Announcement

Collapse

General Theistics 101 Guidelines

This area is open for nontheists and theists to interact on issues of theism and faith in a civilized manner. We ask that nontheist participation respect the theistic views of others and not seek to undermine theism in general, or advocate for nontheism. Such posts are more suited for and allowable in Apologetics 301 with very little restriction.

The moderators of this area are given great discretion to determine if a particular thread or comment would more appropriately belong in another forum area.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

An atheist chaplain

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
    I will confess that age and life experience have significantly affected me in the negative direction since the early years after my conversion in early 1980.
    There are things I used to do without a second thought but now cannot even conceive of doing.

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Sparko View Post

      You shoulda met him BEFORE he became a Christian!
      I've never met him since he became one!
      "It ain't necessarily so
      The things that you're liable
      To read in the Bible
      It ain't necessarily so
      ."

      Sportin' Life
      Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

        There is an alternative to that line of thinking.

        Who wants to be a moral sheep coerced into being humane by fear?
        All behavior is the result of stimuli. Fear of a lawgiver followed by aversion of transgression is the standard moral response. Every animal, not just sheep, is cowed by fear. Except the humanist, who cowers without having anything to be afraid of. "The wicked flee when none pursue"
        "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

        There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post

          All behavior is the result of stimuli. Fear of a lawgiver followed by aversion of transgression is the standard moral response. Every animal, not just sheep, is cowed by fear. Except the humanist, who cowers without having anything to be afraid of. "The wicked flee when none pursue"
          If a pastor is using fear to lead his flock to Christ then he's doing it all wrong.

          I'm always still in trouble again

          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post

            Fear of a lawgiver followed by aversion of transgression is the standard moral response.
            Be careful. You are in danger of condoning atrocities because the have been ordered or encouraged by some form of law-giver . The propaganda against the Tutsis in the early 1990s comes to mind.

            Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
            Every animal, not just sheep, is cowed by fear.
            Once again you are in danger of excusing atrocities because those who perpetrate them are fearful for their own lives if they do not obey orders. The massacre of Polish soldiers and officers by members of the NKVD comes to mind.

            Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
            Except the humanist, who cowers without having anything to be afraid of.
            What evidence are you premising that comment upon?

            "It ain't necessarily so
            The things that you're liable
            To read in the Bible
            It ain't necessarily so
            ."

            Sportin' Life
            Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
              Be careful. You are in danger of condoning atrocities because the have been ordered or encouraged by some form of law-giver . The propaganda against the Tutsis in the early 1990s comes to mind.
              Keep in mind that the worst atrocities were under governments that didn't follow a "law-giver ."

              I'm always still in trouble again

              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

              Comment


              • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                Keep in mind that the worst atrocities were under governments that didn't follow a "law-giver ."
                I am not following you down your flowery path of grading atrocities.

                However, it should be noted that your comment about "governments that didn't follow a "law-giver" would require the phrase "law-giver" to be defined.
                "It ain't necessarily so
                The things that you're liable
                To read in the Bible
                It ain't necessarily so
                ."

                Sportin' Life
                Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post


                  However, it should be noted that your comment about "governments that didn't follow a "law-giver" would require the phrase "law-giver" to be defined.
                  Perhaps you shoulda thought of that when you introduced it.

                  I'm always still in trouble again

                  "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                  "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                  "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                    Perhaps you shoulda thought of that when you introduced it.
                    I did not introduce the term "lawgiver". You actually replied to the post made by Darth Executor where s/he used the term.

                    Those problems you suffer with your eyesight and your short term memory seem to be getting worse.
                    "It ain't necessarily so
                    The things that you're liable
                    To read in the Bible
                    It ain't necessarily so
                    ."

                    Sportin' Life
                    Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                      I did not introduce the term "lawgiver". You actually replied to the post made by Darth Executor where s/he used the term.

                      Those problems you suffer with your eyesight and your short term memory seem to be getting worse.
                      You did employ it and when you did didn't find it necessary to define then.

                      IOW, back to the same old H_A games.

                      I'm always still in trouble again

                      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        You did employ it and when you did didn't find it necessary to define then.

                        IOW, back to the same old H_A games.
                        You wrote "when you introduced it." I did not introduce the term "lawgiver".
                        "It ain't necessarily so
                        The things that you're liable
                        To read in the Bible
                        It ain't necessarily so
                        ."

                        Sportin' Life
                        Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                          Be careful. You are in danger of condoning atrocities because the have been ordered or encouraged by some form of law-giver . The propaganda against the Tutsis in the early 1990s comes to mind.
                          If there is no God or some other power to punish the act then there is nothing inherently wrong with "atrocities". Tutsi vs Hutu becomes a matter of opinion, like Pepsi vs Coke.

                          Once again you are in danger of excusing atrocities because those who perpetrate them are fearful for their own lives if they do not obey orders. The massacre of Polish soldiers and officers by members of the NKVD comes to mind.
                          It is a legitimate excuse if there is nobody to inflict a greater punishment for committing the act. The humanist argument is that they should prioritize the well being of the Polish soldier even though it would just cause them harm and provide no reward. IE: the humanist argument is inherently irrational.

                          What evidence are you premising that comment upon?
                          It stems from first principles. The humanist does not believe in God but cowers before arbitrary made-up rules, BY DEFINITION. A theist might say murder is wrong because God says so and God will enforce His law but the humanist says murder is wrong even though there is no power to give and enforce beyond government.

                          Humanism is a childish attempt to "one-up" Christianity while removing what makes Christianity internally consistent (God). The humanist feels smug in his own mind but actually fails at both the practical and intellectual level.
                          "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                          There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                            If a pastor is using fear to lead his flock to Christ then he's doing it all wrong.
                            If all a pastor does is use fear he's doing it wrong. But fearing God should be part of faith. Most pastors seem to do a poor job calibrating and either overuse it or don't use it at all.


                            Psalm 15:4 In whose eyes a vile person is contemned; but he honoureth them that fear the Lord. He that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not.

                            Psalm 19:9 The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.

                            Psalm 22:23 Ye that fear the Lord, praise him; all ye the seed of Jacob, glorify him; and fear him, all ye the seed of Israel.

                            Matthew 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

                            Acts 10:35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him
                            "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                            There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post

                              If there is no God or some other power to punish the act then there is nothing inherently wrong with "atrocities". Tutsi vs Hutu becomes a matter of opinion, like Pepsi vs Coke.
                              That is a rather unusual ethical position to adopt.

                              Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                              It is a legitimate excuse if there is nobody to inflict a greater punishment for committing the act.
                              There was. There as Stalin's regime. There was also personal angst and guilt. Many of those involved in those mass executions of Polish soldiers and officers committed suicide.

                              Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                              The humanist argument is that they should prioritize the well being of the Polish soldier even though it would just cause them harm and provide no reward
                              It would have caused them to face disciplinary action - and possible execution themselves. However, to risk one's life for one's fellow is hardly unknown. Nor is what is sometimes known as the Golden Rule.


                              Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                              It stems from first principles. The humanist does not believe in God
                              Which God do you have in mind?

                              Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                              but cowers before arbitrary made-up rules,
                              Do you consider all legal codes to be arbitrary made-up rules?

                              Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                              . A theist might say murder is wrong because God says so and God will enforce His law
                              Again, which God are you referencing? The more primitive aspects of the God of the Hebrew bible was remarkably bloodthirsty and divinely sanctioned genocides.

                              Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                              Humanism is a childish attempt to "one-up" Christianity while removing what makes Christianity internally consistent (God).
                              [sarcasm intended] We appear to have rather a large chip on our shoulder.

                              Humanism requires no deities, Christian or otherwise.

                              "It ain't necessarily so
                              The things that you're liable
                              To read in the Bible
                              It ain't necessarily so
                              ."

                              Sportin' Life
                              Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by rogue06, 08-26-2021, 01:32 PM
                              163 responses
                              737 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Working...
                              X