The Theist Hatred Of Atheists

My intent was to prove that one can't use "Natural Law" to explain how we as humans developed our moral and ethical systems.

If I were in nature, observing lions, and basing what I saw on nature, I might conclude that it is o.k. for males to mate with as many females as possible. Also, if a male needs one of his females to come in to heat, he can just kill all her offspring.

Natural Law doesn't cut it.
 
My intent was to prove that one can't use "Natural Law" to explain how we as humans developed our moral and ethical systems.

If I were in nature, observing lions, and basing what I saw on nature, I might conclude that it is o.k. for males to mate with as many females as possible. Also, if a male needs one of his females to come in to heat, he can just kill all her offspring.

Natural Law doesn't cut it.

It does cut it... I'm sorry. It is the only explanation for human nature. We are not always perfect, we are not always optimal in our behavior... using straw men to illustrate this proves nothing... it is to our survival benefit that we treat each other in a manner of cooperation more times than not... What aspect of this do you not understand?

If we were naturally dissenters 100% of the time, we would never have gotten to where we are... cooperation is a selective pressure.
 
Now Kade, as evidenced in this thread Natural Law is NOT the only explanation for human behavior.

Christians have another explanation for human nature.

Is it wrong to murder? If so, explain why using the Natural Law theory.
 
Strangely enough, some of Hitler's quotes sound like some of the things that I have been reading in this thread.

HITLER:

My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited.

-Adolf Hitler, in his speech in Munich on 12 April 1922

In the Bible we find the text, 'That which is neither hot nor cold will I spew out of my mouth.' This utterance of the great Nazarene has kept its profound validity until the present day.

-Adolf Hitler, speech in Munich, 10 April 1923

Just as the Jew could once incite the mob of Jerusalem against Christ, so today he must succeed in inciting folk who have been duped into madness to attack those who, God's truth! seek to deal with this people in utter honesty and sincerity.

-Adolf Hitler, in Munich, 28 July 1922

There are three words which many use without a thought which for us are no catch-phrases: Love, Faith, and Hope.... We are fanatical in our love for our people....

We have faith in the rights of our people, the rights which have existed time out of mind. We protest against the view that every other nation should have rights - and we have none. We must learn to make our own this blind faith in the rights of our people, in the necessity of devoting ourselves to the service of these rights; we must make our own the faith that gradually victory must be granted us if only we are fanatical enough. And from this love and from this faith there emerges for us the idea of hope. When others doubt and hesitate for the future of Germany - we have no doubts. We have both the hope and the faith that Germany will and must once more become great and mighty.

We have faith that one day Heaven will bring the Germans back into a Reich over which there shall be no Soviet star, no Jewish star of David, but above that Reich there shall be the symbol of German labor - the Swastika. And that will mean that the first of May has truly come.

-Adolf Hitler, speech in Munich, 01 May 1923

It will at any rate be my supreme task to see to it that in the newly awakened NSDAP, the adherents of both Confessions can live peacefully together side by side in order that they may take their stand in the common fight against the power which is the mortal foe of any true Christianity.

-Adolf Hitler, in an article headed "A New Beginning," 26 Feb. 1925

We are a people of different faiths, but we are one. Which faith conquers the other is not the question; rather, the question is whether Christianity stands or falls.... We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity... in fact our movement is Christian. We are filled with a desire for Catholics and Protestants to discover one another in the deep distress of our own people.

-Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Passau, 27 October 1928, Bundesarchiv Berlin-Zehlendorf,

e are determined, as leaders of the nation, to fulfill as a national government the task which has been given to us, swearing fidelity only to God, our conscience, and our Volk.... This the national government will regard its first and foremost duty to restore the unity of spirit and purpose of our Volk. It will preserve and defend the foundations upon which the power of our nation rests. It will take Christianity, as the basis of our collective morality, and the family as the nucleus of our Volk and state, under its firm protection....May God Almighty take our work into his grace, give true form to our will, bless our insight, and endow us with the trust of our Volk.

-Adolf Hitler, on 1 Feb. 1933



Plenty more where that came from... seriously... those previous quotes have nothing to do with comprehension of evolutionary theory... quit being a twisted idiot please.
 
Now Kade, as evidenced in this thread Natural Law is NOT the only explanation for human behavior.

Christians have another explanation for human nature.

Is it wrong to murder? If so, explain why using the Natural Law theory.

Murder deprives someone of their right to life. That right to life is self-evident, as it is a mutual desire of our species to promote life above all things. To this, it is against our desires, against our mutual understanding, and thus without proper justification. Murder is against that which we desire for ourselves as a continual presence through time.
 
Looks like Hitler talked out of both sides of his mouth. Which do we believe? Because you said you were once a Christian, you are probably familiar with:

You will know them by their fruits.

Based on Hitler's fruits, I am afraid He was no Christian.

How many people do you know today who say they are a Christian, but you sure couldn't tell it based on their lifestyle? Churches are full of them.
 
Looks like Hitler talked out of both sides of his mouth. Which do we believe? Because you said you were once a Christian, you are probably familiar with:

You will know them by their fruits.

Based on Hitler's fruits, I am afraid He was no Christian.

How many people do you know today who say they are a Christian, but you sure couldn't tell it based on their lifestyle? Churches are full of them.

My understanding now is that knowing them by their fruits, I know VERY few Christians who follow the word.

In my opinion, if you take the bible literally, if you speak out against other people, if you witness, if you ignore good works, and if you worship the English version of the bible, you are FAR and AWAY from anything intended by the original Christians...

Every Christian on these boards speaks out against myself... without delay, without qualification... just look at it..

I'm asking for tolerance, and an open mind. You are asking for me to obey your holy book. Big difference.
 
Maybe I am simply too much of a "twisted idiot" to get it, but I fail to see how you used Natural Law to explain why murder is unacceptable. Perhaps we have two different definitions of Natural Law.

I have to take my children to have their teeth cleaned.... so I must go for now. I will check back in later.

On a side note, if you weren't so angry in your posts, and you ceased with the name calling, more people might be interested in conversing with you.
 
Every Christian on these boards speaks out against myself... without delay, without qualification... just look at it..

You mean, every professed Christian speaks out against you. Those who call themselves Christian and hate are not truly Christians.

Again, I am a Christian and I love you.
I did not speak out against you.
I will pray for you to understand there are many who say they are Christian who are not.
 
I know very few too, but I am blaming that on most modern churches.

For the record, I am in no way expecting you to follow the Bible. As a non-Christian, it would be impossible for you to do so, as it was for me pre-conversion.
 
My children are scrubbing their teeth while awaiting the dreaded dental cleaning. I will be out of touch for a while.

I will read the article when I get back home.
 
I believe there is a middle ground... perhaps read this article by a respected scientist and Christian, and consider what he has to say?

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/02/professing-to-b.html#more



Please?

Here's something from that page that's telling:

Or Philip “Father of ID” Johnson who lamented

Philip Johnson Wrote:

I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No product is ready for competition in the educational world.

I'm neither a proponent of Darwinism nor Creationism/ID. Both have their flaws, though Creationism/ID has far more in my opinion.

Something I ran across a while back might be closer to where I fall in...

http://biocosm.org/

This premise states that the Universe itself is bio-friendly, and is evolving toward more and more life.

There is an FAQ page about it here.

I haven't bought the book or anything, but just from what I've read on the site, it is probably closest to how I see it. So Darwinists and Creationists alike can stone me now! lol
 
Here's something from that page that's telling:



I'm neither a proponent of Darwinism nor Creationism/ID. Both have their flaws, though Creationism/ID has far more in my opinion.

Something I ran across a while back might be closer to where I fall in...

http://biocosm.org/

This premise states that the Universe itself is bio-friendly, and is evolving toward more and more life.

There is an FAQ page about it here.

I haven't bought the book or anything, but just from what I've read on the site, it is probably closest to how I see it. So Darwinists and Creationists alike can stone me now! lol

I prefer you not call me a Darwinist.

I believe as per the University of California Berkeley explanation:

The definition
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

The explanation
Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time. Lots of things change over time: trees lose their leaves, mountain ranges rise and erode, but they aren't examples of biological evolution because they don't involve descent through genetic inheritance.

The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.

Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales.
 
I prefer you not call me a Darwinist.

I believe as per the University of California Berkeley explanation:

Ok I'll call you a University of California Berkeley explanationist! You can join with the Darwinists and Creationist/ID people in stoning me, the Simulated Biocosmist.
 
Ok I'll call you a University of California Berkeley explanationist! You can join with the Darwinists and Creationist/ID people in stoning me, the Simulated Biocosmist.

You don't care how offensive you are do you?
 
You don't care how offensive you are do you?

I care, Jesus! I thought you would see humor in my statement, not get offended. I was so fucking wrong though. So many on this thread are so goddamned easily offended. Fuckin bunch of babies. I'll not offend you anymore from henceforth... zippin it.

Sorry!



I try to mend, everyone wants to rend. I give up.
 
My intent was to prove that one can't use "Natural Law" to explain how we as humans developed our moral and ethical systems.

If I were in nature, observing lions, and basing what I saw on nature, I might conclude that it is o.k. for males to mate with as many females as possible. Also, if a male needs one of his females to come in to heat, he can just kill all her offspring.

This isn’t an innately ethical situation. Mating with many partners is not a moral situation until it enters the realm of population problems, etc, not being able to feed offspring.

So this really doesn’t apply.

Also, I don’t understand how you think “observing lions” “in nature” has anything to do with the morality of humans. What are you talking about? You could observe the “behavior” habits of bacteria but it wouldn’t give you any information about morality—as animals which do not think (reason, have abstract thoughts) have no “morality” in the way we mean it. It is instinct. But even excluding this factor, I fail to see how observation of random phenomenon lends any direction or information about “the way in which a human should act.”

Now Kade, as evidenced in this thread Natural Law is NOT the only explanation for human behavior.

Christians have another explanation for human nature.

Yeah, it’s simply providing a mathematical unknown (X)—what God really is in Christian theology—in place of what we learn gradually through observation, experiment, i.e. science. You can presently see the backpeddling of the Catholic church (as it has been doing for a while now as things develop) as science provides obvious, rational explanations for things that the Church once categorized under “God did that.”


Is it wrong to murder? If so, explain why using the Natural Law theory.

Here you go:

-As a species, we want to survive, to continue living.
-Evolution provided us with innate abilities such as language, reason, etc. (arms and legs are another more blatant feature of bipedal animals which allow for survival), our organs, etc etc. These are tools we have been equipped with to meet the first goal of survive. We have EVOLVED these characteristics as we, the strong, have pushed through and continued living (and one could, and it has been done obviously, trace this back through our evolutionary ancestors).
-Our evolution resulted, also, in our being given another innate quality. This quality can be viewed in two ways: (1) we were given an innate moral sense, just as we have an innate ability for abstract thought, and an innate system of organs; (2) we were given rational, abstract thought (and the psychological conditions which give rise to this) which allows us to CREATE (Nietzsche’s view) moral systems.
-With either of these two systems, it is clear that we developed complex ethical systems as a means toward cooperation, etc etc. They caused to set up law, civic order, philosophy, etc. They are means to survival.

Religion CAN provide moral codes which allow for survival. The problem is that the dogma usually necessary for religion produces squabbling, killing, hypocrisy, nitpicking sects, etc. These all tend toward extinction. I think we could easily prove that the psychological condition of most of those infected with these sentiments are extremely abnormal, if not psychotic, retardations of the human neurological system, without even going into the complex system of social problems which lend a hand to this neurosis.

So that’s how morality fits into natural law.

Maybe I am simply too much of a "twisted idiot" to get it, but I fail to see how you used Natural Law to explain why murder is unacceptable. Perhaps we have two different definitions of Natural Law.

Natural law does not “explain why murder is unacceptable”; it explains the process by which morality evolves in animals.

You don't care how offensive you are do you?

Were you really offended by that? Toughen up, cowboy.
 
Beachmaster....don't leave.

Kade,

I just returned home and have perused the article, but not read it word for word. I am in the process of making dinner. I can't blend Evolution and Christianity. They simply won't mix.

Has it ever struck you as strange that not one transitional fossil has ever been found? If this process was going on for millions and millions of years, why can't we find one?

Do you see any species today that are in a transitional phase?

Also, what about the first law of thermodynamics? The whole entropy thing?

Just some random thoughts. Got to run.
 
I frankly can't be bothered to read every post, so I'll just give me own thoughts.

I think it's a shame that when people can't disagree that they resort to attacks and insults. There is a saying of Imam Ali: "He who isn't your brother in religion is your brother in humanity."

As a Muslim I view everyone as the creation of God, so why would I not show them respect? Previously as an atheist, I saw everyone as equal on the basis that we all need to get on, so why be rude to people? It gets us nowhere.
 
Back
Top