Ask an atheist thread

[RND]

Well it would depend on their reason for hitting me, really. There's a chance I could actually view it as right, or at least justified.

Punching someone in the face, for any reason, is never justified - that is called "assault."

I need more specific details in this hypothetical situation to decide why I'd believe it's wrong.

You mean you could actually justify punching someone in the face or being deserving of a punch in the face?

No matter what? No. I said I believe morals are subjective.

Who's morals then? If someone took your car from you without permission how is it that you don't see that taking as "subjective?" What if they took your car to rush a dying man to the hospital? Is that different than a simple joy ride across town? In order for your "morals" to be "subjective" one would still require an explanation.

Imagine for a second you get up in the morning, shower and get ready to head of to work. You go outside to get in your car to head off to work and it's gone.....your car is gone! You notice broken glass on the street where it was parked? Is your first reaction "subjective?"

"Oh, that's nice someone took my car, maybe they needed it more than I did? Oh, well." Or, is your first reaction to call the police, file a report, call your insurance agent, and then call someone at work and tell them why you are going to be late?

Subjective? Hardly. You'd be upset.

It would depend on the situation.

The "explanation."

 

[Reido]

Punching someone in the face, for any reason, is never justified - that is called "assault."

I wouldn't punch anyone in the face, I'm not violent at all. The most violent I've been is pushing someone a few times. And that was when I was really angry.
But I think punching someone could be justified. I think there could be better ways of handling things usually, but I don't believe it's always entirely wrong.
Whether or not you believe it is justified is irrelevant, though.
You asked me if I believed it was right or wrong. I told you. You're not proving anything by telling me that you believe differently. If anything, you're agreeing with me that morals are subjective, since you're saying your morals are different than mine.

You mean you could actually justify punching someone in the face or being deserving of a punch in the face?

Yes.

Who's morals then? If someone took your car from you without permission how is it that you don't see that taking as "subjective?" What if they took your car to rush a dying man to the hospital? Is that different than a simple joy ride across town?

What? I said it depends on the situation. So if someone took my car to rush a dying man to the hospital I wouldn't think it was wrong. I'd be upset that they took my car, but I wouldn't think it was wrong of them to do so.

In order for your "morals" to be "subjective" one would still require an explanation.

In order for my morals to be subjective? What do you mean?
Morals being subjective simply means that there is no ultimate morality, that morals vary from person to person, society to society, and change with the times.
When I say I believe morality is subjective, that's what I mean.

Imagine for a second you get up in the morning, shower and get ready to head of to work. You go outside to get in your car to head off to work and it's gone.....your car is gone! You notice broken glass on the street where it was parked? Is your first reaction "subjective?"

"Oh, that's nice someone took my car, maybe they needed it more than I did? Oh, well." Or, is your first reaction to call the police, file a report, call your insurance agent, and then call someone at work and tell them why you are going to be late?

Obviously I'll be upset, my car's gone. That has nothing to do with morality, though. I'd be upset because I don't have a car.
Ignorance of a situation doesn't change whether it's right or wrong. I'd still have to know their reason for doing it to decide whether I believe it was right or wrong.

 

[RND]

I wouldn't punch anyone in the face, I'm not violent at all. The most violent I've been is pushing someone a few times. And that was when I was really angry.
But I think punching someone could be justified. I think there could be better ways of handling things usually, but I don't believe it's always entirely wrong.
Whether or not you believe it is justified is irrelevant, though.
You asked me if I believed it was right or wrong. I told you. You're not proving anything by telling me that you believe differently. If anything, you're agreeing with me that morals are subjective, since you're saying your morals are different than mine.

So, you have it you ability of reason to at least understand that violence is never justified. That's not a "subjective" thought to say, "I wouldn't punch anyone in the face, I'm not violent at all." Great!

Now, someone without any conscious or morals may walk up to you, punch you in the face and steal your car. Do you still use the nonsense of "subjectivism" to judge that as being right or wrong?

Yes.

Which is it? "Yes" or ""I wouldn't punch anyone in the face, I'm not violent at all."

What? I said it depends on the situation. So if someone took my car to rush a dying man to the hospital I wouldn't think it was wrong. I'd be upset that they took my car, but I wouldn't think it was wrong of them to do so.

The point is, how would you know?

In order for my morals to be subjective? What do you mean?
Morals being subjective simply means that there is no ultimate morality, that morals vary from person to person, society to society, and change with the times.
When I say I believe morality is subjective, that's what I mean.

Yeah, I know what you mean. If morals are subjective then a man can rape your wife, and kill your kids and there is nothing you can say is "immoral" about it because they may have a different "subjectism" about what is moral.

One that believes that moral are "relative or subjective" cannot possible say what Hitler, Pol Pot or Stalin did was wrong.

Obviously I'll be upset, my car's gone. That has nothing to do with morality, though. I'd be upset because I don't have a car.

Your sense of "morality" that innate sense of what is right and what is wrong would lead you to be "upset" and understand you've just been violated.

Ignorance of a situation doesn't change whether it's right or wrong.

Right, so how do you judge what is "right or wrong?" How is it that you, me and the police would see you having you car stolen as "wrong" and yet the thief would not? A sense of "right and wrong" perhaps? That's the very definition of "morality." If you and I as well as the police and most "rational" people can see something as "wrong" i.e. care theft then it isn't a "subjective" view.

Moral = : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical <moral judgments> b: expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem> c: conforming to a standard of right behavior d: sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a moral obligation> e: capable of right and wrong action <a moral agent>

I'd still have to know their reason for doing it to decide whether I believe it was right or wrong.

Ah, c'mon - now you are just being ridiculous. You mean you wouldn't call the police and report a theft "until" you found out the "motive" of the one taking your car? That's just absolutely ridiculous to even suggest. Human nature just has to tell someone when there property is taken. Just the act of even calling the cops and your insurance company to report something as stolen means you have an innate sense of what is right and wrong. Nothing "subjective" about it.

BTW, do you realize "motive" has little to do with the how's, why's and what's of any "crime?"

 

[Vic C.]

Would you two care to make this a formal debate?

 

[RND]

Would you two care to make this a formal debate?

Always up for a good challenge Vic but understanding "common sense" is not much of a challenge. The realization that there are people in the world that believe morals are subjective is truly frightening.

That means a man can be in the act of raping and harming your wife and you would have to stand back and judge "his" morals first "before" deciding whether the act of rape was justified.

"Well, maybe that man needed sex and forced companionship more than my wife was entitled to her dignity and self-worth."

Even, though come sweet Jesus, come.........

 

[Reido]

So, you have it you ability of reason to at least understand that violence is never justified. That's not a "subjective" thought to say, "I wouldn't punch anyone in the face, I'm not violent at all." Great!

Now, someone without any conscious or morals may walk up to you, punch you in the face and steal your car. Do you still use the nonsense of "subjectivism" to judge that as being right or wrong?

Again, subjective morality does not mean that my morals vary. It means that morals in general vary. It means that people and societies have different morals than one another and that views on morality can be sugject to change.
I'm not a violent person, that has nothing to do with either objective nor subjective morality.

Which is it? "Yes" or ""I wouldn't punch anyone in the face, I'm not violent at all."

I said yes that I believe violence can be justified.
But I'm not violent so I would probably never get violent personally.
There's no contradiction there.



[quoteThe point is, how would you know?[/quote]
I wouldn't. What's your point?

Yeah, I know what you mean. If morals are subjective then a man can rape your wife, and kill your kids and there is nothing you can say is "immoral" about it because they may have a different "subjectism" about what is moral.

One that believes that moral are "relative or subjective" cannot possible say what Hitler, Pol Pot or Stalin did was wrong.

No, that's not what subjective morality is at all.
I already explained it more than once.
I can say it's immoral, but that's only my opinion. I won't say that it's a fact that it is immoral.
They may believe it's moral while I believe it's immoral, but I'm going to judge the act based on my moral, not theirs.

Your sense of "morality" that innate sense of what is right and what is wrong would lead you to be "upset" and understand you've just been violated.

That's your opinion.
Mine is that I'd be upset because my car was taken from me.

Right, so how do you judge what is "right or wrong?" How is it that you, me and the police would see you having you car stolen as "wrong" and yet the thief would not? A sense of "right and wrong" perhaps? That's the very definition of "morality." If you and I as well as the police and most "rational" people can see something as "wrong" i.e. care theft then it isn't a "subjective" view.

Yes, a sense of right and wrong would determine how we view the situation.
The point of subjective morality is simply that different people have different ideas of what is right and wrong.

Ah, c'mon - now you are just being ridiculous. You mean you wouldn't call the police and report a theft "until" you found out the "motive" of the one taking your car? That's just absolutely ridiculous to even suggest. Human nature just has to tell someone when there property is taken. Just the act of even calling the cops and your insurance company to report something as stolen means you have an innate sense of what is right and wrong. Nothing "subjective" about it.

Um, yes I would. Because my car was taken from me and I'd want it back.
I never said I wouldn't.
But I wouldn't be able to judge whether it was right or wrong until I had a better understanding of the situation.

BTW, do you realize "motive" has little to do with the how's, why's and what's of any "crime?"

The motive behind a crime is the why of a crime, is it not?

 

[Reido]

Would you two care to make this a formal debate?

If it would make things easier, I wouldn't mind it.

 

[turnorburn]

Would you say this was dreamed up? peaceful people? :naughty

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTuqXiHzZtk

Joshua S. Black, when addressing an atheist said, "For people who don't believe in God, you guys sure are paranoid about something!!" How true that is. I have known many atheists, and I have found them to be totally committed to their negative cause. They are zealots, fanatics--who are serious, angry, hateful, and blasphemous towards something they don't believe in. And what's more, they spend their time gathering fuel for the fire of their hatred for God and those that love Him. They gather what they think is legitimate fuel, whether it is atrocities committed by hypocritical religions of history, or the horrors of the Inquisition (the Catholic church torturing Christians for their faith in Jesus). They even gather unintelligent and unscientific material. It qualifies for use because it fits their presuppositions. Any fuel will do, as long at it puts smoke between them and the God they hate "without cause." It was Jonathon Miller who said, "In some awful, strange, paradoxical way, atheists tend to take religion more seriously than the practitioners." So, what is this "something" about which they are so paranoid? It is the same "something" that makes criminals paranoid, and it is that paranoia that fuels criminals to have a deep-rooted hatred for the police. It's not the individual officer they hate; it's what he stands for--civil law. And that's the root of the hatred that the atheist has for God and for those that represent Him. Once again, the Bible has said this all along. It hits the nail on its big and hard head: Romans 8:7: ". . because the mind of the flesh [with its carnal thoughts and purposes] is hostile to God, for it does not submit itself to God's Law; indeed it cannot" (Amplified Bible). They hate the morality that God's Law demands. That's the fuel for their hostility.

 

[RND]

Again, subjective morality does not mean that my morals vary.

I understand that.

It means that morals in general vary. It means that people and societies have different morals than one another and that views on morality can be sugject to change. I'm not a violent person, that has nothing to do with either objective nor subjective morality.

Brother, you have a head on your shoulders I take it. If someone walked up to you and smacked you in the face and took your girlfriend would you use "subjective" reasoning to decide if that was "right or not?"

I said yes that I believe violence can be justified.
But I'm not violent so I would probably never get violent personally.
There's no contradiction there.

You are, sadly, missing the point. Whether you would or would not use violence is an individual choice, yet you have a capacity to judge right from wrong and not just "subjectively" but "objectively" as well.

I wouldn't. What's your point?

How would you know the motive of someone that took your car? Would you have to know that "motive" before" deciding what was right or not?

What if someone robbed you of a $1,000.00 to buy drugs or buy food? Would you have to know the reason "why" you had your money stolen to justify the theft?

No, that's not what subjective morality is at all.

Yes it is. Subjective is deciding on your own what is moral without any outside influence. So, if your "subjective" morally says rape is bad, and someone else's "subjective morality says rape is OK who are you to judge?

I already explained it more than once.
I can say it's immoral, but that's only my opinion. I won't say that it's a fact that it is immoral.
They may believe it's moral while I believe it's immoral, but I'm going to judge the act based on my moral, not theirs.

Be serious. You have no capacity to judge whether the pain, anguish, and trouble another is going through against their will is moral or not? So, if you "mom" was about to be stuffed in an oven and roasted alive you would have no capacity to say, "that's wrong?"

Your answers are so tepid and void of any understanding of human nature that they simply show the lack of understanding you have about the "real" world.

[quote:1hh9sln7]Your sense of "morality" that innate sense of what is right and what is wrong would lead you to be "upset" and understand you've just been violated.

That's your opinion.
Mine is that I'd be upset because my car was taken from me.[/quote:1hh9sln7]

Right! Exactly right! You have the innate sense to judge that having your property taken is theft! That's not a subjective thought, it's innate. Most of us don't like having our stuff taken, that's why people got together and said, "Hey, were we gonna put people that won't stop taking other people's stuff."

You get the idea? If most people "feel" the same way, and have the same thoughts it can no longer be a "subjective" thought but "innate."

Yes, a sense of right and wrong would determine how we view the situation.
The point of subjective morality is simply that different people have different ideas of what is right and wrong.

I know what "subjective" morality is. Let's move on. What I am saying is that if "most" people view something as "wrong" it is probably "wrong" and thus "innate" this is, part of who we are.

Um, yes I would. Because my car was taken from me and I'd want it back.
I never said I wouldn't.
But I wouldn't be able to judge whether it was right or wrong until I had a better understanding of the situation.

Brother, the shear effort of wanted something back that was taken from you is evidence of your being able to "judge" right from wrong. Knowing the motive means nothing.

Car's gone. I want it back. The "want" is evidence of understanding "right from wrong."

Now, even if you were to your shoulders and say, "Se la vie" I'd still say you have an innate sense of being able to judge right from wrong.

The motive behind a crime is the why of a crime, is it not?

No. Why a guy decides to murder someone is relevant to the commission of the crime. So, a guy decides to rob a bank to feed his kids. They put folks in prison no matter what the "motive" might have been.

 

[Reido]

Brother, you have a head on your shoulders I take it. If someone walked up to you and smacked you in the face and took your girlfriend would you use "subjective" reasoning to decide if that was "right or not?"

Yes I would use subjective reasoning. It's clearly not objective reasoning, the person who did it at least would disagree with me saying it's wrong.

You are, sadly, missing the point. Whether you would or would not use violence is an individual choice, yet you have a capacity to judge right from wrong and not just "subjectively" but "objectively" as well.

It's not objective though, since not everyone agrees with me about it. As you said, it's an individual choice.

How would you know the motive of someone that took your car? Would you have to know that "motive" before" deciding what was right or not?

I wouldn't know the motive. Yes, I would have to know the motive to decide whether it's right or not.
But I probably wouldn't even consider whether it's right or wrong, I'd just want my car back.

What if someone robbed you of a $1,000.00 to buy drugs or buy food? Would you have to know the reason "why" you had your money stolen to justify the theft?

Yes. To know whether it was justified or not I'd obviously have to know the reason.

Yes it is. Subjective is deciding on your own what is moral without any outside influence. So, if your "subjective" morally says rape is bad, and someone else's "subjective morality says rape is OK who are you to judge?

Subjective morals can still have outside influence.
I judge based on what I think is right, just like everyone else.
That's just the was people are.

Be serious. You have no capacity to judge whether the pain, anguish, and trouble another is going through against their will is moral or not? So, if you "mom" was about to be stuffed in an oven and roasted alive you would have no capacity to say, "that's wrong?"

When did I say I didn't have the capacity to judge whether something is moral or not?
I said I belive morals are subjective, so I believe we all have that capacity but our judgements can vary.

Right! Exactly right! You have the innate sense to judge that having your property taken is theft! That's not a subjective thought, it's innate. Most of us don't like having our stuff taken, that's why people got together and said, "Hey, were we gonna put people that won't stop taking other people's stuff."

You get the idea? If most people "feel" the same way, and have the same thoughts it can no longer be a "subjective" thought but "innate."

Most people, but not all. It's still not objective, even if it is innate.

I know what "subjective" morality is. Let's move on. What I am saying is that if "most" people view something as "wrong" it is probably "wrong" and thus "innate" this is, part of who we are.

I never said it wasn't innate. Just that I don't believe it's objective.

Brother, the shear effort of wanted something back that was taken from you is evidence of your being able to "judge" right from wrong. Knowing the motive means nothing.

Car's gone. I want it back. The "want" is evidence of understanding "right from wrong."

Wanting something back has nothing to do with what is morally right and wrong.

 

[RND]

Yes I would use subjective reasoning. It's clearly not objective reasoning, the person who did it at least would disagree with me saying it's wrong.

Brother, you would be using "innate" reasoning. There is something inside of you, not your own reasoning, that let's you know that something is always wrong. That is you would be judging upon observation or reasoning that is inherent to your nature.

It's not objective though, since not everyone agrees with me about it. As you said, it's an individual choice.

If everybody agrees what is right or what is wrong then it is "objective" not "subjective." If everyone agrees, for the most part, that stealing is wrong that is an "objective" thought based on the innate.

I wouldn't know the motive. Yes, I would have to know the motive to decide whether it's right or not.
But I probably wouldn't even consider whether it's right or wrong, I'd just want my car back.

That a weak "cop out." The mere decision of wanting your property back is evidence of being able to understand "objective reasoning."

Yes. To know whether it was justified or not I'd obviously have to know the reason.

Brother, it's never justifiable to taken something that doesn't belong to you. That's stealing. You understand that because you have stated you would want your property back in such an instance.

Subjective morals can still have outside influence.

Of course.

I judge based on what I think is right, just like everyone else.
That's just the was people are.

But that's just it, we all have a sense to judge right and wrong even when others are doing wrong. Like my mother always said, "If everyone jumped off a bridge would you do it too?" We are all build with an innate sense of what is right behavior and wrong behavior. That's why 2 year olds cry and get upset when another 2 year old takes their toy...."It's mine." That not "subjective" that's innate.

Haven't you ever seen a trial or a confession of a criminal and the "I knew what I was doing was wrong...." talk?

When did I say I didn't have the capacity to judge whether something is moral or not?

When you insist that something is "subjective" as oposed to innate then yes, that's exactly what you are saying. The "subjective" mind doesn't see a woman taken against her will as "wrong" necessarily.

I said I belive morals are subjective, so I believe we all have that capacity but our judgements can vary.

Those are two entirely different things. Morals are not simply based on our sense of right judgment. There would be alot less crime and misery if man did indeed think like that.

Most people, but not all. It's still not objective, even if it is innate.

Sure it is! The collective though can certainly, and mo9st often is, objective.

I never said it wasn't innate. Just that I don't believe it's objective.

Certainly, if it is "innate" it can't be subjective.

Wanting something back has nothing to do with what is morally right and wrong.

Sure it does! It has everything to do with it! If you "didn't" want something back that means you would care about the object stolen. And yet, we all know better than that.

Oh, man....what passes for "thought" today.

 

[Reido]

Brother, you would be using "innate" reasoning. There is something inside of you, not your own reasoning, that let's you know that something is always wrong. That is you would be judging upon observation or reasoning that is inherent to your nature.

I'm not disputing whether or not it's innate, I'm just saying that it's subjective, in that it can vary from person to person. What I view as wrong another may view as right, and vise versa.


[quoteIf everybody agrees what is right or what is wrong then it is "objective" not "subjective." If everyone agrees, for the most part, that stealing is wrong that is an "objective" thought based on the innate. [/quote]
Yes, if everyboy agrees it is objective. The problem is that not everyone agrees on morals, hence why I don't believe morals are objective. Most people is not all people.

That a weak "cop out." The mere decision of wanting your property back is evidence of being able to understand "objective reasoning."

I'm not talking about reasoning. I'm talking about morals. Wanting something back is not a moral. It's a desire.

Brother, it's never justifiable to taken something that doesn't belong to you. That's stealing. You understand that because you have stated you would want your property back in such an instance.

In my opinion, it can be justifiable. I would want my property back simply because I want it, not because I believe it's right that I have it.
In fact, I believe it's wrong that I'm keeping all my property to myself rather than giving to the needy. But I'm selfish. But that's beside the point.

Of course.

Yay! We agreed on something.

Haven't you ever seen a trial or a confession of a criminal and the "I knew what I was doing was wrong...." talk?

Yes, but that's not always the case.
I've done things other people have believed to be wrong while I, and some others, believed it to be right.

When you insist that something is "subjective" as oposed to innate then yes, that's exactly what you are saying. The "subjective" mind doesn't see a woman taken against her will as "wrong" necessarily.

I still see things as wrong or right. I just think that others may disagree with my ideas of right and wrong.
I see it as wrong, but I think some others may not see it as wrong. I can't imagine why anyone would think that way, though. But they can.

Those are two entirely different things. Morals are not simply based on our sense of right judgment. There would be alot less crime and misery if man did indeed think like that.

You're right, morals aren't simply based on our sense of right judgement. Morals are based on our sense of right and wrong combined with the ideas and rules we are introduced to in society and by other people. At least, that is what I believe.

Sure it does! It has everything to do with it! If you "didn't" want something back that means you would care about the object stolen. And yet, we all know better than that.

Obviously I wouldn't care about it if I didn't want it back. But that still doesn't have anything to do with morals.

 

[RND]

Well Reido that'll have to be the last word.....we are just going around in circles. Just remember, if you are ever cornered by an angry, knife wielding man that wishes to do you harm he is just acting "subjectively" and it's not personal.

 

[Reido]

Well Reido that'll have to be the last word.....we are just going around in circles. Just remember, if you are ever cornered by an angry, knife wielding man that wishes to do you harm he is just acting "subjectively" and it's not personal.

Yeah, doesn't seem like we're going to agree on this whole thing.
We might as well just agree to disagree.

 

[turnorburn]

Here lies your dilemma in scripture.

I Corinthians 1: 18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

This is an invitation to meet the Lords Christ, reject him you will hate yourself come
judgment day, separated from Gods goodness forever is a sad way to spend "your"
eternity.


turnorburn

 

[jwu]

But that's just it, we all have a sense to judge right and wrong even when others are doing wrong. Like my mother always said, "If everyone jumped off a bridge would you do it too?" We are all build with an innate sense of what is right behavior and wrong behavior. That's why 2 year olds cry and get upset when another 2 year old takes their toy...."It's mine." That not "subjective" that's innate.

Have you never observed the other 2 year old then making the exact same claim?
"It's mine!" "No, it's mine!"
If both make the same claim, then one has to be wrong. How can this be, if both truly assert their ownership from an innate sense of right and wrong? Or do they just assert ownership to that toy because the don't want to lose it?

Haven't you ever seen a trial or a confession of a criminal and the "I knew what I was doing was wrong...." talk?

If you were right, then there should never ever be a trial in which the criminal admits what he was charged of, but denies that he did anything wrong. As in, "he (the victim) deserved it!"
How can this be, if you are correct?

 

[RND]

Have you never observed the other 2 year old then making the exact same claim?
"It's mine!" "No, it's mine!"

Not just two years olds! But 22 year olds, 32, 42, 52....etc.

If both make the same claim, then one has to be wrong. How can this be, if both truly assert their ownership from an innate sense of right and wrong?

Only one can be right correct? The other must be lying right? Just as we have an innate sense to express morality we also have the innate sense to do what is wrong...i.e. sin.

Or do they just assert ownership to that toy because the don't want to lose it?

The owner doesn't. The owner asserts his rights out of an innate sense of understanding what is rightfully his.

If you were right, then there should never ever be a trial in which the criminal admits what he was charged of, but denies that he did anything wrong.

Um, isn't that standard procedure?

As in, "he (the victim) deserved it!"
How can this be, if you are correct?

Admitting remorse at the end of a trial by saying "I knew what I was doing was wrong...." is also standard procedure.

 

[JoJo]

Hi Freddy,

Nice to meet you. I'm not that great at debating, but you did suggest we ask questions. So here's mine:

You said, "I come from a very religious Christian family and had been a devout, practising Christian my entire life until a couple of years ago when I decided to become an atheist." When you say, "devout, practising Christian," do you mean you had a personal relationship with Jesus? And if so, what turned you away from loving him anymore?

Secondly,

I am very sorry to hear about you being diagnosed with cancer. I know chemotherapy can be extremely debilitating and can really give you time to think things over. I know because my son was diagnosed with cancer in 2006 (lymphoma in the form of an aggressive chest tumor) and it almost killed him. He was not a Christian, not in practice or belief. In fact, as he told me just last year, he was delving into satanism. Although I raised my son to know Christ, he never had a personal relationship with Him. But last year, on a missions trip, my son accepted Jesus and began His personal walk with Him. He told me, "Mom, if I had died when I had cancer, I would have gone to hell." (Thank the Lord my son remains in full remission today)

You seem to have some things in common with my son. He is also very intelligent (as you obviously are) and polite. He also believes that evolution and creation can co-exist. He's a very scientific-minded person. However, he has reconciled the existance of God with science. He believes God created science with all its many intracacies. (sp?)

Oh Freddy, if only I could share the love of Christ with you. I have experienced His love in so many ways and in so many depths. It wasn't Ra or Zeus (sorry if those weren't your examples) that spoke to me when my son was in ICU. It wasn't any other god that surrounded me with his presence and said, "Your son will live." Those are only two examples because no forum is large enough for me to express all of the love I've received from He who is Love Himself.

Tonight I will talk to my Lord about you if you don't mind. And even if you do, I would not be able to stop myself. I will probably never meet you in person, but if there is some slim chance that I could meet you in the afterlife, I would love to (and introduce you to my son).

 

[jwu]

The owner doesn't. The owner asserts his rights out of an innate sense of understanding what is rightfully his.

You're missing my point - it is that it often happens that two prople genuinely claim ownership to something. That indicates that there is no infallible compass to who owns what ingrained in us.

[quote:3s9gbhml]If you were right, then there should never ever be a trial in which the criminal admits what he was charged of, but denies that he did anything wrong.

Um, isn't that standard procedure? [/quote:3s9gbhml]No it isn't standard procedure for sure...but it occurs. You may have misunderstood me at this point. I was saying that someone in court admits that e.g. he beat someone up, but denies that it was unwarranted. Standard procedure would be to deny that one beat that other guy up in first instance.

[quote:3s9gbhml]As in, "he (the victim) deserved it!"
How can this be, if you are correct?

Admitting remorse at the end of a trial by saying "I knew what I was doing was wrong...." is also standard procedure.[/quote:3s9gbhml]But it doesn't always happen, as it should if you were correct. Do you seriously claim that no trial ever ended with the defendant feeling treated unfairly, even though the sentence was correct? That no defendant ever ended a trial with words like,"yes i did it, and i'm not sorry for it, it'd do it again!"

If there is just a single such case, then your entire argument falls apart.

 

[F.Z.]

Hi everyone, Freddy here. Sorry that I haven't been showing up in this thread lately but there are just soo many things that are being discussed I can't really answer everyone. Just wanted to say thanks to everyone who is helping me answer the questions. RND you seem like a nice person but your posts are extremely long and I can't bring myself to answer them all, though I welcome all your views.

Jojo PM'd me her question so I might as well post my reply in here too in case anyone wants to add anything:
_________________________________________________________________________
Hi Jojo, nice to meet you too I'll try to answer your post in chronological order for simplicity's sake.

When you say, "devout, practising Christian," do you mean you had a personal relationship with Jesus? And if so, what turned you away from loving him anymore?

Yes, I did have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, in the sense that I would pray to Him several times a day whenever I needed His help, and would pray at random times just to thank Him for everything he'd done for me. I also attended church every Sunday and was an altar boy. I would sometimes attend during the week when I had free time. I also participated in church activities, fundraisers, camps, etc. In every sense of the word, I was a devout Christian.

It wasn't so much that I didn't love Him anymore, just that it occurred to me that the whole idea of having faith in the Bible, as nice as it sounded, felt like a very faulty ideology to me. Everything I learned about God came from a single unverifiable source that was passed down from word of mouth (the Word of the Lord, as it is so often called). The only reason I had impenetrable faith in my religion was because I was repeatedly told to do so as a child. The more I tried to believe, the less I actually did. I looked at the world from the point of view of an atheist, and it seemed much more plausible.

I know that from the Christian point of view, it would seem that I left my faith because I wanted answers and couldn't find them in the Bible. This wasn't the case, I just happened to connect the dots and study history only to see Christianity from a different point of view. While it seemed like a nice idea, I personally had no belief in the story anymore.

Now I'm not saying this to undermine you or any other Christian, but that was what worked for me. It could very well be that there is truly a God, and that Jesus is really His son, but at a certain point all I saw was a charade, a ritual that kept society in place.

I am very sorry to hear about you being diagnosed with cancer. I know chemotherapy can be extremely debilitating and can really give you time to think things over. I know because my son was diagnosed with cancer in 2006 (lymphoma in the form of an aggressive chest tumor) and it almost killed him. He was not a Christian, not in practice or belief. In fact, as he told me just last year, he was delving into satanism. Although I raised my son to know Christ, he never had a personal relationship with Him. But last year, on a missions trip, my son accepted Jesus and began His personal walk with Him. He told me, "Mom, if I had died when I had cancer, I would have gone to hell." (Thank the Lord my son remains in full remission today)

I am truly happy to hear about your son's recovery. He seems to have taken it very well, and though I never really knew him a part of me is proud of him. And I'm happy that he is happy.

The fact that he was considering satanism, to me, was a sign of resentment. He was very displeased that such a loving God would choose to give him such a brutal illness. "Why me?" he probably asked himself several times. A perfectly normal reaction to such a callous twist of fate.

I was not like your son though (although I did have lymphoma). When I received the news, I saw it as a challenge, a test from God to see how I would react to having my world turned upside down. Part of me was actually excited because I could finally prove myself to Him. It wasn't until after the cancer that I had chosen not to believe. And it made me a lot happier. My once confused mind was now at peace. I could finally accept myself for who I was.

Your son chose to follow Christ even after his state of resentment, and for that I salute him. It demonstrates very strong character.

Oh Freddy, if only I could share the love of Christ with you. I have experienced His love in so many ways and in so many depths. It wasn't Ra or Zeus (sorry if those weren't your examples) that spoke to me when my son was in ICU. It wasn't any other god that surrounded me with his presence and said, "Your son will live." Those are only two examples because no forum is large enough for me to express all of the love I've received from He who is Love Himself.

Tonight I will talk to my Lord about you if you don't mind. And even if you do, I would not be able to stop myself. I will probably never meet you in person, but if there is some slim chance that I could meet you in the afterlife, I would love to (and introduce you to my son).

I'm flattered that you would be willing to take the time to pray for me, a person you have never even met. I don't mind at all.

I might sound a bit offensive if I talk about this next part, but please remember this is only my view and not what I think you should believe.

I believe that the human mind needs comfort in order to remain stable. I think religion is a byproduct of that unquenchable thirst for stability. When you say that you experienced His love in many ways, I think that's because you wanted to believe that everything would be alright, that God was taking good care of your son. The feeling is so strong that you probably dreamed entire conversations with God (as I have). It is so strong that, anytime something favourable happened, you would attribute it to divine intervention (as did I).

A human's greatest fear is death. We are so afraid of death, that our minds consider the idea of there being "more" to life after we die. We cannot cope with the idea that everything ends. Humans, Christians and non-Christians from around the world and throughout history, have always considered the idea of an afterlife. It is the ultimate comfort. It brings us motivation and meaning. It gives us a purpose in life.

While you may very well be right and I may very well be delusional, that remains my view. While I find religion fascinating and beautiful, I can't bring myself to seriously believe in scripture.

Anyway, I hope this post hasn't offended you Jojo, because that really isn't my intent. I just wanted to share ideas and present my views. I hope your son is doing well and that your family is still financially healthy after his episode.

Take good care of yourselves!
__________________________________________________________
Jojo if you would like me to remove this response from the public feel free to PM me.