Atheism starts its megachurch: Is it a religion now?

[fr33]

Obama has more firepower than you Fr33. If property rights are based on your ability to defend them, then Obama has a rightful claim on all of your property because he has more firepower. This is the stupidity of atheism.

According to your book, your god has even more firepower. I never claimed to have superior firepower. Your god has though. It's funny how you claim that atheists are without morals. My morals never claimed superior firepower. But that is how you measure morals apparently.

 

[VIDEODROME]

Whatever. I'm gonna sleep in on Sunday and eat meat on Friday.

 

[fr33]

Where in those verses that you posted does it say that slavery or statism is prescribed today?

Oh I wouldn't dare approach such a subject. Let those that claim homosexuality as a sin to be prohibited from marriage licensing do it. Then we know our true hypocrites.


But why would shellfish and slavery be acceptable at one point but not the others. This is picking and choosing what best suits you.

All these rules the state considers...

 

[Sola_Fide]

According to your book, your god has even more firepower. I never claimed to have superior firepower. Your god has though. It's funny how you claim that atheists are without morals. My morals never claimed superior firepower. But that is how you measure morals apparently.

Your morals never claimed firepower? Yes they did. I asked you why it was wrong to violate your property rights and your answer was "because there would be consequences" from you.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Oh I wouldn't dare approach such a subject. Let those that claim homosexuality as a sin to be prohibited from marriage licensing do it. Then we know our true hypocrites.


But why would shellfish and slavery be acceptable at one point but not the others. This is picking and choosing what best suits you.

All these rules the state considers...

In an atheist worldview, why is slavery wrong?

 

[fr33]

In an atheist worldview, why is slavery wrong?

It takes a real jesus-phreak to ask such a question. Slavery, chauvinism, etc rears it's ugly head.

I've already told you that actions have consequences. I'm sorry that your bible taught you that they don't. As usual the bible text supports statism.

 

[Sola_Fide]

It takes a real jesus-phreak to ask such a question. Slavery, chauvinism, etc rears it's ugly head.

I've already told you that actions have consequences. I'm sorry that your bible taught you that they don't. As usual the bible text supports statism.

So...no answer as to why slavery is wrong.

But you add "actions have consequences". Well, what if my firepower ensures that I won't have consequences?

This is supposed to be a defense of liberty?

 

[otherone]

So...no answer as to why slavery is wrong.

Are you implying that all morality is at it's roots biblical?

 

[otherone]

My point is that Christianity is just as statist as atheism.

Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.
-Napoleon

I have always believed that the purpose of the bible was to create a docile, compliant populace that would be easier for the empire to control. What better way to keep order than to threaten people with supernatural consequences for their undiscovered crimes? It's brilliant, really. Actually, the state itself is the child of superstition....it's how the strong-arm thugs usurp power; by claiming divinity or "divine" right to rule. I believe it is endemic to man's nature to be sheep. Something about us needs to grovel before something. Maybe it has to do with alpha/beta tribalism. IDK.

 

[robert68]

...

I've already told you that actions have consequences....

I think SF has been making a fair point on that, because a great many acts of aggression don't have, or necessarily have negative consequences to those committing them. Among others things, the state wouldn't exist if it were otherwise. Why is an act of aggression wrong when there's no negative consequences?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Atheists in this thread-I see a lot of contextomy fail coming from you. Since you are trying to argue against the Christian view, you should look at the Old Testament text from the Christian perspective. Christ is the fulfillment of scripture and prophecy, and thus we are to interpret Torah and ancient Jewish texts as Jesus, the Apostles, and the Church fathers did. This is why the Church abandoned the barbarism atheists like to cite as "proof" of their arguments against the Christian Faith. I wish modern atheists would at least try to learn scripture and the Church before trying to talk about it. :/

 

[Sola_Fide]

I think SF has been making a fair point on that, because a great many acts of aggression don't have, or necessarily have negative consequences to those committing them. Among others things, the state wouldn't exist if it were otherwise. Why is an act of aggression wrong when there's no negative consequences?

Even if there were sufficient consequences for the aggression, it is the principle of it that cannot sustain a free society. The answer as to why aggression is wrong is never answered. The principle is still: whoever has the most force is right. And if that is the principle, then you would have no argument against tyranny at all.

 

[VIDEODROME]

Why is an act of aggression wrong when there's no negative consequences?

You could ask why an act of kindness is good if there is no direct positive consequence.

I kind of feel either way, the consequences can be very indirect. Some people just want to live in a better society I suppose, or feel that we're on this planet together and should make the best of it.

Others only care about doing for well for themselves and don't care about the well being of others. Some of these people will steal if they're sure they get caught.

It seems fairly obvious that the first path is preferable even if it is not grounded on a fear of punishment. If anything, it's the opposite seeing the potential gains from human cooperation are far more beneficial. If we all live better lives, we have a better society to live in.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Obama has more firepower than you Fr33. If property rights are based on your ability to defend them, then Obama has a rightful claim on all of your property because he has more firepower. This is the stupidity of atheism.

And the atheists twist your words into saying that you support socialism or communism

Thank you for standing up for the truth.

Fr33- You obviously don't understand his argument. Your argument for property rights is because of the consequences that will happen to a violator of the same. But Obama can violate your property rights because he has more firepower than you. Why is this wrong? Ultimately, its wrong because God is a higher authority than Obama. And it is the fact that God has this authority that makes Obama's authority nothing more than brutal force. Without God, there is no morality without human force.

God's goodness is an inherent fact. It is not simply because of his omnipotence, but also perfect love, mercy, and justice. This is a point that many atheists miss. God's goodness is not simply because he has more power than you do.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Are you implying that all morality is at it's roots biblical?

Yes. Explained and defended in this thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?412743-Atheistic-Worldviews-Cannot-Determine-Morality

Gordon Clark:

...for there is no morality apart from the laws of God.

I would like to make it clear that sociology, statistics, psychology, or any empirical science can never determine moral norms. Secular science at best can discover what people do; but it cannot discover what people ought to do. From observational premises no normative conclusion follows.

Any attempt to define morality by observational science is a logical fallacy. Science can invent new ways of killing people, but science can never determine who should be killed. It cannot determine who should not be killed. It can only invent more effective ways of doing what somebody for some other reason wants to do.

Also, Christianity has the only ethical defense of private property: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?423565-The-Only-Possible-Defense-Of-Private-Property

 

[VIDEODROME]

What is the actual topic of this thread now? It's starting to wander all over the place.

So now some group of non-believers are meeting up in a Church setting. It's interesting that focus purely on Atheism may be lowered. I'm sure this is to be more welcoming to Agnostics or Skeptics in general.

This might be something more than just an Atheist Church. It might be better to call it a Humanist Assembly.

 

[otherone]

Yes. Explained and defended in this thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?412743-Atheistic-Worldviews-Cannot-Determine-Morality
Also, Christianity has the only ethical defense of private property: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?423565-The-Only-Possible-Defense-Of-Private-Property

I recall the threads. Your version of morality comes from what men wrote about God. Mine comes from the concept of self-ownership. I believe the individual to be sovereign, which is the basis of Individual Rights. As far as property is concerned, I don't believe an individual has a "Right" to it. I believe that no power has the "Right" to deprive him of it.

 

[VIDEODROME]

If any Atheists went to this assembly, what would you expect? Or what would you want to get out of this gathering?

I suppose one interest for me is what positive things attendees can accomplish with a group effort in the community. Such a group could probably do a lot of fund raisers or scholarship programs. I think skeptical minded people have strong interests in education and making knowledge available.

What about the assembly itself though? I'm imagining something close to a TED Talk followed by a Q&A. Maybe from invited guest speakers from colleges. I like to think a lot of the talks would be similar to the things Sam Harris talks about.

 

[fr33]

Atheists in this thread-I see a lot of contextomy fail coming from you. Since you are trying to argue against the Christian view, you should look at the Old Testament text from the Christian perspective. Christ is the fulfillment of scripture and prophecy, and thus we are to interpret Torah and ancient Jewish texts as Jesus, the Apostles, and the Church fathers did. This is why the Church abandoned the barbarism atheists like to cite as "proof" of their arguments against the Christian Faith. I wish modern atheists would at least try to learn scripture and the Church before trying to talk about it. :/

I know how Christians cherry pick from the old testament to support their definition of morals. And still, the fact remains that their religion and their God is their state. The argument started when someone said the state is the atheist religion and still nobody has really countered my response that religion is the theists' state.

 

[Christian Liberty]

God being the State is absolutely absurd. Just because someone is an authority doesn't make them The State. Are parents The State? Private school teachers? Pastors? Of course not. Do you want to ban them from your "free society"? Of course not.


Its even worse because you don't even believe God exists. The gang of criminals known as The State is very real, and malicious. So for an atheist a supposedly non-existent God is not comparable to the evil State.

Of course, I personally believe God does exist, and that he is good, but then, I'm working from your presuppositions. Your slandering of Sola is completely off-base.