Atheism and morality

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
nope its irrelevant for everyone for it cannot be proven nor dis proven and is futile to attempt to do so. The absurdity of Hamilton claims was demonstrated when it was pointed out that the so called spaghetti monster has no precepts, no principles, no tenets, no anything on which one can base an evaluation, it is in fact, meaningless. Anyhow this ...[text shortened]... God, its about atheism and morality and whether the atheists thinks of his morality as superior.

“...The absurdity of Hamilton claims was demonstrated when it was pointed out that the so called spaghetti monster has no precepts, no principles, no tenets, no anything on which one can base an evaluation ...”

How many times must I repeat myself before you finally get it; THAT IS MISSING THE POINT!
Suppose the spaghetti monster DID have principles and there IS a holy spaghetti monster Bible and was NOT made-up recently etc?


“..this thread is not about the existence or non existence of God, its about atheism and morality and whether the atheists thinks of his morality as superior. ...”

the answer for most atheists is “no” i.e. they do NOT think they are morality superior. In fact, on these forums, more often than not, when somebody DOES claim to be morality superior, it is usually the theist that claims this just for believing the absurdity that there is a supernatural god and also claims we atheists are morality inferior for not doing so. So, enough of this hypocritical crap.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...The absurdity of Hamilton claims was demonstrated when it was pointed out that the so called spaghetti monster has no precepts, no principles, no tenets, no anything on which one can base an evaluation ...”

How many times must I repeat myself before you finally get it; THAT IS MISSING THE POINT!
Suppose the spaghetti monster DID have principl ...[text shortened]... claims we atheists are morality inferior for not doing so. So, enough of this hypocritical crap.

if you think that to base an argument on a supposition is a sound basis, then its castles made of sand for you Meester Hameelton. The fact of the matter is that it doesn't have principles, precepts, ordinances, or anything else for that matter, that is why its use is an absurdity.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
The rest of your comment betrays a rather glaring lack of Biblical knowledge, for was it not Paul himself who stated, .

In can hardly call a lack of biblical knowledge glaring. I mean, it's a big book and it's full of crap.

However, to my knowledge, Paul definitaly makes statements about women and slavery.

For example:
"Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back, not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior."

and:

"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet."

However, my glaring lack of biblical knowledge probably means I don't fully understand what the good man was on about.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
of course you dont dear Agers, your morality and thus your stance on the matter has been decided by social convention. Is it not the case?

I could equally find reasons to object to the portrayal of pornography as harmless entertainment. You evolution argument, while amusing and original fails to the fact that pornography caters not to reality, ds of morality, they inevitably slip through your fingers. (such poetry, why am I not famous?)

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
of course you dont dear Agers, your morality and thus your stance on the matter has been decided by social convention. Is it not the case?
No not JUST the case as I pointed out in my first response to you in this thread - society plays a part; my own evaluation of the social rules also plays a part, as does common sense and empathy for other humans.

I could equally find reasons to object to the portrayal of pornography as harmless entertainment. You evolution argument, while amusing and original fails to the fact that pornography caters not to reality, but to fantasy, indeed, it may even be argued that its a substitute for reality, like licking the sweet shop window because one has no money and the chances of actually tasting a sweet is a non reality.
You really want to go down the substitute for reality road when you believe in an invisible bearded friend in the clouds that reads your thoughts and spies on you when the lights have been turned off??? ;]

Your rape comment i find a little disturbing, but ill give you the benefit of the doubt, for i know your scrimping and scraping trying to drum up some kind of justification for your argument.
I suppose if I was really up for a fight I could actually mount a good defence of the rape point I made - that said I can't be bothered with all the grief I'd get off the super-dupa bullet proofa christians (who are statistically more likely in a relative sense to commit crimes than atheists anyway) who have only god shaped arguments and insults to hurl at me if I did.

Just imagine it was your sister, would you be pleased? I dont think so, but its someone else's daughter, sister, mother, so that makes it alright???
I'm not so pleased my little brother became a rabid frothing at the mouth fundy but I just get on with it and accept its his choice - he doesn't dare bring any arguments or conversations to me about his religion because he knows I WILL shoot them down without a modicum of tact about it. To that end, given the choice between a dogmatic, prejudicial, bigotted daughter who has divorced herself of the power to think for herself who constantly looks for new people to tell her how to pontificate over the depraved morality of people who don't believe in magic friends in the sky, or a daughter who decided of her own accord making money out of sex was what she wanted I'd choose the latter any day of the week.

How is that a moral improvement? Shall i list those young women who have committed suicide as a direct consequence of being caught up in an industry which treats them as of no consequence? Whose self esteem and confidence has been ripped away from them? What about those that have become addicted to pornography? The images staying deep within their minds for years to come, how is addiction morally superior to being free?
You're really in no position to talk about self esteem when fundamentalist religion teaches people that they are worthless sinners (who are walking the thin line between heaven and eternal torture should they choose the wrong religion) and shortchanges them of self worth so much that they spend the rest of their natuals professing how much of a feck up they are in his invisible all seeing eyes - it's really quite pathetic! Also you have the people who don't have any choice in whether they commit suicide or not because some sicko fundamentalist comes along and blows them to kingdom come first - then you have the Harold Campings, and faith healers of this world who would happily leave millions of people destitute to line their own Godly™ pockets

Thus dear Agers, because of your adherence to social convention it is clear that you are in a moral predicament for as you reach to grasp the constantly shifting sands of morality, they inevitably slip through your fingers. (such poetry, why am I not famous?)

Like I said, there's way more to my morality than your trying to conclude here. Stop playing to the crowd and argue with integrity for once!

Originally posted by shavixmir
In can hardly call a lack of biblical knowledge glaring. I mean, it's a big book and it's full of crap.

However, to my knowledge, Paul definitaly makes statements about women and slavery.

For example:
"Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back, not to pilfer, but to show comple iblical knowledge probably means I don't fully understand what the good man was on about.

yes it is glaring, the most widely distributed, widely published and widely translated book in the entire history of humanity and all you can state is that its a big book and full of crap? well, well, lets take the example that i demonstrated to you, of Pauls words, in which he counsels husbands to look after and to cherish their wife, even as Christ did the congregation. If that simple principle was applied, that is putting ones wife ahead of ones own interests the likelihood that's ones wife would deeply respect one is incontrovertible, indeed, i challenge you to state why such a beautiful and practical principle is 'crap'. If you cannot, you will, in this instance retract your statement.

Originally posted by Agerg
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
[b]of course you dont dear Agers, your morality and thus your stance on the matter has been decided by social convention. Is it not the case?
No not JUST the case as I pointed out in my first response to you in this thread - society plays a part; my own evaluation of the social rules also plays a part, ...[text shortened]... trying to conclude here. Stop playing to the crowd and argue with integrity for once![/b]

I can see nothing in your post dear Agers that sadly belays the assertion that your morality is fixed upon a castle made of sand. That it is based on evaluation of other sources does not negate this fact, you must admit.

I cannot accept your arguments, for if it was really your daughter, you would do everything to dissuade her, despite your pretensions, i challenge anyone with family to say otherwise.

As for a religion which teaches that I am worthless, you are again unaware of the Biblical principles, for the scriptures make it quite clear that we are precious to our God, that he loves and cares for us, and that nothing can separate us from his love. I would produce the scriptures, but fear of being trampled down I refrain and keep my pearls safely hidden away.

Yes i agree that there is more to your morality but i also contest that its built upon ever shifting and capricious elements and like a compass that does not point to north because of magnetic interference, you may find yourself on the edge of a moral precipice because of this.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes it is glaring, the most widely distributed, widely published and widely translated book in the entire history of humanity and all you can state is that its a big book and full of crap? well, well, lets take the example that i showed to you, of Pauls words, in which he counsels husbands to look after and to cherish their wife, even as Christ did ...[text shortened]... tical principle is 'crap'. If you cannot, you will, in this instance retract your statement.

The Sun is the most widely distributed newspaper in the UK and that too is full of crap - FOX news I believe is the most widely watched news channel in the states and it too is a load of crap.

The same applies to your Bible ;]

Originally posted by Agerg
The Sun is the most widely distributed newspaper in the UK and that too is full of crap - FOX news I believe is the most widely watched news channel in the states and it too is a load of crap.

The same applies to your Bible ;]

FAIL! of epic and monstrous proportions. Merely insulting it will not do, i have demonstrated to shavixmir how wonderfully practical and superlative its morality is. You people cannot touch it for pure awesomeness!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes it is glaring, the most widely distributed, widely published and widely translated book in the entire history of humanity and all you can state is that its a big book and full of crap? well, well, lets take the example that i demonstrated to you, of Pauls words, in which he counsels husbands to look after and to cherish their wife, even as Chris ...[text shortened]... tical principle is 'crap'. If you cannot, you will, in this instance retract your statement.

Paul: "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet."

So, either the morality in the bible is out-dated or there is contradicting morality to be found.

In either case, for the purposes of defining a usable and sane definition of morality, it is crap.

Originally posted by shavixmir
Paul: "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet."

So, either the morality in the bible is out-dated or there is contradicting morality to be found.

In either case, for the purposes of defining a usable and sane definition of morality, it is crap.

Yet you have failed to state why, a husband, after the example of Christ , in showing a self sacrificing spirit and putting the interests of his wife ahead of himself is morally inferior or as you have termed it, 'crap', for want of a better word. Why is that? will you be forced to admit that its an excellent principle? That the example of the Christ is superlative in all respects? That its truly worthy of imitation? You lose, for there is no contradiction, the responsibility of shepherding and teaching within the congregation is designated to men, as per the example of the Christ and the apostles. Or would you have ladies shouldering your responsibility, no wonder the world is full of so weak willed and watery men, incapable or unwilling of shouldering responsibility. Grow a pair, for goodness sake.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Yet you have failed to state why, a husband, after the example of Christ , in showing a self sacrificing spirit and putting the interests of his wife ahead of himself is morally inferior or as you have termed it, 'crap', for want of a better word. Why is that? will you be forced to admit that its an excellent principle? That the example of the Chri ...[text shortened]... ery men, incapable or unwilling of shouldering responsibility. Grow a pair, for goodness sake.

I don't think being forced to sacrifice one's self is particularly moral, no.
As for the rest, you seem to ignore everything I've written.

Originally posted by shavixmir
I don't think being forced to sacrifice one's self is particularly moral, no.
As for the rest, you seem to ignore everything I've written.

you dont think putting ones wifes interests ahead of ones own is a good thing, that it would foment respect and harmony within a marriage? Why is that? How interesting, therefore, how will self serving accomplish what self sacrifice could not? Do tell. You may of course make reference to the new morality, and divorce figures to, well, lets see, reinforce your claim. I haven't ignored a single thing you have written, i just don't think you know what you are talking about.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you dont think putting ones wifes interests ahead of ones own is a good thing, that it would foment respect and harmony within a marriage? How interesting, therefore, how will self serving accomplish what self sacrifice could not? You may of course make reference to the new morality, and divorce figures to, well, lets see, reinforce your claim. I ...[text shortened]... nored a single thing you have written, i just don't think you know what you are talking about.

Says someone who dares say my biblical knowledge is lacking because I claim that Paul wasn't woman or slave friendly.

Originally posted by shavixmir
Says someone who dares say my biblical knowledge is lacking because I claim that Paul wasn't woman or slave friendly.

not only have I dared to say it, i have proven it! you have no way of demonstrating a more excellent morality than that of the Christ, not you, not Agers, no one. The new Godless morality is impotent, incapable of anything.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
not only have I dared to say it, i have proven it! you have no way of demonstrating a more excellent morality than that of the Christ, not you, not Agers, no one. The new Godless morality is impotent, incapable of anything.

You seem to be displaying one of the 7 deadly sins.