Sunday School for Atheists

[This_person]

I have seriously answered your questions. If you need for me to be more specific, then you will have to be more specific, but to be perfectly honest, I do not think you have the capacity to have this discussion, and I'm not saying that to be mean. I'm saying that because it is what I BELIEVE.

Which answer are you referring to as the serious answer? (I'm guessing it wasn't :clue

 

[Xaquin44]

Now, this response implies we're only better because we can kill them. Is that what you mean?

no, I was saying if they were more evolved they'd save their asses.

 

[mAlice]

no, I was saying if they were more evolved they'd save their asses.

It's no fun when you have to explain everything that you say.

 

[This_person]

no, I was saying if they were more evolved they'd save their asses.

So, the value of human life is higher than that of the cattle in the field because we're smarter, stronger, and we can communicate better.

That means the value of American lives are worth more than the value of a tribal aboriginal in Australia?

 

[mAlice]

This _person...do you believe that christians have a monopoly on the understanding of morals and values? This is a "yes" OR "no" answer. If you answer it any other way, I will no longer have this discussion with you.

 

[2ndAmendment]

This_person is trying to convince me that I'm wrong, but it's not going to work. It's a complete waste of time.

And the reverse is true.

 

[This_person]

It's no fun when you have to explain everything that you say.

You asked me to be more specific in my question.

My question, that you're asking me to be more specific in, is "what makes human life more valuable than that of the cattle in the field" to an atheist.

I've gotten literature, :clue:, and we can kill 'em ('cuz they're not smart enough to not be killed) as answers (one from you, two from Xaquin44).

Do you really think these are serious answers? These are the answers, and you believe I'm not capable of having a serious discussion on this?

At least Xaquin44 tried to be serious with music and art, though I think that's just fancy communication.

 

[This_person]

This _person...do you believe that christians have a monopoly on the understanding of morals and values? This is a "yes" OR "no" answer. If you answer it any other way, I will no longer have this discussion with you.

I absolutely do NOT (I hope that's close enough to "no" for you to keep talking with me) think that Christians have a monopoly on the understanding of morals and values.

I believe that Christians have a deep foundation for determining right and wrong, that determination being what makes up morals and values to a Christian.

However, I believe that the ancient Greeks had a foundation also. I disagree with Zues being the almighty, but they had a foundation to make up their morals and values.

I believe Wiccans have a foundation that make up their beliefs of right and wrong - those beliefs making up their determinations of morals and values.

I believe atheists have an equation for what determines life, a belief in man's thoughts and theories to try and determine how life works - but no deeper foundation for what makes up right and wrong and therefore no foundation for morals and values. Without a belief system, life can have no higher meaning.


I told you I'd give you my theory when you answered. You haven't answered (or, rather, you have by being unable to give me an answer). My theory is that American atheists are surrounded by religious people (83% of Americans identify themselves as Christians - I'll find the poll again if you dispute), and that atheists have been surrounded by values and morals so much they've adopted the bigger picture of the religious people's morals and values as their own while declaring they don't believe in the system that gives the morals. And, they don't even realize it.

 

[Xaquin44]

You asked me to be more specific in my question.

My question, that you're asking me to be more specific in, is "what makes human life more valuable than that of the cattle in the field" to an atheist.

I've gotten literature, :clue:, and we can kill 'em ('cuz they're not smart enough to not be killed) as answers (one from you, two from Xaquin44).

Do you really think these are serious answers? These are the answers, and you believe I'm not capable of having a serious discussion on this?

At least Xaquin44 tried to be serious with music and art, though I think that's just fancy communication.

hey!

I was serious about hamburgers being delicious too.

 

[mAlice]

I absolutely do NOT (I hope that's close enough to "no" for you to keep talking with me) think that Christians have a monopoly on the understanding of morals and values.

I believe that Christians have a deep foundation for determining right and wrong, that determination being what makes up morals and values to a Christian.

However, I believe that the ancient Greeks had a foundation also. I disagree with Zues being the almighty, but they had a foundation to make up their morals and values.

I believe Wiccans have a foundation that make up their beliefs of right and wrong - those beliefs making up their determinations of morals and values.

I believe atheists have an equation for what determines life, a belief in man's thoughts and theories to try and determine how life works - but no deeper foundation for what makes up right and wrong and therefore no foundation for morals and values. Without a belief system, life can have no higher meaning.


I told you I'd give you my theory when you answered. You haven't answered (or, rather, you have by being unable to give me an answer). My theory is that American atheists are surrounded by religious people (83% of Americans identify themselves as Christians - I'll find the poll again if you dispute), and that atheists have been surrounded by values and morals so much they've adopted the bigger picture of the religious people's morals and values as their own while declaring they don't believe in the system that gives the morals. And, they don't even realize it.

I did answer your question. If you scroll back up (giving you the benefit of the doubt, maybe you missed the post) you will see that my answer was "intelligent discernment". It's a very simple, cut and dry answer. I don't feel the need to post a novel to get my point across. That's not my style.

 

[This_person]

hey!

I was serious about hamburgers being delicious too.

Especially with enough onion and relish.

 

[This_person]

you will see that my answer was "intelligent discernment".

So, you agree with the last paragraph of my novel.

I wanted to make sure you realized I respect everyone's religious beliefs, not just one type.

 

[Xaquin44]

Especially with enough onion and relish.

you know 'relish' is the first thing I've really disagreed with you on.

ugh

Get some thin vlassic stackers on that burger.

 

[This_person]

(giving you the benefit of the doubt, maybe you missed the post)

I actually did see it (though it was in answer to a different question, it still fit the overall theme) and answered:

In other words, YOU decide, based upon your knowledges and experiences, right?

To which I was going to lead you to the last paragraph of my novel.

 

[This_person]

you know 'relish' is the first thing I've really disagreed with you on.

ugh

Get some thin vlassic stackers on that burger.

Now, see, they're good. I'm not hard-set on relish. I like the Claussen sweet pickles on there, too.

 

[mAlice]

So, you agree with the last paragraph of my novel.

No, I do not. I believe that there were acceptable morals and values (for lack of a better description) before it ever occurred to mankind to believe in something he can't see or touch.

When cavemen were bonking their women on the head with a club and dragging the into a cave, this was acceptabe behavior for that period of time.

 

[Xaquin44]

Now, see, they're good. I'm not hard-set on relish. I like the Claussen sweet pickles on there, too.

I'm hungry now

I'd sell my soul for a burger

!!!!

seriously though, this debate can go on for a methusalahs age (If I spelled that correctly it'd be awesome) and not go anywhere.

 

[mAlice]

I actually did see it (though it was in answer to a different question, it still fit the overall theme) and answered:To which I was going to lead you to the last paragraph of my novel.

See what happens when you try to lead someone who is not willing to be lead? I'm not a fly crashing into a spiders web. Make your point, or you'll lose me.

 

[This_person]

No, I do not. I believe that there were acceptable morals and values (for lack of a better description) before it ever occurred to mankind to believe in something he can't see or touch.

When cavemen were bonking their women on the head with a club and dragging the into a cave, this was acceptabe behavior for that period of time.

While you think you're disagreeing, you're still making my point. Acceptable behaviour because of the surrounding people's acceptance - 83% Christians surround you.

Athiests can have no deeper meaning to human life than that to cattle (other than their own life) without a foundation for that deeper meaning. The fact that you couldn't come up with a deeper meaning proves you already understand that - you just don't accept it. Values, or acceptable behavior, as you worded it, come from those around you.

After all, it's acceptable elsewhere to whip a female rape victim for letting herself get put in the position of being raped. An American atheist, I feel confident in saying, doesn't agree with that value. I wonder if a Saudi atheist does.....

 

[mAlice]

While you think you're disagreeing, you're still making my point. Acceptable behaviour because of the surrounding people's acceptance - 83% Christians surround you.

Athiests can have no deeper meaning to human life than that to cattle (other than their own life) without a foundation for that deeper meaning. The fact that you couldn't come up with a deeper meaning proves you already understand that - you just don't accept it. Values, or acceptable behavior, as you worded it, come from those around you.

After all, it's acceptable elsewhere to whip a female rape victim for letting herself get put in the position of being raped. An American atheist, I feel confident in saying, doesn't agree with that value. I wonder if a Saudi atheist does.....

You can be right. I really don't care one way or the other.