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

  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Darth Executor
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Darth Executor
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    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".

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    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 ."

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Darth Executor
    replied
    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"

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post

    You shoulda met him BEFORE he became a Christian!
    I've never met him since he became one!

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • NorrinRadd
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

    As to the rest of my post, what do you consider to be a "devout Christian"? And how do you consider finding God has improved your outlook and attitude towards the world and your fellow human beings?
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by Heero Yuy, 06-11-2021, 06:23 PM
40 responses
245 views
0 likes
Last Post Cerebrum123  
Working...
X