Really? Well the distinction is quite clear. The person that thinks that he'd kill himself if he were gay would not kill the gay person if the law is "Treat others the way you like to be treated." but he would if the law was "Treat others the way you'd like to be treated if you were them." you understand?
Originally posted by backdoorman
Christ you're dense. I will try a different approach.
Ok, this is what you originally said: Thats exactly what I was thinking and why Queiro got attacked. It sounded like hey "The Bible tell me what to do, but athiests make up morality as you go along."
Quiero isn't saying that atheists walk around and suddenly decide this or that is immoral. In fact he hasn't made any allegations on how atheists get their moral codes, OK?
No, it doesnt change the fact that its not illogical to think that due to the reasons I gave, you didnt adress the reasons I gave you you just simply said in so many words "this is how I see it."
If you can explain to me why my reason were illogical then maybe we can get somewhere. You also said he made a jibe at Dawkins what was he making a jibe about? Dawkins hair colour or the fact that he created his own morality.
Originally posted by Alfheim
No, it doesnt change the fact that its not illogical to think that due to the reasons I gave, you didnt adress the reasons I gave you you just simply said in so many words "this is how I see it."
If you can explain to me why my reason were illogical then maybe we can get somewhere. You also said he made a jibe at Dawkins what was he making a jibe about? Dawkins hair colour or the fact that he created his own morality.
Originally posted by backdoorman
Really? Well the distinction is quite clear. The person that thinks that he'd kill himself if he were gay would not kill the gay person if the law is "Treat others the way you like to be treated." but he would if the law was "Treat others the way you'd like to be treated if you were them." you understand?
No, it's not clear at all, and your logic there is wrong. The person who would kill himself if he was gay would use that as a justification to kill others if they were gay, and would not be at all slowed by the 'do unto others' philosophy.
There's really no distinction at all. Really the words you add are superfluous.
Originally posted by UshgarakWell, there is though.
No, it's not clear at all, and your logic there is wrong. The person who would kill himself if he was gay would use that as a justification to kill others if they were gay, and would not be at all slowed by the 'do unto others' philosophy.There's really no distinction at all. Really the words you add are superfluous.
The one states you should do what you want to be done to yourself regardless of the situation (not be killed)
The other states that you should do what you want to be done to yourself if you were in their situation (be killed)
- B-bardock
Originally posted by backdoorman
You are so inarticulate, it's honestly hard to understand what you are saying. Had you presented the argument to me in a more clear manner, I might have been able to make a response. Please reword and I will answer.
You dont understand this?
Originally posted by AlfheimBecause the thread was aimed at athiests. Christians get their morality from the Bible, therefore its not illogical to assume that he thinks that athiests create their own morality. Is there an athiest bible, no.
Originally posted by backdoorman
From what he (Quiero) read of Dawkins' book, all Dawkins said was that there was morality and strong moral codes among atheists but he didn't see Dawkins' reasoning of the origin of his moral standards. That's where the "jab" comes in. You follow me?
Yes. He just wanted to know were they got their moral values from. I still dont see how it cant be seen as him veiwing that athiests create their own morality, it simply seems to be a matter of opinion but considering Christians seem to think they are morally superior that is not an illogical conclusion.
Originally posted by Sanctuary
Well, there is though.The one states you should do what you want to be done to yourself regardless of the situation (not be killed)
The other states that you should do what you want to be done to yourself if you were in their situation (be killed)
- B-bardock
Err... no, that's just very simply not so.
I don't know where this confusion is coming from on a basic topic. Where is this 'regardless of situation' nonsense coming from?
The basis of the 'do unto others' philosophy is that it would proscribe things like murder on the idea that you would not like to be murdered yourself. But if you think that you should die if you are gay, you would apply that to others also.
Originally posted by UshgarakWouldn't that come in conflict with "I don't want to be murdered" then?
Err... no, that's just very simply not so.I don't know where this confusion is coming from on a basic topic. Where is this 'regardless of situation' nonsense coming from?
The basis of the 'do unto others' philosophy is that it would proscribe things like murder on the idea that you would not like to be murdered yourself. But if you think that you should die if you are gay, you would apply that to others also.
Originally posted by lil bitchinessWhile I agree that much of modern morality in the US is Christian based but with the influx of immigrants around the world I think that it is less so than 50 years ago. Even with Christian morality was influenced by the culture and people before its founding.
Like it or not, you are the product of Christianity. (assuming you have European heritage)Your history, you ancestors, your moral codes, law codes, the freedom to have to have opinions you have, are shaped by Christianity.
The way you implement morality and ethics are shaped by Christianity.
Not just you, but all of you who are from the West.
Your whole history is Christianity. Its funny how many people of European -> North American heritage like to crap all over it all the time.
Don't believe in it - great.West saturated with strictly Christian (spawned from roman Catholicism) culture, weather you believe in God or not.
Originally posted by UshgarakAnyways, there is a distinction between doing what you want done to yourself and doing what you would want to be done to yourself if you were in the situation. You apparently think the "do unto others..." thing is the later, not everyone does, of course.
No, because your reasoning for not being murdered would disappear if you were gay.That's certainly the logic you would apply. "If I were gay I would deserve to die."
This is an interesting question seeing as Religious people do the most killing in the world al la "My Gods better than yours so I´ll slaughter you all."
I don´t think I need to give any examples of this barbarism, its clear to be seen now and in history.
How many holy wars have been carried out by Atheists?
There were and still are indigenous tribes who live in the Jungles and other far out places of this world who have never heard of Allah, Jesus or Buddha but nevertheless condone murder. Ok they probably worship some fire or tree god, but theres no stone tablets that tell them not to kill. Its just common sense.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
It would take a while to explain. I'd try to summarize it, but I have the feeling not many would read it. If you're actually interested, read Richard Dawkin's "The Selfish Gene". It isn't about God, or a lack of God, or morals, etc. It's about evolution...and it goes deeper than most lay people understand it, and it elegantly explains how evolution accounts for altruism and selfishness, the base concepts behind ideas like morality....
As for attacks that atheists arbitrarily decide on a set of morals, to me (and many others) the moral standards of religions are equally as arbitrary. And you aren't automatically more "correct" because you have the backing of an organized body of people (neither is 'correct' or 'incorrect' in a strict sense).
It sounds a tad Materialistic, especially considering that our behavior is inherited by are parents after birth. Unless, he's talking about human instinct which is a bit far removed from morals. 😬
Originally posted by backdoorman
From what he (Quiero) read of Dawkins' book, all Dawkins said was that there was morality and strong moral codes among atheists but he didn't see Dawkins' reasoning of the origin of his moral standards. That's where the "jab" comes in. You follow me?
That's right, ey. And just like Alfheim said; there's no Atheist's Bible.
And if there was, it would likely be written by Dawkins himself. 😂
Originally posted by Bicnarok
How many holy wars have been carried out by Atheists?
Holy wars? None. But Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Polpot were all atheists.
Hitler and Stalin; two individuals, who combined, are responsible for tens of millions of human deaths, why? Because they arbitrarily made up their own morals.....
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
That's right, ey. And just like Alfheim said; there's no Atheist's Bible.And if there was, it would likely be written by Dawkins himself. 😂
Holy wars? None. But Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Polpot were all atheists.
Hitler and Stalin; two individuals, who combined, are responsible for tens of millions of human deaths, why? Because they arbitrarily made up their own morals.....
Hitler was a Catholic. 🙄
Originally posted by Quiero MotaIt is still debatable if Hitler was but from his quotes and past beliefs I believe he was religious
That's right, ey. And just like Alfheim said; there's no Atheist's Bible.And if there was, it would likely be written by Dawkins himself. 😂
Holy wars? None. But Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Polpot were all atheists.
Hitler and Stalin; two individuals, who combined, are responsible for tens of millions of human deaths, why? Because they arbitrarily made up their own morals.....