Posted on 01/26/2005 9:46:21 AM PST by 7thson
When I pulled into the parking lot this morning, I saw a car covered with sacrilegious bumper stickers. It seemed obvious to me that the owner was craving attention. I’m sure he was also seeking to elicit anger from people of faith. The anger helps the atheist to justify his atheism. And, all too often, the atheist gets exactly what he is looking for.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
> If I have devised a fool-proof way to steal X dollars from somebody...
Keep in mind, the vast majority of the duration of modern man on Earth was spent *prior* to people haing much in the way of stuff. Super-criminals and perfect criems and whatnot were not a concern... living to next week was. THAT was the crucible in which our sense of morality evolved.
So, yeah, there are situations brought about by relatively recent developments that challenge my basic hypothesis. But that's when man's capacity for *reason* kicks in. Most of us know instinctively that theft is basically wrong. Those that don't know that instictively... well, let's hope they get religion and live in fear of eternal punishment.
> To a true atheist, the word "moral" really has no meaning.
An amazing display of hubris married with staggering arrogance, there.
Aye, but C.S. Lewis (like Bertrand Russell) constructs arguments that are fundamentally flawed in many places. They are lovely seductive arguments (hence why they are oft-referenced), but they are not rigorously correct arguments and could be taken apart by someone already well-studied on the topic. C.S. Lewis uses specious reasoning that does not cut it for rigor, so I would generally not recommend using that to convince a knowledgeable, rational, and intelligent atheist. Quite honestly, C.S. Lewis makes me cringe precisely because there are so many transparent flaws in his reasoning.
By far the most rigorous theologian on the rationality of Christianity is William Bartley, most famously in his book "The Retreat To Commitment". While the book is not written as a truly rigorous construction, others have shown that it can be written up as a rigorous construction in a mathematical sense (something with which I concur). Because of this, it is well-received by atheists since most will be able to follow the correctness of it from first principles. C.S. Lewis et al make unreasonable assumptions in their arguments, which is why many atheists reject the arguments.
So, nix the C.S. Lewis and go with W.W. Bartley. It is your best shot for the well-educated, intelligent, and rational.
I first heard Newdow in an interview on the Dennis Miller show, and I was surprisingly impressed. He presents his views in a rational and reasonable manner, neither strident nor intolerant of anything except a violation of his Constitutional rights.
What is so scary about someone's not believing in god or an Invisible Pink Unicorn or Santa Claus or The Tooth Fairy? And then objecting to being required to swear allegiance to one or both or all?
He also gave us free will to accept or reject Him.
If I am wrong, what have I lost? If you are wrong, what have you lost?
I hope you'll accept our prayers for your awakening in the spirit in which they are intended.
Bullsh*t.
That's the same apologist technique the MSM uses regarding the Dems vs. GOP.
Proportionally, the hostility isn't even close.
Want to start a fight among atheists? Ask them to state what they believe without using the word "God." They have no trouble telling the world what they don't believe--they have enormous difficulty articulating what they DO believe.
What if two people made the same decisions in life, one guided by the rewards/punishment of God, and the other by the earthly rewards/punishment of man. And assume both people make the same decisions....is the man who acting because of his belief in God any more moral or righteous than the other?
I do not see anything that make a decision made because of a fear of God any different than that same decision made for non-religious reasons.
> I submit that life is more precious to some atheists BECAUSE this is all we have.
Indeed. To atheists and agnostics... this is our one shot at doing good. There will nto be an opportunity to recieve reward for havign done right or take punishment for having doen wrong; all we can hope for is to leave the world better off for having been here.
Why some people would be horrified by that idea, I can't guess.
"No, but religious people have "remorse" for immoral deeds. To a true atheist, the word "moral" really has no meaning. He may claim it does, but he is lying - or he is really not an atheist. As I said, the main character in Natural Born Killers is how a TRUE atheist lives his life.
"
That's just silly. Of course atheists have moral values. I learned mine at my mother's and father's knees. They're probably identical to yours, and carry the same weight for me.
This argument you're using is not well reasoned. One needn't have a higher power to have moral values. Such values are taught by societies, as well as religions.
Perhaps you fear that if you did not believe that you would do all sorts of horrible things. Perhaps that is true, in your case. In mine, I can't imagine going against my moral values. I don't fear myself, and nobody needs to fear me, unless they attack me or my family with intent to do bodily harm.
I will never steal your stuff. I won't sleep with your wife. I'll help you out if I find you in a bad situation, if I'm able to.
Atheists are just like everyone else. They behave well, if they have learned moral values. They behave badly, if they have not.
How about euthanasia?
You're welcome to pray for me or for whatever you wish. That's your choice.
Untrue. Many murders result in gain for the murder. There is a risk reward ratio.
Do you think that anyone has ever gotten away with murder? If so, were they OK to murder?
Were individual Nazis at great risk for murdering?
Over the last million or more years, as we evolved from a smart ape-like critter to the more or less civilized species we are now,
Wrong thread for that opinion.
That's why there are a number of acts that are pretty much *universally* considered immoral.
Ah. morality by vote. LOL If it's universally thought to be moral, it is. Liberals love situational ethics too.
You convince people that God told you to do so?
Impossible to tell what this comment means.
> If I am wrong, what have I lost?
Your immortal soul, quite possibly. If you are wrong doesn't mean only that maybe there's no god. Could also meant here is a god... who doesn't like Christians. Maybe the Muslism are right. Maybe the ancient Sumerians. Maybe something completely alien.
None of these possibilities are reasons to act like a schmuck, though, despite what bigots like RobRoy have to say.
He said that out of irony...
Yes, for those people it is truly sad, because that's not Christianity. Salvation is through faith, not works. True Christians aren't trying to do good in order to be saved. True Christians are trying to do good because we ARE saved.
Don't you ever do (or not do) something, just because it "feels wrong", or because it's just innately abhorrent to you? Don't you ever do something nice for someone without thinking about in the context of your faith or what you might get out of it? (Either spiritually or materially or even egotistically?)
Some things are just so obviously right or wrong that you don't need religion to know it, imo.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.