

I've not read all your posts (too much, too long, sorry) but from what I know the old testament placed restrictions on it, i.e. regulated it and therefore condoned it.

Thank you for recanizing the delima of atheist morality. You in the end call some
"Sure, there are sociopaths, but that's a condition not caused by voluntary choice"

but what makes them "sociopaths"? how do you now your not the "sociopaths".

Short answer: sociopathy, or rather anti-social personality disorder is a psychiatic condition with specific traits. AFAIK the diagnostic criteria include that the subject has already displayed cruel behaviour from his early puberty and further.

]In fact you only feel ,murder,rape etc are wrong because the random chemical reactions in your brain make you feel that way. Not because it truly is right or wrong.

There's no distinction. You're arguing from the premise that there must be something beyond the mundane, biological explanations of brain functions for anything to be meaninful. As an atheist I disagree - I'm perfectly happy knowing that my thoughts and emotions are "chemical reactions".

I may be like hitler and think murdering is good, what makes your random chemical reactions correct and mine wrong?.They have no right to tell another person [random chemical reactions] That thinks murder,rape,sexism are good [hitler]. That that person is wrong to do so. there is no way to now if you, and not the other person have the right chemical reactions. In fact there is no "right" reactions, or good or bad.

You cannot give any reason that caging up woman to reproduce and pass on my genes is "wrong", in fact it is survival of the fittest. As hitler and darwin point out, you would be doing the opposite of evolution and what got us here to follow christian morals and to act like people have unalienable rights, and value.These are biblical ideas that people were created in the image of god.,

Atheists do not have a compulsion to "follow evolution" in our daily lives. I think caging up women for reproduction would be counter-effective in any case as far as the viability of your offspring is concerned, so that's moot.

If anything the atheists who overanalyze the workings beyond the human mind and ponder their existence too much would be apathic nihilists, not fanatics who hold evolution as their idol. In the case of Hitler I imagine (allthough I wouldn't know for a fact) that his nationalism and hatred of jews were beliefs he held before he came up with his racial theories to rationalize them.

Also the idea that "unalienable rights" (as in, rights that human individuals always have) are part of the biblical tradition is a pretty huge stretch - seeing as how they're from the Enlightenment era.

[Ironside]

What foundation than? survival of the fittest? Than you cannot reject hitlers morality,darwins, or my own favorite.

You cannot give any reason that caging up woman to reproduce and pass on my genes is "wrong", in fact it is survival of the fittest. As hitler and darwin point out,
why not as men are stronger lock them up and force them to have sex with us as we please?.

Hitler was going for survival of fittest, killing off weaker races people. He was helping evolution and survival of the fittest. If you do no harm to others, than you allow weak to survive.

An example on why people think you're new. I've already presented an example on why "survival of the fittest" can very well lead to the development of empathy and morals. Ignoring that and repeating the argument is poor debating style. You're better when it comes to the Bible parts.

Now, moral absolutism. How is it enforced? By God sends you to hell instead of heaven. Or in other terms, the enforcer executes a punishment. While the natural bias (I explained a bit on why such a thing can develop previously) will give preference to certain moral codes, it is that enforcer that keeps it together, when you have people breaking it. The thing is that the enforcer hardly needs to be a God.
Or simply: by saying that fornication is bad is how we keep fornication as bad and punish those who does it. That's all that needs to be done. And since it's disputed (and has lost as an argument is Sweden decades ago) it is losing ground today.
Now, in say the case of rape, we can make a better case since it's a physical and mental assult on the victim. Using deduction (if it's done on me is it good or bad), helped by empathy, we can conclude it's bad, even without an absolute moral arbiter.

I disagree fully, homosexuality is clearly wrong, according to the bible.

I was talking in general. Even the Bible version matters for interpretations. You use the International version? One example is the Destroyer (the entity killing the firstborn in Egypt, generally seen to been the archangel Uriel). Some versions doesn't translate that as an entity,b ut rather the process to determine on who to kil or not.

lol nice, I was just saying all the athiet usually bring up in order the ones you did. I agree though god judges, please bring all these up with genocide/plagues. You truly are bringing up all my favs, though the golden calf is very hard to understand. But the claims of genocide are false, and the circumstances around these show them not to be evil, but loving. Sounds crazy, wait for post. You just need to read entire bible. In fact I would reject a god that did not do what he did., time will show. I guess i will have to do a major objections to bible as I did on twc, plagues,conquest of canon,how can god send people to hell etc. But great topic's, now im all existed.

I'm sure I need to specify anything more on the Flood and Sodom and Gomorra. They were too immoral, destruction pending. Both Noah and Lot has quite morally questionable incidents afterward though. First human stock must have been horrible.

Numbers 25. Yes, God is angry for that some Israelites got seduced into Baal worshipping behind his back. But God is specific that Phinehas saved the Israelites from his wraith, that threatened to put an end to the Isrealites.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

7 When Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, saw this, he left the assembly, took a spear in his hand 8 and followed the Israelite into the tent. He drove the spear through both of them—through the Israelite and into the woman’s body. Then the plague against the Israelites was stopped; 9 but those who died in the plague numbered 24,000.

10 The Lord said to Moses, 11 “Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, has turned my anger away from the Israelites; for he was as zealous as I am for my honor among them, so that in my zeal I did not put an end to them.

Retaliation comes in Numbers 31, were Moses are a bit pissed off on the commanders for not killing enough civilians.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.

15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the Lord in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

You might justify the sexually active women as a punishment for the seduction, but the boys? Oh, and I do wonder what will happen to all those virgin girls that the sodiers can keep.

Also, if God acts in moral absolutes, then there's no time drift in values. If someone does the same thing as above today, is that good or evil? Does it change if it undisputed that this man is God's chosen?

I am sorry but had you read the bible, you would now that it is clearly if the child follows in sins of father.

Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.
Deut. 24:16
The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.
Ezekiel 18:20

I'll be brief, either the verses contradict each other (compare to Deut 23:1) or the complement each other. A spiritual crime seems to last longer, while a physical is not transfered.

You claim to have read bible, but I gota say, your theology and claims, fit the bill of a atheist book not the bible.

You can read parts of a book and not be swooshed away by it's message (I've never claimed to have red the whole Bible, only that my source was the parts of the Bible I've red). Your Bible skill should certainly surpass mine. It's the idea of some kind of holy atheist book that's annoys me. There is no such book. Sure it probably exist more than one book attacking Christianity that's been red by a few people, but I never red one of those and neither has most who doesn't believe in Christianity. And of those that have red such books, very few had some kind of relevation to why they stopped beliving.

God uses pharaohs heart, to show egypt and pharaoh that he was the one true god, that the nile,cows,flies etc were not gods, but he alone. It worked to, as many egptians left and joined isreal.

"Then the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides children. A mixed multitude went up with them also."
exodus 12 37-38.

Fair enough on that it varies. A few notes though. God hardens pharao's heart when the first born are to die. Bad coincidence perhaps. If I display my superiority and my awesome destructive powers by killing people, cattle, causing chaos and destruction, etc, etc, am I good or evil?

I have no idea were you get this from? eternal slavery idea. Or the idea god created men at diffident times. Please with your great knowledge of bible you have shown, provide evidence from bible.

Genesis 9. Noah gets drunk, his son Ham sees him naked (I've red the interpretation that it means rapes him, which might explain the anger better, but is horribly, horribly messed up), Naoh hears this and curses Caanan (Ham's son) to slavery. This can be interpretated to only one generation, but the slavers using this as justification (the black skin was the physical demonstration of the curse) was on to bloodlines into slavery.

Man created at different times was some idea to justify why black people, that should be slaves (according to the slavers) existed. Not really based on the Bible outside the idea that God created everything and nothing has ever changed.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

20 Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded[a] to plant a vineyard. 21 When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. 22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father’s nakedness and told his two brothers outside. 23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father’s nakedness. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father’s nakedness.

24 When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said,

“Cursed be Canaan!
The lowest of slaves
will he be to his brothers.”

26 He also said,

“Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem!
May Canaan be the slave of Shem.[b]
27 May God extend the territory of Japheth[c];
may Japheth live in the tents of Shem,
and may Canaan be his[d] slave.”

I have no idea what your saying, first you claim there are no moral absolutes, I have to ask are you absolutely sure?
than if there are no moral absolutes, how can you say child sacrifice is wrong?. Or it is ok to kill them?. Than something about rape being ok to the bible? The bible says rape is oviusly wrong, could be punished with death in OT.

Than claim morality does exist, do you not see how many times you contradict yourself in a few sentences?. So you cant object to god as being bad, also please bring your thoughts over here. I just put in long response to this same claim on majority opinion and morality.
well above a few posts.

Child sacrifice was common among the Indians in Latin America, so evidently it wasn't a moral absolute for them. Sure they never met God, so they didn't have the true message, but it's still an example on it not being universal. Did they still have morals? Yes, although I'm certain that's there more than human sacrifices I would disagree with.
Can you have strong opinions of morality without having absolute morals? Yes.
Can those opinions change with time? Yes.
Can you have a simple consistant framework to help guide you into what those morals can be? Yes.
If most people have a very similar framework, then you have the basis for how the morality the society will look like.

On the question about God being bad: That's a conclusion drawn from asking myself on the morality of a powerful man doing the same things, while also giving him some leeway (but far from total) because he's acting in a way I can't fully comprehend.

Many atheists point to the Crusades, Inquisition and witch hunts to argue that Christianity is an evil religion. D’Souza takes on these allegations one by one. He argues that the Muslims were the aggressors; conquering the previously predominately Christian Middle East. They went on to conquer parts of Africa, Asia, part of Italy and most of Spain. All the while, they forced conversions at sword-point. Finally, more than two hundred years later Christians attempted to take back the land that was conquered by the Muslims. The First Crusade was a success, resulting in Jerusalem being in Christian possession for nearly a century. Subsequent crusades failed, but without the crusades, D’Souza argues
‘Western Civilization might have been completely overrun by the forces of Islam … The Christians fought to defend themselves from foreign conquest, while the Muslims fought to continue conquering Christian lands’
(p. 206).

A few notes. The Byzantine emperor asked for money or mercs and got those barbarian (Byzantine opinion) crusaders instead. Second, many of the Christians probably had it easier living under Muslim rulers compared to the quite violent disagreeement of the nature of Christ and other things they had with the Bazantine emperor. It was certainly easier to live under Muslim rulers than having those Christian "liberators" separating your head from your body because they couldn't tell that you were Christian. Anyway, while it did weaken the Muslims, they were quite weak and fractioned (that's why the crusader states survived so long) anyway. When they got unified, the remaining crusader states lost very quickly. Incursions into Europe was done by the Ottomans, who conquered Constantinopel and destroyed the Byzantine empire. The empire was critically weakened earlier because of the fourth crusade and left by its fate by the rest of Europe. So, no D’Souza does not have a good case there.

20:th century was certainly a brutal one and the church got worse reputation than it deserves on the inqusition and witch burnings, agreed on that.
Although I'm finding a general lack of the 30-years war, the most brutal war until WW1. While politics got involved, denying the religious element there is folly, in particular since it cut the steam out of all religous wars afterwards.

‘The five major religions of the world, in order of their appearance on the scene, are Hinduism, traditional Chinese folk religion, Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam. These five religions have approximately 4.85 billion adherents, representing an estimated 71.3 percent of the world’s population in 2007, and they have been around for a collective 11,600 years. During the vast majority of those 116 [collective] centuries, the world has not been in any danger of extinction from weapons of any kind, nor has the human race been in serious danger of dying out from pollution, global warming, overpopulation, or anything else. …
‘Modern science has only been around for the last 350 years, if we date the scientific method back to the man known as the Father of Science, Galileo Galilei. One could push the date back considerably, if one wished, to Aristotle and Archimedes, or forward to Newton and the Age of Enlightenment, but regardless, the dire threat to Mankind described by [“New Atheist” Sam] Harris only dates back to the middle of the twentieth century. In the last sixty years, science has produced a veritable witches’ brew of potential dangers to the human race, ranging from atom-shattering, explosive devices to lethal genetic modifications, designer diseases, large quantities of radioactive waste and even, supposedly, the accidental production of mini black holes and strangelets through particle collider experiments.
‘So, in only 3 percent of the time that religion has been on the scene, science has managed to produce multiple threats to continued human existence. Moreover, the quantity and lethal quality of those threats appear to be accelerating, as the bulk of them have appeared in the most recent sixth of the scientific era.2

And the total number of religious people has never been higher than now (thanks to rapid population growth)... They are evil I tell you!!!

Seriously, you're writing this on a computer, so get off the anti-science horse there. The dangers are more or less a direct consequence of the advantages made. Also, polution, over-population, destruction of habitats are nothing new. What killed off the mesopotanian civilisations? Too much salty soil from irrigation. Easter island? Over-population. The thing that have change is the scale.

Abraham? you do realize both Abraham and god new his son was not going to be sacrafised correct? oh the atheist did not tell you that one.

See, a good person/god does not even ask this as an demonstration of devotion, even if the devoted person would consider this as an acceptable sacrifice. Mock executions are considered torture, even if none dies.

why do people think I am new? I now people dont like what I say, wait till I do creation vs evolution. But you guys have been pretty nice,mature etc compared to most I debate with. When people hate me dont want to hear what I am saying, I think I am on to something good.

You're giving a ton of material, way more than will be answered thoughtfully in total. You keep insisting on some things like it's great wonder bullets and ignores the counter arguments on it, you make large assumptions and generalise your opposition. Your English is a bit sloppy, or it's not your first language.

Taken together, you appear very eager and have recently found what you think is a gold mine, and also as young and inexperienced, but certainly with good potential with training. That strikes people as new.

I suspect I appear somewhat haughty myself.

[HoreTore]

read OP than we can talk.

I have, and it contains a grand total of zero valid points.

Try again.

[Kadagar_AV]

TR, I can take you on in a 1vs1 on this forum.

Topic: Atheism vs Christianity.

[Brenus]

“you do realize both Abraham and god new his son was not going to be sacrafised correct?” So what was the point of this cruel joke? What a traumatism to the poor kid, prepared on the table, daddy coming with the knife, and hop, big hand came out of nowhere, big laugh, “hey Junior, that was a joke!” So, Muslim, Jews and Christian celebrate a joke… I KNEW it….
It probably where comes the idea to kill the father to become an adult.

“on what grounds would you say child sacrifice is wrong?” Good point. So I agree that Christianity never told that killing children is wrong. I apologise.

“Please provide evidence for god is with us on his belt buckle” Just go on a book of German Uniform during WW2. That should do the deal.

By the way, atheist don’t tell people. You want to believe in fairies, trolls and orcs, fine with me. Or in the big flying Spagetti… I don’t. You can try to recite all the Bible, it is a irrelevant for me than the Contes de Perault stories. Cindarela didn’t exist and it is not because there is a book about her story that it proves she did…

[HoreTore]

TR, I can take you on in a 1vs1 on this forum.

Topic: Atheism vs Christianity.

Discussion and debating is a method of learning, whoever came up with the idea that you can "win a debate" deserves to be shot.

[Kadagar_AV]

Discussion and debating is a method of learning, whoever came up with the idea that you can "win a debate" deserves to be shot.

Agreed. Doesn't mean we can't debate and learn that way though.

[spankythehippo]

OK. Why is there a need for a heated discussion? Why do people get so worked up about religion? Why can't people just get along, regardless of what they believe in? Is it because people don't like being told they're wrong? Is it so, in the event of their being a god and all that crap, people can be saved from hell? Why can't people just focus on being a good person?

I am an atheist because I have no power in deducing whether there is a higher power or not. It's not possible to do so either. So what do I do? I don't worry about it, since finding an actual god is impossible. I live my life free of religious nonsense, although my morals can be traced to morals purported by religions.

I think Ross Noble summed it up pretty well. "Be nice to people. Love thy neighbour. Shut the **** up."

[Quid]

Ah, so this is the continuation of the utter tripe suggested in the other thread.

Still won't bother. It's not worth it.

Quid

[total relism]

I don't think morals are necessarily "absolute". There are, however, a few basic rules that are universally used across history because a functioning society would be unthinkable without them. A ban on arbitrary killing, i.e. murder being one of them.

I'm not convinced that Hitler was an atheist. Stalin and his buddies definitely were; but it's not atheism as such that inspired them to do the killing.

I agree with above, but hitler stalin etc there world view, led them to beliefs of what they did. Jews were less evolved hurting society human race etc, extermination them. As hitler said anyone who does not follow evolution natural law of survival of fittest, is a coward. But as you said, morals are not absolute, so what hitler did was not a morally "wrong" thing to do.

I've not read all your posts (too much, too long, sorry) but from what I know the old testament placed restrictions on it, i.e. regulated it and therefore condoned it.

NP, I will try to shorten them. If your interested read this link. Fought aginst it in fact.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...l-State-of-Man

Short answer: sociopathy, or rather anti-social personality disorder is a psychiatic condition with specific traits. AFAIK the diagnostic criteria include that the subject has already displayed cruel behaviour from his early puberty and further.

I believe you entirely missed the point, you just used the words "cruel behavior", so what is this kind of behavior? what makes it cruel?.

There's no distinction. You're arguing from the premise that there must be something beyond the mundane, biological explanations of brain functions for anything to be meaninful. As an atheist I disagree - I'm perfectly happy knowing that my thoughts and emotions are "chemical reactions".

I agree fully with you, I was just saying,any atheist who say rape,murder is wrong, only feels that way, not that it really is a moral wrong, as there is no such thing.

Atheists do not have a compulsion to "follow evolution" in our daily lives. I think caging up women for reproduction would be counter-effective in any case as far as the viability of your offspring is concerned, so that's moot.
If anything the atheists who overanalyze the workings beyond the human mind and ponder their existence too much would be apathic nihilists, not fanatics who hold evolution as their idol. In the case of Hitler I imagine (allthough I wouldn't know for a fact) that his nationalism and hatred of jews were beliefs he held before he came up with his racial theories to rationalize them.
If anything the atheists who overanalyze the workings beyond the human mind and ponder their existence too much would be apathic nihilists, not fanatics who hold evolution as their idol. In the case of Hitler I imagine (allthough I wouldn't know for a fact) that his nationalism and hatred of jews were beliefs he held before he came up with his racial theories to rationalize them.

I would let the kids out, but you miss point,I will retype again, please try to think deeper.As in reasons why we believe what we do.

I may be like hitler and think murdering is good, what makes your random chemical reactions correct and mine wrong?.They have no right to tell another person [random chemical reactions] That thinks murder,rape,sexism are good [hitler]. That that person is wrong to do so. there is no way to now if you, and not the other person have the right chemical reactions. In fact there is no "right" reactions, or good or bad.
You cannot give any reason that caging up woman to reproduce and pass on my genes is "wrong", in fact it is survival of the fittest. As hitler and darwin point out, you would be doing the opposite of evolution and what got us here to follow christian morals and to act like people have unalienable rights, and value.These are biblical ideas that people were created in the image of god.

But they got the ideas in the enlightenment from the bible,In america.

[total relism]

Holy crap iron you have been busy.

An example on why people think you're new. I've already presented an example on why "survival of the fittest" can very well lead to the development of empathy and morals. Ignoring that and repeating the argument is poor debating style. You're better when it comes to the Bible parts.

Now, moral absolutism. How is it enforced? By God sends you to hell instead of heaven. Or in other terms, the enforcer executes a punishment. While the natural bias (I explained a bit on why such a thing can develop previously) will give preference to certain moral codes, it is that enforcer that keeps it together, when you have people breaking it. The thing is that the enforcer hardly needs to be a God.
Or simply: by saying that fornication is bad is how we keep fornication as bad and punish those who does it. That's all that needs to be done. And since it's disputed (and has lost as an argument is Sweden decades ago) it is losing ground today.
Now, in say the case of rape, we can make a better case since it's a physical and mental assult on the victim. Using deduction (if it's done on me is it good or bad), helped by empathy, we can conclude it's bad, even without an absolute moral arbiter.

I fully understand you think i am ignoring, but I am trying to get you to think deeper, those "morals" assuming came about by survival of the fittest. Are not real morals, but just chemical reactions in your brain making you think they are morals. So by me caging up woman in my basement forcing them to have sex with me than killing them. Is not a moral "wrong" as there are none. Your chemicals may very well make you feel they are wrong, but my chemicals [I evolved slightly diffident] and my knowledge of the selfish gene and survival of fittest, tell me to do it. In fact i am just acting of my chemical reactions in my brain making me do it.

Moral absolute is true if it is enforced or not. child sacrifice I believe is a moral wrong, regardless of if someone does it.

I was talking in general. Even the Bible version matters for interpretations. You use the International version? One example is the Destroyer (the entity killing the firstborn in Egypt, generally seen to been the archangel Uriel). Some versions doesn't translate that as an entity,b ut rather the process to determine on who to kil or not.

I use many translations, witch do you believe says homosexuality is a good thing.The angel of the lord is the one who kills firstborn, who is uriel? is that swedish for something?.

I'm sure I need to specify anything more on the Flood and Sodom and Gomorra. They were too immoral, destruction pending. Both Noah and Lot has quite morally questionable incidents afterward though. First human stock must have been horrible.

Numbers 25. Yes, God is angry for that some Israelites got seduced into Baal worshipping behind his back. But God is specific that Phinehas saved the Israelites from his wraith, that threatened to put an end to the Isrealites.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

7 When Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, saw this, he left the assembly, took a spear in his hand 8 and followed the Israelite into the tent. He drove the spear through both of them—through the Israelite and into the woman’s body. Then the plague against the Israelites was stopped; 9 but those who died in the plague numbered 24,000.

10 The Lord said to Moses, 11 “Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, has turned my anger away from the Israelites; for he was as zealous as I am for my honor among them, so that in my zeal I did not put an end to them.

Retaliation comes in Numbers 31, were Moses are a bit pissed off on the commanders for not killing enough civilians.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.

15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the Lord in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

You might justify the sexually active women as a punishment for the seduction, but the boys? Oh, and I do wonder what will happen to all those virgin girls that the sodiers can keep.

Also, if God acts in moral absolutes, then there's no time drift in values. If someone does the same thing as above today, is that good or evil? Does it change if it undisputed that this man is God's chosen?

all humans sin. We are just not as lucky as the ones in bible that have there recorded.


You really are making it very hard for me, I love these types of questions. As I said before, I will be doing post on cannan and any other questions against the bible. I have 7 thread going on 4 forums right now. So when I have more time I will do post. I have debated these verses before and love to do so. All I will say now is your missing the mark.

I'll be brief, either the verses contradict each other (compare to Deut 23:1) or the complement each other. A spiritual crime seems to last longer, while a physical is not transfered.

Or as I explained last post to you.

You can read parts of a book and not be swooshed away by it's message (I've never claimed to have red the whole Bible, only that my source was the parts of the Bible I've red). Your Bible skill should certainly surpass mine. It's the idea of some kind of holy atheist book that's annoys me. There is no such book. Sure it probably exist more than one book attacking Christianity that's been red by a few people, but I never red one of those and neither has most who doesn't believe in Christianity. And of those that have red such books, very few had some kind of relevation to why they stopped beliving.

fair enough, sorry for assuming.

Fair enough on that it varies. A few notes though. God hardens pharao's heart when the first born are to die. Bad coincidence perhaps. If I display my superiority and my awesome destructive powers by killing people, cattle, causing chaos and destruction, etc, etc, am I good or evil?

Good question, first he harded pharaohs heart as I explained, to do what pharaoh wanted in his heart already, from 4th plague on I think. God was showing his power,who he is to all Egyptians as they worshiped cows,lice,frongs,nile and thought of Pharaoh as god and firstborn. So god was showing there gods were useless.

sometimes a movie can help make it more real. They can help better picture real life. A movie i think that would accurately depict gods use of plagues in bible would be
http://www.amazon.com/The-Reaping-Bl...ds=the+reaping

After the first 6 plagues I think it was, any Egyptian who believed god was spared of remaing plagues. anyone who put the blood of the lahm [jesus] on the doorpost was Passover and did not receive judgment. Many egptians did put the blood on the doorpost and were saved, and left with isreal. The people had no reason not to believe, so those that did die, were in rebellion on purpose. Also the bible says that egypt were being judged as well,for 400 years of slavery and killing babies Israelite.They had chance to repent many times, [many did.]

So Pharaoh commanded all his people, saying, “Every son who is born[c] you shall cast into the river
exodus 1.22a
“When you serve as midwife to the Hebrew women and see them on the birthstool, if it is a son, you shall kill him, but if it is a daughter, she shall live
exodus 1.16

God was willing and wanting to relent from sending the plagues at any time ex 10 13-14,19 10 16-19 other verses as well. If pharaoh asked god stopped the plagues 8.15 8.29-32. God was relenting from more severe punishment and was using plagues to show he is god

Firstborn
firstborns, anyone who put the blood of the lahm on there doorpost was spared and did not see judgment.
god killed firstborns in Egypt witch would go to haven.
The bible says all are born into sin we are all sinful and all babies are sinners and will grow up like the rest of us and be sinners .
However the plagues were not sent because of babies. God did not kill them but pharaohs sin against god and the Egyptians. Had the babies kids of Egypt grown up in Egypt worshiping pharaoh they may have missed out on eternity,look at numbers 14 28-33 for this with isreal,kids indirectly suffer for the sins of the parents. When an abusive father kills his child in a fit of rage, the child dies BECAUSE of the SINS of the FATHER, but the child is not being PUNISHED by being killed. When a child dies of an illness caused by neglect of a parent, they die BECAUSE (somewhat, at least) of the SINS of the parent, but their death would not be considered as a PUNISHMENT on the child for the neglect of the parent. It would be a CONSEQUENCE of the sin, but not a ‘punishment’ per se.
The Exodus story involves a corporate or national punishment, and in these cases—including the famines and plagues that later came upon Biblical Israel for their evil—both innocent and guilty suffer. Similarly, when a nation or group is blessed by God for goodness of values and action and direction, both deserving and undeserving benefit.
http://christianthinktank.com/killheir.html

Also the babies were being taken away from A evil world and A evil culture.

The righteous perishes, And no man takes it to heart; Merciful men are taken away, While no one considers That the righteous is taken away from evil.
Isa. 57:1

So while we may view death as always bad, god in certain circumstances may not
when believers die it is precious in the lords sight,because they enter into a true relationship with him with no sin or separation
psalm 116.15

God sees the heart of man, Hitler was once a baby and would look innocent, though god would know his heart and know he would grow up to become a monster.
7 For the LORD does not see as man sees for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart."
1 Samuel 16.7

20 Then Noah built an altar to the Lord and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it. 21 The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: “Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though[a] every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.
genisis 8 20-21

I like a point a friend of mine made about this. One Skeptic asked why God simply did not kill Hitler as a baby. Yet if "baby Hitler" had died, the Skeptic would ask why God did not prevent the death of this innocent baby. This shows that a far more critical view is needed than "argument by outrage." Indeed, "argument by outrage" often assumes a form of omniscience by the critic.

Genesis 9. Noah gets drunk, his son Ham sees him naked (I've red the interpretation that it means rapes him, which might explain the anger better, but is horribly, horribly messed up), Naoh hears this and curses Caanan (Ham's son) to slavery. This can be interpretated to only one generation, but the slavers using this as justification (the black skin was the physical demonstration of the curse) was on to bloodlines into slavery.

Man created at different times was some idea to justify why black people, that should be slaves (according to the slavers) existed. Not really based on the Bible outside the idea that God created everything and nothing has ever changed.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

20 Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded[a] to plant a vineyard. 21 When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. 22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father’s nakedness and told his two brothers outside. 23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father’s nakedness. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father’s nakedness.

24 When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said,

“Cursed be Canaan!
The lowest of slaves
will he be to his brothers.”

26 He also said,

“Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem!
May Canaan be the slave of Shem.[b]
27 May God extend the territory of Japheth[c];
may Japheth live in the tents of Shem,
and may Canaan be his[d] slave.”

I have no idea what this would have to do with endorsing slavery, this is a angry statement by someone who was molested in his sleep/prophecy about what would happen, not endorsing at all.As his descendants after noahs death, did became slave for a time. Notice it says in v25 cannan will be cursed, not because of what just happened. It is a angery/hungover noah v21.Noah dies in v29.

Child sacrifice was common among the Indians in Latin America, so evidently it wasn't a moral absolute for them. Sure they never met God, so they didn't have the true message, but it's still an example on it not being universal. Did they still have morals? Yes, although I'm certain that's there more than human sacrifices I would disagree with.
Can you have strong opinions of morality without having absolute morals? Yes.
Can those opinions change with time? Yes.
Can you have a simple consistant framework to help guide you into what those morals can be? Yes.
If most people have a very similar framework, then you have the basis for how the morality the society will look like.

On the question about God being bad: That's a conclusion drawn from asking myself on the morality of a powerful man doing the same things, while also giving him some leeway (but far from total) because he's acting in a way I can't fully comprehend.

Just because someone does not follow a universal law does not mean its not there. Killing is wrong in us, but people do it.

But again your saying morals are not absolute, that proves my entire thread, well OP thank you. If atheism is true than there are no moral absolutes.

I am not saying you dont feel that it is absolutely wrong, i am saying there is no base to claim something is wrong in first place.

On god, agreed, the bible says all he does is good, he is love, cant do evil etc. assuming that is true, than anything he does will be constant with that, weather we may feel diffident about it or not [golden calf, .].

A few notes. The Byzantine emperor asked for money or mercs and got those barbarian (Byzantine opinion) crusaders instead. Second, many of the Christians probably had it easier living under Muslim rulers compared to the quite violent disagreeement of the nature of Christ and other things they had with the Bazantine emperor. It was certainly easier to live under Muslim rulers than having those Christian "liberators" separating your head from your body because they couldn't tell that you were Christian. Anyway, while it did weaken the Muslims, they were quite weak and fractioned (that's why the crusader states survived so long) anyway. When they got unified, the remaining crusader states lost very quickly. Incursions into Europe was done by the Ottomans, who conquered Constantinopel and destroyed the Byzantine empire. The empire was critically weakened earlier because of the fourth crusade and left by its fate by the rest of Europe. So, no D’Souza does not have a good case there.

20:th century was certainly a brutal one and the church got worse reputation than it deserves on the inqusition and witch burnings, agreed on that.
Although I'm finding a general lack of the 30-years war, the most brutal war until WW1. While politics got involved, denying the religious element there is folly, in particular since it cut the steam out of all religous wars afterwards.

I agree with first part, but point was Byzantine was underatack from expanding Muslims, as all christian were in Europe, until crusades. Everyone starts there, instead of going back to see what got there in first place.

You said
"many of the Christians probably had it easier living under Muslim rulers compared to the quite violent disagreeement of the nature of Christ and other things they had with the Bazantine emperor."

Not at all from what I have herd, there were 2-3 places at most were christian matineded worship, lived in peace under Muslims, the rest forced conversion, killed, pilgrims to the holy lands constanley attack/killed etc.

last highlighted part
How does he not have a case? he is sating the reason for the origin of the crusades.

read these with me, I have not yet. Than well discus,for fun maybe.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/...ic_crusad.html
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/...only/52.0.html

Please inform me of the 30 years war and the christian implications, what war? that is how much I now.

And the total number of religious people has never been higher than now (thanks to rapid population growth)... They are evil I tell you!!!

Seriously, you're writing this on a computer, so get off the anti-science horse there. The dangers are more or less a direct consequence of the advantages made. Also, polution, over-population, destruction of habitats are nothing new. What killed off the mesopotanian civilisations? Too much salty soil from irrigation. Easter island? Over-population. The thing that have change is the scale.

agreed, i posted the wrong thing dammit.

Even adjusting for changes in population size, atheist regimes are responsible for 100 times more death in one century than Christian rulers inflicted over five centuries.
As for the Inquisition, much of the modern stereotype was largely made up by Spain’s political enemies, and later by anti-Christians. The Inquisition only had authority over professing Christians, and the Inquisition trials were often fairer and more lenient than their secular counterparts. Often the only penalty given was some sort of penance such as fasting. Over a period of 350 years, historians such as Henry Kamen15 estimate only between 1,500 and 4,000 people were executed for heresy.
The Salem witch trials constitute the best-known example of religiously motivated violence. However, fewer than 25 people were killed in the trials, falling far short of the ‘perhaps hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions’ (p. 207) that the late antitheist Carl Sagan wrote about.
Having shown that Christianity’s ‘religious crimes’ are far less horrendous than atheists would argue; he goes on to show that atheism, not religion, is responsible for mass murders. In fact, ‘atheist regimes have in a single century murdered more than one hundred million people’ (p. 214). Even adjusting for changes in population size, atheist regimes are responsible for 100 times more death in one century than Christian rulers inflicted over five centuries. However, while it can easily be shown that crimes committed in the name of Christianity are not sanctioned by its teaching, the bloodbaths of the atheist regimes are consistent with an atheist, evolutionary outlook. Indeed, atheists have no moral basis to say that anything is right or wrong
#
#
the Salem which trial was stopped by 2 priest that said what they were doing was unbiblical
http://tektonics.org/qt/spaninq.html inquisitions

See, a good person/god does not even ask this as an demonstration of devotion, even if the devoted person would consider this as an acceptable sacrifice. Mock executions are considered torture, even if none dies.

Why not? I have kids I ask they things just to see if they will, to see if they love me etc.It is not torture, Abraham new all along, he trusted god.

You're giving a ton of material, way more than will be answered thoughtfully in total. You keep insisting on some things like it's great wonder bullets and ignores the counter arguments on it, you make large assumptions and generalise your opposition. Your English is a bit sloppy, or it's not your first language.

Taken together, you appear very eager and have recently found what you think is a gold mine, and also as young and inexperienced, but certainly with good potential with training. That strikes people as new.

I suspect I appear somewhat haughty myself.

I see. thanks. good talking with you, I am enjoying this. I like you, but not so much the bible would call it a sin lol.

[total relism]

I have, and it contains a grand total of zero valid points.

Try again.

Zero that you have understood, try reading Op again with deeper thought, such as why do I believe so and so, what is it based on, is there reason to base it on anything. Is it valid given my beliefs etc.

TR, I can take you on in a 1vs1 on this forum.

Topic: Atheism vs Christianity.

Thay have fight club? awesome. 2 conditions,first we would have to do first what I asked for, should we in the west be worried about the spread of islam?. You made some great claims about me as right wing etc for thinking so. So that is what I want the debate about first, than atheism vs christianity. Or, I want you to admit to me,that you were wrong, or you lack knowledge for a opinion on subject, of if we should fear isalm spreading. I would like a apology as well. So either of those first and I am game.

“you do realize both Abraham and god new his son was not going to be sacrafised correct?” So what was the point of this cruel joke? What a traumatism to the poor kid, prepared on the table, daddy coming with the knife, and hop, big hand came out of nowhere, big laugh, “hey Junior, that was a joke!” So, Muslim, Jews and Christian celebrate a joke… I KNEW it….
It probably where comes the idea to kill the father to become an adult.

“on what grounds would you say child sacrifice is wrong?” Good point. So I agree that Christianity never told that killing children is wrong. I apologise.

“Please provide evidence for god is with us on his belt buckle” Just go on a book of German Uniform during WW2. That should do the deal.

By the way, atheist don’t tell people. You want to believe in fairies, trolls and orcs, fine with me. Or in the big flying Spagetti… I don’t. You can try to recite all the Bible, it is a irrelevant for me than the Contes de Perault stories. Cindarela didn’t exist and it is not because there is a book about her story that it proves she did…

To show both of them [and believers today] that a sacrifice is needed, and god will provide the sacrifice. We dont need to sacrifice our sons, god will his. Abraham saw god would provide the sacrifice, just as john 8 56-59 says. It goes much deeper, need to do a study on it, but that should exspalin alittle hopefully for you.


I believe you have you missed point, I was asking from your worldview, what makes child sacrifice wrong?. They will challenge you for food/mates later in life.

well this is not a evidence for christian thread, but I dont believe in "missing links" mysterious "mother earth creating" life from no life, or a unobserved "big bang" out of thin air etc etc. these will be discussed in upcoming thread.

I dont see anything christian on the belt buckle, could you please expslain what you are referring to.

OK. Why is there a need for a heated discussion? Why do people get so worked up about religion? Why can't people just get along, regardless of what they believe in? Is it because people don't like being told they're wrong? Is it so, in the event of their being a god and all that crap, people can be saved from hell? Why can't people just focus on being a good person?

I am an atheist because I have no power in deducing whether there is a higher power or not. It's not possible to do so either. So what do I do? I don't worry about it, since finding an actual god is impossible. I live my life free of religious nonsense, although my morals can be traced to morals purported by religions.

I think Ross Noble summed it up pretty well. "Be nice to people. Love thy neighbour. Shut the **** up."

I disagree with above, but since it is off topic, i will just say the bible says not deciding is a desition.

[HoreTore]

I agree fully with you, I was just saying,any atheist who say rape,murder is wrong, only feels that way, not that it really is a moral wrong, as there is no such thing

This has been repeated, in more words or less, enough times in this thread that I believe this is the basis of your argument. So, I will respond to this.

First, I will say that this is a classic case of why the form someone writes in is so important. Written as a question, this statement would've made you appear curious, interested and as a good and honest debater. Written as a conclusion, as you have done, it makes you look like an unintelligent dick, completely uninterested in what anyone else has to say because you know best. Pardon my french. I look forward to more threads, as always, but do keep that in mind for your next threads. And I might add that I've had more or less the same debate with PVC before, a thread which spread into several pages of very worthy debate, of which at least I(can't speak for pvc of course) learned a lot, so it's not the subject that is the problem here.

So, on to the actual statement, question form or not:

As I have already explained, "atheism" does not contain anything but the disbelief in the divine. There is nothing more to us that "we" all share. Instead, we subscribe to a wealth of vastly different philosophies. Religious people do the same, of course, what seperates an atheist from a religious man is that the philosophies does not contain a divine authority.

At least two such philosophies has been mentioned in this thread already, so I will deal with those two first, then move on to a few others:

First, the philosophy you brought forth, which you called "evolution/darwin/hitler", which I guess is your attempt to describe what we call Social Darwinism. This is a formely popular, but now massively discredited philosophy. It was of course the philosophy which formed parts of the foundation of National Socialism.

A small digression is in order here: the roots of national socialism did not begin with darwinism. Rather, the movement which eventually culminated in the modern german state on one hand, and national socialism on the other hand, started roughly a century prior to The Origin of Species. That movements aim was to create a common state for the fractured germanosphere. A tired saying is that the French had a state, but needed a people, while the Germans had a people, but needed a state. Anyway, as this movement went on, it branched out, branched in again, picked up new ideas, discarded old ideas, etc. This is quite standard for movements which spans a long time period(including your christianity, might I add). One of its branches became known as National Socialism, and it was this branch which picked up Social Darwinism(to the largest degree).

Back to Social Darwinism. This is the belief that the natural way our species has been formed should be used as both an authority and an ideal for society. There's not really any point to add more to it than that, other than to say that there are very few people, religious or atheist, who subscribe to it today. It's been relegated to the looniebin, and with good cause.

The second philosophy brought up in this thread was by Kadagar, when he stated "what if everyone else behaved like me?" This philosophy can be called(avoid weird names) "generalized self-interest". You stated that if I feel like raping someone, lacking a god, I should do it. No. With self-interest as an ideal and authority, even if you feel like raping someone, it's still not right to do so. If you choose to rape someone, you are creating a society where rape is okay. In a society where rape is okay, you get raped yourself. That's not in your self-interest. As such, the authority(self-interest) states that rape is wrong. With a generalized self-interest in mind, you must consider not only the effects an action has directly on yourself, but also the effects it has on others, since those effects will eventually effect you yourself.

Now on to other sources of authority and ideals. "The common good" is a common one. "Maximized happiness" is one. "The Circle of Life" is common among tree-huggers and other smelly hippies. A simple "that which makes the world progress" another.

All of these are authorities of the exact same level as your god. And just like your god does, we feel like it's okay to "force" these authorities upon the rest of society, regardless of majority opinion of it. "The common good" becomes no less potent even if just a minority believes in it, just like your god's message and authority does not diminish when only a minority in society believes in him. We who do not believe in a divine authority will always have at least one like these that we base our outlook upon. And of course - just like a religious man can convert from one religion to another, so will atheists pick or discard these moral authorities. Your claim that atheists cannot have moral absolutes because we do not have any authorities to pin them on is therefore clearly false: we do have authorities of the same magnitude as the christian god, and we are fully capable of having moral absolutes.

If you find all of this hard to understand and/or strange, try thinking of it as an "atheist religion", that might help your understanding.

Edit:

The belt buckle in Brenus' picture says "Gott Mit Uns", german for "God is with us". The christian god, that is. That Nazi soldiers had Gott Mit Uns written on their belt buckles is honestly common knowledge among anyone with at least some knowledge of Nazi Germany. Which makes me wonder just how much you honestly understand and know about the various quotes you have given in this thread....

In math terms, this is like failing simple fractions while giving a lecture on integration.

[Sir Moody]

I dont see anything christian on the belt buckle, could you please expslain what you are referring to.

here is a hint - the word GOTT on the left of the buckle translates to GOD, MITT translates to WITH and the UNS is us - the buckle reads GOD WITH US

believe you have you missed point, I was asking from your worldview, what makes child sacrifice wrong?. They will challenge you for food/mates later in life.

are you asking for the Evolutionary reason or the Moral reason? I know you have trouble with this but they aren't the same thing

Evolution requires genes to be passed on to the next generation - if you are sacrificing the next generation you are stunting evolutionary growth which is a very sub optimal strategy - comparing two societies - one sacrificing some of their young and another not the society which doesn't sacrifice its young will have a larger gene pool and thus will be in a stronger evolutionary position

The only time this wouldn't be true would be in cases of SEVERE overpopulation - and even then it would be more optimal to sacrifice the OLD first

[Kadagar_AV]

2 conditions,first we would have to do first what I asked for, should we in the west be worried about the spread of islam?. You made some great claims about me as right wing etc for thinking so. So that is what I want the debate about first, than atheism vs christianity. Or, I want you to admit to me,that you were wrong, or you lack knowledge for a opinion on subject, of if we should fear isalm spreading. I would like a apology as well. So either of those first and I am game.

Having conditions are we? Well, never mind then. It has already been explained to you why you will find it hard debating spread of Islam on these boards.

Also, I did do say what huh? Sure you got the right person there?

[Sir Moody]

I may be like hitler and think murdering is good, what makes your random chemical reactions correct and mine wrong?.They have no right to tell another person [random chemical reactions] That thinks murder,rape,sexism are good [hitler]. That that person is wrong to do so. there is no way to now if you, and not the other person have the right chemical reactions. In fact there is no "right" reactions, or good or bad.

Ok lets try this again

Morals are born out of a social contract with the other members of your community - this is also how we determine who is "moral" or "immoral" since the "moral" will obey the contract while the "immoral" will not - any one individual is only a "cog in the machine" and their individual thoughts cannot alter the moral code of the community without backing from other "cogs"

One individual who believes Murder is fine will not effect the moral views of the entire community unless he can persuade many others to his thinking - he will be considered immoral by the society as a whole and will be ostracised (like we do with Racist groups or criminals)

You cannot give any reason that caging up woman to reproduce and pass on my genes is "wrong", in fact it is survival of the fittest. As hitler and darwin point out, you would be doing the opposite of evolution and what got us here to follow christian morals and to act like people have unalienable rights, and value.These are biblical ideas that people were created in the image of god.

Ok lets break out evolutionary theory again - why is locking the women in basements sub optimal?

Evolution is about furthering your genes - this requires children and more importantly healthy children - with 50% of the society (the women) chained in the basement only the men are left to care for the young, produce the food required to raise them and educate them - this doesn't leave much room for error - the society which doesn't chain its women in a basement has 50% MORE human resources with which to raise the children which is clearly the optimal strategy

and that isn't even bringing in the fact that the women would be extremely vulnerable to all sorts of health issues which would make child bearing difficult

there is a reason the family unit pre-dates known history - it is by far the most optimal way of passing on your genes and producing a strong and healthy ospring

[Kralizec]

Humans are social creatures. We're born with certain ingrain traits like empathy and compassion because it increases the survival of the group. Knowing that this is a result of evolution does not negate the effect as you claim.

To put it in simple terms: you're arguing that an atheist could come to the conclusion that since he's just a biological machine, and his existence will end with his physical death, there's nothing keeping him from acting as selfishly as possible. I disagree and say that men have evolved as social creatures and are slaves of their natural conscience.

Sociopaths are without empathy and compassion, but it's a psychiatric disorder that has nothing to do with religious beliefs or the lack thereof. It's controversial among psychiatrists wether it's caused by nature or nurture, but the anti-social behaviour manifests itself at an early age, certainly before people seriously start philosophise about the meaning of life and whatnot.

I would let the kids out, but you miss point,I will retype again, please try to think deeper.As in reasons why we believe what we do.

You cannot give any reason that caging up woman to reproduce and pass on my genes is "wrong", in fact it is survival of the fittest. As hitler and darwin point out, you would be doing the opposite of evolution and what got us here to follow christian morals and to act like people have unalienable rights, and value.These are biblical ideas that people were created in the image of god.

But they got the ideas in the enlightenment from the bible,In america.

I object to the way you're lumping in Darwin with Hitler, and in any case you're misrepresenting him. Darwin gave us, in a primitive form, an explanation of how different animals might have come into existence who resemble eachother to various degrees. He never used his theory to say people ought to do this or that.

Speaking from a strictly evolutionary perspective, the best way to ensure the long term continuation of your genes is to get several children who are healthy and mentally balanced so that they, in turn, might find children and procreate. Unless you intend to devote your entire time to raising those kids by your self (highly unpractical), you need a woman who sharess your goals and helps raising those kids voluntarily.

No, "Enlightenment" is not derived from the bible. Lol.

[Quid]

Humans are social creatures. We're born with certain ingrain traits like empathy and compassion because it increases the survival of the group. Knowing that this is a result of evolution does not negate the effect as you claim.

To put it in simple terms: you're arguing that an atheist could come to the conclusion that since he's just a biological machine, and his existence will end with his physical death, there's nothing keeping him from acting as selfishly as possible. I disagree and say that men have evolved as social creatures and are slaves of their natural conscience.

Sociopaths are without empathy and compassion, but it's a psychiatric disorder that has nothing to do with religious beliefs or the lack thereof. It's controversial among psychiatrists wether it's caused by nature or nurture, but the anti-social behaviour manifests itself at an early age, certainly before people seriously start philosophise about the meaning of life and whatnot.



I object to the way you're lumping in Darwin with Hitler, and in any case you're misrepresenting him. Darwin gave us, in a primitive form, an explanation of how different animals might have come into existence who resemble eachother to various degrees. He never used his theory to say people ought to do this or that.

Speaking from a strictly evolutionary perspective, the best way to ensure the long term continuation of your genes is to get several children who are healthy and mentally balanced so that they, in turn, might find children and procreate. Unless you intend to devote your entire time to raising those kids by your self (highly unpractical), you need a woman who sharess your goals and helps raising those kids voluntarily.

No, "Enlightenment" is not derived from the bible. Lol.

Ah, good post!

[Ironside]

I fully understand you think i am ignoring, but I am trying to get you to think deeper, those "morals" assuming came about by survival of the fittest. Are not real morals, but just chemical reactions in your brain making you think they are morals. So by me caging up woman in my basement forcing them to have sex with me than killing them. Is not a moral "wrong" as there are none. Your chemicals may very well make you feel they are wrong, but my chemicals [I evolved slightly diffident] and my knowledge of the selfish gene and survival of fittest, tell me to do it. In fact i am just acting of my chemical reactions in my brain making me do it.

Moral absolute is true if it is enforced or not. child sacrifice I believe is a moral wrong, regardless of if someone does it.

Both Horetore and Sir Moody has done some well written notes, so I will simply add on it. In the end, the laws are based on that I can take several friends, based on authority (that comes from an agreement between the people and the law makers) and kick that woman caging guy's ass.
Horetore is talking about different philosophies (what I refered to framework), that gives a better reason beyond "I felt for it" and can decide what laws to keep and which to change, to be compitable with that framework. Convince enough people and the law will change.

A thought experiment. Somewhere in the future, man has discovered how to put people permanently and irrevesibly into a transcendal state (to borrow a science fiction term). This state is said (and the evidence agree on that) to be amazing and is also said to be coming one step closer to God (among the religious that's done this). Should this state be enforced upon everybody? I want your person opinion on this, based on your absolute morals.
Now for the rest of us, it will depend on what philosophical guideline you follow (and your gut feeling, but they have tendency to align), if you find this something that should be done (for the better of all) or not (self determination), so it would be a controversial subject.
If it's instead feeling like permanent torture, about everyone will agree that it's bad.

Edit: Another one. You are aware of an active genocide during a war and every reason to believe that your public words will slow it down and make both the genocide and war stop earlier, but it will cause retaliation on yourself and those below you (those are fewer than the ones who you would save though). Do you chose to speak up, or do you keep quiet? Which one is morally correct?

Also, in general human sacrifices has been done because lives are considered valuable. It's been an attempt to trade with the gods, for say weather that's not destroying the harvest. The bigger gift, the more you get in return. Doesn't work, but haven't stopped people from trying.

I use many translations, witch do you believe says homosexuality is a good thing.The angel of the lord is the one who kills firstborn, who is uriel? is that swedish for something?.

I took homosexuality as an example, I've moved on to general terms several posts ago. Using many translations is a very good thing, but it does show the problem of claiming that the Bible is morally absolute. If two translations differ, which one is correct? The one fitting the third perhaps? Or maybe the third was wrong as well.
About the Destroyer. Who isn't actually mentioned in one older Swedish translation (the 1917 one, used until 2000), where it sounds like the first borns simply died, rather that some entity came and collect them all. The Lord got several angels (that's mentioned in the Bible) and somehow it was decided that Uriel (who is mentioned in other Jewish holy texts) was probably the one doing the deed, through thological studies.

all humans sin. We are just not as lucky as the ones in bible that have there recorded.

Maybe, but it's not good, nor just behavior done there. He could've easily killed the first Jew starting Bhaal-worshipping instead of going after the whole people (killing 24.000) after a while.

I have no idea what this would have to do with endorsing slavery, this is a angry statement by someone who was molested in his sleep/prophecy about what would happen, not endorsing at all.As his descendants after noahs death, did became slave for a time. Notice it says in v25 cannan will be cursed, not because of what just happened. It is a angery/hungover noah v21.Noah dies in v29.

It was used for a justification for slavery of blacks. And an odd time for a simple prophecy (if the event changed history for the prophecy to be true, then it's still a punshment). It's ironic that God wiped out everyone except 4 men (and their wives), and 25% of those men are showing dubvious morals though.
About God creating man several times, the first neanderthal skull identified as such (as in not being the modern man) was discovered in 1829, several decades before the theory of evolution, so it probably caused a lot of speculations. I'm not sure of exact dates for the theory.

Just because someone does not follow a universal law does not mean its not there. Killing is wrong in us, but people do it.

But again your saying morals are not absolute, that proves my entire thread, well OP thank you. If atheism is true than there are no moral absolutes.

I am not saying you dont feel that it is absolutely wrong, i am saying there is no base to claim something is wrong in first place.

Horetore covered that with philosophical guidelines. I'm also free to claim whatever I want. I people agrees enough on those claims so I can hinder you from doing what you want, then it sucks to be you.
To put it differently, if the lack of absolute morals doesn't affect anything, does it matter? Remind you, this is a different question than that you have a book giving you the answer to absolute morals.

On god, agreed, the bible says all he does is good, he is love, cant do evil etc. assuming that is true, than anything he does will be constant with that, weather we may feel diffident about it or not [golden calf, .].

"I define the rules. And if you do the same as me it's evil, while if I'm doing it, it's good you're simply not understanding the good of it." Day dreams of a brutal dictator.

I agree with first part, but point was Byzantine was underatack from expanding Muslims, as all christian were in Europe, until crusades. Everyone starts there, instead of going back to see what got there in first place.

Yes, but the framing from the Byzantines and the Spanish (as in the ones acually fighting Muslims) weren't that it's holy war for Christianity against Islam. Take El Cid (in Spain) for example, a legendary Christian. Worked under Muslim rulers for years. Valencia was allowing both religions freely. The crusades themselves were framed like this yes, but for the Byzantines that meant fighting against Christians instead of Muslims after the first crusade, for example.

You said
"many of the Christians probably had it easier living under Muslim rulers compared to the quite violent disagreeement of the nature of Christ and other things they had with the Bazantine emperor."

Not at all from what I have herd, there were 2-3 places at most were christian matineded worship, lived in peace under Muslims, the rest forced conversion, killed, pilgrims to the holy lands constanley attack/killed etc.

I'm not sure for long term, but short term it was an improvement yes. Pilgrims getting attacked was one big reason yes, but that's more with rulers not providing security, rather than a religious war.

Please inform me of the 30 years war and the christian implications, what war? that is how much I now.

The thirty years war. 1618-1648. Simplified: The ultimate showdown between Protestants and Catholics. Most brutal war for 250 years.

The conquest of the new world by Spain and Portugal should count in part as well (complex counting needed though). Cristopher Columbus sailed with a nice cross on the boat "Saint Mary" (Santa Maria), finding Holy Savior (San Salvador), Trinity (Trinidad), founding La Navidad (Roughly "the birth of Christ"). No religious intent there is it?

agreed, i posted the wrong thing dammit.

Even adjusting for changes in population size, atheist regimes are responsible for 100 times more death in one century than Christian rulers inflicted over five centuries.

That's very selective counting. Take the Inqusition for example. The number of killed might be correct, but it doesn't mention that the Inqusition was overwatching the forced conversion and deportations of all Muslims and Jews in Spain (and killing off Spain as a cultural center in the process). That was hundreds of thousands. They mellowed out from the worst parts with time, but that's how it started.

Losses for the 30-years war is 8 millions, for example. And lots of wars had religious overtunes.

Why not? I have kids I ask they things just to see if they will, to see if they love me etc.It is not torture, Abraham new all along, he trusted god.

If you ask those kids to destroy their favorite toy, will they be distressed and sad? Is it good to force those feelings on someone simply because they trust you enough to do it? That's a whimper compared to sacrificing your own child. If Abraham knew that he wouldn't need to, then it's goofing around.
There's a big difference between being devoted enough to be willing to die for your country, compared to that the country demands this from you, to show your devotion.

[Brenus]

Some others had answer, but I still will do.

“I dont see anything christian on the belt buckle, could you please expslain what you are referring to”???? You ask to show the “God with Us” on the Nazi Germany Foot Soldiers buckle. So you see. And 1940’s Germany was Christian so I presume it refers to the Christian version of God.

“but I dont believe in "missing links" mysterious "mother earth creating" life from no life, or a unobserved "big bang" out of thin air etc etc”
The funny thing you and “believers” don’t grasp. You don’t need to believe in it. These are theories, that could be validated or not by daily observations as virus become antibiotic resistant, foxes opening bins and living in herds in town, list is infinite… Me becoming good in shooting on line (I am now on gold in Mass Effect 3 multiplayer…)

“I believe you have you missed point”
Do not worry, I didn’t. I did debate the relativity of Morals as teen-ager in Philosophy Classes, long time ago: As Robert Heinlein said once: “what are the Rights of a Man drowning?” Or Lenin with: “what Freedom for those Who Starve?” Read Emanuel Kant: “Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals”. Tough and Hard, but how much delighting. Just the title makes me laugh…

“Pardon my French” I do.

“Most brutal war for 250 years” Don’t forget in your list the French Catholics and Protestants slaughtering each other’s with great enthusiasm (8 wars between 1562 – 1598 with the famous St Barthelemy 23-24 of August 1572 )...

“Even adjusting for changes in population size, atheist regimes are responsible for 100 times more death in one century than Christian rulers inflicted over five centuries” What Atheist Regimes? You decide against all evidence that Hitler was Atheist. Stalin was probably an atheist (even if if was a Seminarist), but he didn’t kill because he was atheist, but for political purpose, not for Atheistic Purpose. Leopold King of Belgium kill around 20-40 million Africans in the then Belgium Congo, not because he was a Catholic but by pure Greed. If we start to put on Christianity all the murders and killing done by Christians Monarchs and Leaders, you will find your statistic largely in the wrong (including famines in India, Ireland, Vietnam etc)
And in term of Genocide, in South America, Christianity has probably the highest grade in successful killing… And this was done on the name and approval of the Christianity “to convert them by Iron and Fire”.

[HoreTore]

Me becoming good in shooting on line (I am now on gold in Mass Effect 3 multiplayer…)

Lamarckism is discredited

[Sarmatian]

Why are people still arguing with this guy?

[Kadagar_AV]

Why are people still arguing with this guy?

I can just answer for myself: I am cleaning out my apartment before I move, and I welcome any and all distractions.

[HoreTore]

Why are people still arguing with this guy?

Morality is always fun to discuss

[Idaho]

Thread tl:dr

[total relism]

Today,and these post will be my last on thread sorry. I have 7-8 threads on 4 diffident forums going on, it is starting to take allot of my time as you can imagine. This thread I see the most as spinning wheels, getting nowhere, it seems barley understood my a minority of posters. So this is the one I shall end. Thanks for all posters.

[total relism]

This has been repeated, in more words or less, enough times in this thread that I believe this is the basis of your argument. So, I will respond to this.

First, I will say that this is a classic case of why the form someone writes in is so important. Written as a question, this statement would've made you appear curious, interested and as a good and honest debater. Written as a conclusion, as you have done, it makes you look like an unintelligent dick, completely uninterested in what anyone else has to say because you know best. Pardon my french. I look forward to more threads, as always, but do keep that in mind for your next threads. And I might add that I've had more or less the same debate with PVC before, a thread which spread into several pages of very worthy debate, of which at least I(can't speak for pvc of course) learned a lot, so it's not the subject that is the problem here.

So, on to the actual statement, question form or not:

As I have already explained, "atheism" does not contain anything but the disbelief in the divine. There is nothing more to us that "we" all share. Instead, we subscribe to a wealth of vastly different philosophies. Religious people do the same, of course, what seperates an atheist from a religious man is that the philosophies does not contain a divine authority.

At least two such philosophies has been mentioned in this thread already, so I will deal with those two first, then move on to a few others:

First, the philosophy you brought forth, which you called "evolution/darwin/hitler", which I guess is your attempt to describe what we call Social Darwinism. This is a formely popular, but now massively discredited philosophy. It was of course the philosophy which formed parts of the foundation of National Socialism.

A small digression is in order here: the roots of national socialism did not begin with darwinism. Rather, the movement which eventually culminated in the modern german state on one hand, and national socialism on the other hand, started roughly a century prior to The Origin of Species. That movements aim was to create a common state for the fractured germanosphere. A tired saying is that the French had a state, but needed a people, while the Germans had a people, but needed a state. Anyway, as this movement went on, it branched out, branched in again, picked up new ideas, discarded old ideas, etc. This is quite standard for movements which spans a long time period(including your christianity, might I add). One of its branches became known as National Socialism, and it was this branch which picked up Social Darwinism(to the largest degree).

Back to Social Darwinism. This is the belief that the natural way our species has been formed should be used as both an authority and an ideal for society. There's not really any point to add more to it than that, other than to say that there are very few people, religious or atheist, who subscribe to it today. It's been relegated to the looniebin, and with good cause.

The second philosophy brought up in this thread was by Kadagar, when he stated "what if everyone else behaved like me?" This philosophy can be called(avoid weird names) "generalized self-interest". You stated that if I feel like raping someone, lacking a god, I should do it. No. With self-interest as an ideal and authority, even if you feel like raping someone, it's still not right to do so. If you choose to rape someone, you are creating a society where rape is okay. In a society where rape is okay, you get raped yourself. That's not in your self-interest. As such, the authority(self-interest) states that rape is wrong. With a generalized self-interest in mind, you must consider not only the effects an action has directly on yourself, but also the effects it has on others, since those effects will eventually effect you yourself.

Now on to other sources of authority and ideals. "The common good" is a common one. "Maximized happiness" is one. "The Circle of Life" is common among tree-huggers and other smelly hippies. A simple "that which makes the world progress" another.

All of these are authorities of the exact same level as your god. And just like your god does, we feel like it's okay to "force" these authorities upon the rest of society, regardless of majority opinion of it. "The common good" becomes no less potent even if just a minority believes in it, just like your god's message and authority does not diminish when only a minority in society believes in him. We who do not believe in a divine authority will always have at least one like these that we base our outlook upon. And of course - just like a religious man can convert from one religion to another, so will atheists pick or discard these moral authorities. Your claim that atheists cannot have moral absolutes because we do not have any authorities to pin them on is therefore clearly false: we do have authorities of the same magnitude as the christian god, and we are fully capable of having moral absolutes.

If you find all of this hard to understand and/or strange, try thinking of it as an "atheist religion", that might help your understanding.

Edit:

The belt buckle in Brenus' picture says "Gott Mit Uns", german for "God is with us". The christian god, that is. That Nazi soldiers had Gott Mit Uns written on their belt buckles is honestly common knowledge among anyone with at least some knowledge of Nazi Germany. Which makes me wonder just how much you honestly understand and know about the various quotes you have given in this thread....

In math terms, this is like failing simple fractions while giving a lecture on integration.

I will reply to the highlighted parts i see as most important. just to let you now i usually agree almost 100% with what your saying, I feel your just missing what I am saying slightly.

I may act that way as it is truth, you still by your post are slightly off, please think deeper and feel free to pm me whenever. When something is aboslutley true, as the case i make here [not of my own thinking] , than it is the person trying to disprove etc that disagrees with it, is just misunderstanding the argument. That will hold true here 100% of the time. Anyone who feels they think the argument false is not understanding 100%, or they are being inconstant with conclusion.


That may be true what you say, that atheist can ignore what there beliefs demand. But what I will say is, a atheist who is constant with his beliefs /atheism/evolution, as darwin and hitler pointed out, are inconstant with evolution, atheism to try and have absolute morals. Or they are a weakling as hitler said, a coward.


I will say one last time [because I am leaving this thread lol] I never said atheist are constant with atheism, in fact my argument is they are not constant with atheism, if they are to tell another person, that rape killing etc are wrong.


Rape second philosophy - I dont disagree at all, I will say again, atheist can and will come up with morals in a purely atheistic society. Using that as a standard,does indeed demand rape as bad. It is a shame i am leaving i hope you pm me, as you are getting so close.. Dont disagree at all, however, my point is this. What makes me going outside of your society, say diffident time/place Nazi Germany, were I decide, raping is good, and killing others in ovens if good as well. What if the German society, decided it was better for blond hair blue eyed people to kill all others, not to mix with them reproduction and kill them off, to create a more fair equal society?. How can you, on what authority do you claim your way is better? If I live in your society and feel rape is good, how do you tell me it is bad? saying that I might get raped? but that does not make the raping I do a moral bad. Also you only believe rape is "bad" because you might not like getting raped yourself. But if someone else does not see raping others as bad as you do. than what makes you correct? you are basing your decision on your own personal feelings, that are just chemical reactions in your brain that make you feel rape is bad. Were another randomly evolved person may feel rape is a good thing. What makes your chemicals right and there opinion wrong? Other than you feel its wrong or you yourself would not want to be raped.


I dont disagree with your statement, atheist can have absolute morals based on what they believe. I said from beginning, they are inconstant with there beliefs to have morals, and it has no authority at all. It does not make seance what there own belief system demands.



I disagree fully, do i speak german no, I can count to ten. That does not make me have less knowledge of hitler/german army. I have read many books, never seen that before. i doubt many have. I have rad lots on there uniforms/weapons etc. But it really does not matter as to what hitler said in the quotes I presented, regardless of my knowledge or lack there of of german uniforms.

[Kadagar_AV]

If you want to evolve, TR, I would recommend you to spend more time reading and thinking about what others write, and less time using internet forums as your personal megaphone for your rather extreme Christian beliefs.

If for no other reason, that you then would be taken seriously. Because as it is now, your very debate technique makes it sincerely hard to.

[total relism]

are you asking for the Evolutionary reason or the Moral reason? I know you have trouble with this but they aren't the same thing

Evolution requires genes to be passed on to the next generation - if you are sacrificing the next generation you are stunting evolutionary growth which is a very sub optimal strategy - comparing two societies - one sacrificing some of their young and another not the society which doesn't sacrifice its young will have a larger gene pool and thus will be in a stronger evolutionary position

The only time this wouldn't be true would be in cases of SEVERE overpopulation - and even then it would be more optimal to sacrifice the OLD first

I did not ask what would be better for evolution, I said what I was asking from your worldview, what makes child sacrifice wrong?.

You could give no reason, also so child sacrifice could be ok than in certain circumstances, such as if there was not enough food/mates/overpopulation. I agree, in evolutionary terms, than the act of child sacrifice is not morally wrong, it just happens to help evolution to not do it so much. So for you to tell another group of people not to sacrifice babies because it is a moral "wrong" is inconstant. You can say they need to pass on there genes more, but they may not care and go for the survival of the first, killing off weaker/younger offspring so they dont have to complete for food/mates. You also cannot show them to be morally "wrong".

Having conditions are we? Well, never mind then. It has already been explained to you why you will find it hard debating spread of Islam on these boards.

Also, I did do say what huh? Sure you got the right person there?

I think I have the wrong person, you are not the one that said spread of Islam is ok?. or we should not fear it?. I have never turned down a debate, I would love to 1v1, however I do need some time. I ahve many thread going [too many] on 4 forums and need to cut down a bit. So i would not be able to start for awhile.Not sure how long at the moment.

Ok lets try this again

Morals are born out of a social contract with the other members of your community - this is also how we determine who is "moral" or "immoral" since the "moral" will obey the contract while the "immoral" will not - any one individual is only a "cog in the machine" and their individual thoughts cannot alter the moral code of the community without backing from other "cogs"

One individual who believes Murder is fine will not effect the moral views of the entire community unless he can persuade many others to his thinking - he will be considered immoral by the society as a whole and will be ostracised (like we do with Racist groups or criminals)



Ok lets break out evolutionary theory again - why is locking the women in basements sub optimal?

Evolution is about furthering your genes - this requires children and more importantly healthy children - with 50% of the society (the women) chained in the basement only the men are left to care for the young, produce the food required to raise them and educate them - this doesn't leave much room for error - the society which doesn't chain its women in a basement has 50% MORE human resources with which to raise the children which is clearly the optimal strategy

and that isn't even bringing in the fact that the women would be extremely vulnerable to all sorts of health issues which would make child bearing difficult

there is a reason the family unit pre-dates known history - it is by far the most optimal way of passing on your genes and producing a strong and healthy ospring

thank you jesus, you just proved my OP, majority opinion is the best argument atheist have for morals. As I said than the majority in 1940's germany were indeed correct in there morals,as they convinced the majority correct. But those damn outsiders were unjust and forced there morals on them [us,uk].

So as I said you have no right to tell hitler he was wrong

I may be like hitler and think murdering is good, what makes your random chemical reactions correct and mine wrong?.They have no right to tell another person [random chemical reactions] That thinks murder,rape,sexism are good [hitler]. That that person is wrong to do so. there is no way to now if you, and not the other person have the right chemical reactions. In fact there is no "right" reactions, or good or bad.


OK so it may be better for evolution, but as I said its not a moral wrong.There is nothing wrong with caging woman up,besides you think not enough reproduction will happen. I think I would knock up say 15 at a time if I had enough, that is mass producing. Also this was not a system for a society, but one person as individual.

[total relism]

Both Horetore and Sir Moody has done some well written notes, so I will simply add on it. In the end, the laws are based on that I can take several friends, based on authority (that comes from an agreement between the people and the law makers) and kick that woman caging guy's ass.
Horetore is talking about different philosophies (what I refered to framework), that gives a better reason beyond "I felt for it" and can decide what laws to keep and which to change, to be compitable with that framework. Convince enough people and the law will change.

A thought experiment. Somewhere in the future, man has discovered how to put people permanently and irrevesibly into a transcendal state (to borrow a science fiction term). This state is said (and the evidence agree on that) to be amazing and is also said to be coming one step closer to God (among the religious that's done this). Should this state be enforced upon everybody? I want your person opinion on this, based on your absolute morals.
Now for the rest of us, it will depend on what philosophical guideline you follow (and your gut feeling, but they have tendency to align), if you find this something that should be done (for the better of all) or not (self determination), so it would be a controversial subject.
If it's instead feeling like permanent torture, about everyone will agree that it's bad.

Edit: Another one. You are aware of an active genocide during a war and every reason to believe that your public words will slow it down and make both the genocide and war stop earlier, but it will cause retaliation on yourself and those below you (those are fewer than the ones who you would save though). Do you chose to speak up, or do you keep quiet? Which one is morally correct?

Also, in general human sacrifices has been done because lives are considered valuable. It's been an attempt to trade with the gods, for say weather that's not destroying the harvest. The bigger gift, the more you get in return. Doesn't work, but haven't stopped people from trying.




I took homosexuality as an example, I've moved on to general terms several posts ago. Using many translations is a very good thing, but it does show the problem of claiming that the Bible is morally absolute. If two translations differ, which one is correct? The one fitting the third perhaps? Or maybe the third was wrong as well.
About the Destroyer. Who isn't actually mentioned in one older Swedish translation (the 1917 one, used until 2000), where it sounds like the first borns simply died, rather that some entity came and collect them all. The Lord got several angels (that's mentioned in the Bible) and somehow it was decided that Uriel (who is mentioned in other Jewish holy texts) was probably the one doing the deed, through thological studies.




Maybe, but it's not good, nor just behavior done there. He could've easily killed the first Jew starting Bhaal-worshipping instead of going after the whole people (killing 24.000) after a while.




It was used for a justification for slavery of blacks. And an odd time for a simple prophecy (if the event changed history for the prophecy to be true, then it's still a punshment). It's ironic that God wiped out everyone except 4 men (and their wives), and 25% of those men are showing dubvious morals though.
About God creating man several times, the first neanderthal skull identified as such (as in not being the modern man) was discovered in 1829, several decades before the theory of evolution, so it probably caused a lot of speculations. I'm not sure of exact dates for the theory.




Horetore covered that with philosophical guidelines. I'm also free to claim whatever I want. I people agrees enough on those claims so I can hinder you from doing what you want, then it sucks to be you.
To put it differently, if the lack of absolute morals doesn't affect anything, does it matter? Remind you, this is a different question than that you have a book giving you the answer to absolute morals.



"I define the rules. And if you do the same as me it's evil, while if I'm doing it, it's good you're simply not understanding the good of it." Day dreams of a brutal dictator.




Yes, but the framing from the Byzantines and the Spanish (as in the ones acually fighting Muslims) weren't that it's holy war for Christianity against Islam. Take El Cid (in Spain) for example, a legendary Christian. Worked under Muslim rulers for years. Valencia was allowing both religions freely. The crusades themselves were framed like this yes, but for the Byzantines that meant fighting against Christians instead of Muslims after the first crusade, for example.



I'm not sure for long term, but short term it was an improvement yes. Pilgrims getting attacked was one big reason yes, but that's more with rulers not providing security, rather than a religious war.


The thirty years war. 1618-1648. Simplified: The ultimate showdown between Protestants and Catholics. Most brutal war for 250 years.

The conquest of the new world by Spain and Portugal should count in part as well (complex counting needed though). Cristopher Columbus sailed with a nice cross on the boat "Saint Mary" (Santa Maria), finding Holy Savior (San Salvador), Trinity (Trinidad), founding La Navidad (Roughly "the birth of Christ"). No religious intent there is it?

agreed, i posted the wrong thing dammit.


That's very selective counting. Take the Inqusition for example. The number of killed might be correct, but it doesn't mention that the Inqusition was overwatching the forced conversion and deportations of all Muslims and Jews in Spain (and killing off Spain as a cultural center in the process). That was hundreds of thousands. They mellowed out from the worst parts with time, but that's how it started.

Losses for the 30-years war is 8 millions, for example. And lots of wars had religious overtunes.




If you ask those kids to destroy their favorite toy, will they be distressed and sad? Is it good to force those feelings on someone simply because they trust you enough to do it? That's a whimper compared to sacrificing your own child. If Abraham knew that he wouldn't need to, then it's goofing around.
There's a big difference between being devoted enough to be willing to die for your country, compared to that the country demands this from you, to show your devotion.

sorry in a hurry cant muti quote


Proving what I said all along,majority opinion is the only thing/best that atheist can claim as being true. So because at a certain place/ time random matter [our brains] decided it was not ok to rape kill, therefore that means it is really wrong? It is based only on random chemical reactions, of random matter, in some people at a certain time/places brain. So even if we are to accept this, than hitler/nazi germany were morally correct in what they did, as the majority of them agreed [law etc.] They really beat up that jew guy.



No



The rest is interesting but off topic and these are my last post, please pm me I will gladly continue this discussion.





second quote
I think you misunderstand what the translations differ on, perhaps you could give me one example of were something differs on morality in bible. I am aware of none.Morals dont come from any one translation, but are only possible even if no bible was written

Absolute morals only make sense in a Christian worldview—they come from the One who knows what is good because He is the standard for good. The only One who fits that description is the God of the Bible, the Creator of the universe.


Third quote
I thought you were referring to how sinful the jews were,noah etc I agree, I said all there sins are recorded, we are not so lucky, or we would not look so good.



fourth quote
well wrongfully so as I said, slavery is outlawed in bible, says so many times. anyone can misuse anything.

14Then Jehovah said unto me, The prophets prophesy lies in my name; I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake I unto them: they prophesy unto you a lying vision, and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their own heart.
Jeremiah 14.14

Yes even noah was sinner, as we all are. God saves because he loves us in spite of our sin.

23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
romans 3.23

But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
roamans 5.8


Neanderthals
Last week’s big news about Neanderthals prompted an interesting response from Neanderthal expert Clive Finlayson, who noted that “we have, for far too long, considered the Neanderthals to have been so different from us” and that the idea that Neanderthals were a different species from modern humans “must surely now be removed from text books

scientific American july 2010 our inner Neanderthal humans and neanderthals interbreed showing both were human.
also
http://creation.com/neandertal-genome-like-ours

neanderthals used makeup jewelery
answers mag vol 5 no3 2010

they buried there dead and put flowers around the dead.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...eanderthal.asp

armored neanderthal
in the February issue of the Bulletin International of the Academy of Sciences of Cracow, Mr K. Stolyhwo described the discovery of a human skull with classic Neanderthal features. The entire skeleton was in a tomb which also contained iron arrowheads and a suit of chain-mail armour.
Nature, 77:587 (1908)—as referenced in the Sourcebook series by William Corliss.

They played music
Neanderthal flute?
the Sydney Morning Herald, February 21, 1996 (p. 9).


European burial sites clearly show that Neandertals and modern-looking humans intermarried. They both had elaborate burials―in a few cases, they were buried together―and modern human remains with Neandertal characteristics have been found.1
Walker, M. et. al. 2008. Late Neandertals in Southeastern Iberia: Sima de las Palomas del Cabezo Gordo, Murcia, Spain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, published online before print December 12, 2008.
Duarte, C. et al. 1999. The early Upper Paleolithic human skeleton from the Abrigo do Lagar Velho (Portugal) and modern human emergence in Iberia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 96 (13): 7604-7609.


Neanderthal tolls
“We have been using these techniques to look at how Neanderthals were making and using the tools they left at La Cotte.”
“Neanderthals were travelling to Jersey already equipped with good quality flint tools, then reworking them, very, very carefully so as not to waste anything. They were extremely good at recycling.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14677434


Because the jawbone appears to contain a mixture of features (called a "morphological mosaic" by the authors), it looks as though Neandertals intermarried with anatomically modern people.
Liu, W. et al. Human remains from Zhirendong, South China, and modern human emergence in East Asia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Published online before print October 25, 2010.

But "a new study shows they cooked and ate veggies." An examination of fossilized Neandertal remains from Belgium and Iraq revealed that their teeth contained starch granules from grain. Amanda Henry, lead author of the study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, told CNN, "Neanderthals are often portrayed as very backwards or primitive….Now we are beginning to understand that they had some quite advanced technologies and behaviors."7
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/12/29...ex.html?hpt=C2

So, evidence shows that ancient humans performed surgery
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7000810.ece

“[W]e must reclassify Homo neanderthalensis as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, a subspecies of Homo sapiens,”
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ertal-brethren

"The genetic difference between Neanderthals and Denisovans is roughly as great as the maximal level of variation among us modern humans."
Siberians share DNA with extinct human species
Man's ancestors mated with Neanderthals and other related hominids during human evolution, according to a new study.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s...n-species.html

"Our findings show that their sinuses were no larger, relative to the skull size, than in Homo sapiens who lived in temperate climates.”
"The view that Neanderthals were knuckle-dragging cave men who scraped a living by hunting large mammals on the frozen wastes of the tundra has been around since they were first discovered because they were known to live at a time when Europe was in the grip of the last Glacial Age.
"As a result a lot of their physical traits have been attributed as adaptations that helped them live in the cold, even when it doesn't make any sense.”
Dr Todd Rae, an evolutionary anthropologist at Roehampton University in London
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s...rch-finds.html


2 chimps of same species today varry in dna similarity more so than, neaderthals do to humans
anwsers mag p 58 april-june 2012
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...emen-different


“yet another indication that they weren't dimwitted brutes as often portrayed,”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0314152917.htm


“Neanderthals are often portrayed as very backwards or primitive….Now we are beginning to understand that they had some quite advanced technologies and behaviors.”
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/12/29...ex.html?hpt=C2


A new paper (based on evolutionary reasoning) says that they were.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-grc071411.php



(Abstract of the full paper is here:

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/conten...sr024.abstract )


Neanderthals were harvesting feathers from birds in order to use them as personal ornaments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19623929


An earlier report described “Stone Age” grinding tools along with hundreds of starch grains in various stages of processing, from a variety of plants
Revedin, A. et al. 2010. Thirty thousand-year-old evidence of plant food processing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 107 (44): 18815-18819.


Neanderthals some were fraudulent jaw moved out of scoekt to look more primitive
http://www.amazon.com/Buried-Alive-S.../dp/0890512388



Fith quote
I agree 100% majority onion, and it only sucks to be me, not like I have done wrong, read earlier reply on this post. I agree 100% that just beacue it is inconstant with atheism/evolution does not mean people will not have absolute morals. This is my whole thread, they are inconstant to say certain things are morally wrong.


sixth quote
again, as I said that is the way your precive it. I show atheist this to be wrong on all subjects I have studied in depth, I have not done all, but many.

5 But if our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) 6 Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world?
roamns 3 5-6


I used to think that wrath was unworthy of God. Isn't God love? Shouldn't divine love be beyond wrath? ?God is love,and God loves every person and every creature. That's exactly why God is wrathful against some of them. My last resistance to the idea of God's wrath was a casualty of the war in the former Yugoslavia, a region from which I come. According to some estimates, 200,000 people were killed, and over 3,000,000 were displaced. My villages and cities were destroyed, my people shelled day in and day out, some of them brutalize beyond imagination, and I could not imagine God not being angry. Or think of Rwanda in the last decade of the past century, where 800,000 people were hacked to death in one hundred days! How did God react to the carnage? By doting on the perpetrators in a grandfatherly fashion? By refusing to condemn the bloodbath but instead affirming th perpetrators' basic goodness? Wasn't God fiercely angry with them? Though I used to complain about the indecency of the idea of God's wrath, I cam to thin that I would have to rebel against a God who wasn't wrathful at the sight of the world' evil. God isn't wrathful in spite of being love. God is wrathful because God is love (Miroslav Volf as quoted in Is God a Moral Monster? by Paul Copan, 192).




seventh
has nothing to do with what started crusades


eighth quote
disagree, perhaps one day we should debate, is it better living under islam rule or christian, I think we disagree there.


number 9.
were was it? please pm me, who won?lol.


ten
did you just claim hundreds of thousands died in Inquisition? also the 8 mil you claim died in a "christian" war, even assuming true. Is nothing compared to what atheist have done in one century of rule.


11
abraham new god would provide is the whole point, he had faith. You seem to miss that.