Where do Atheists and Agnostics get the basis of humans rights from?

[Archaeopteryx]

I find it amusing (in a sad way) the lengths some are going to to blame God for the evil that men do.

...

I realize the God haters are well represented at this site and they are quick to blame God for the evils that men do but in the end truth and justice will win out and your lies will not stand ... not even in your own eyes.

I find it horrid how some people feel the need to deify all that is good in man, while humanising only that which is evil. Such thinking is poison for the soul.

 

[BondiHarry]

Pointing out facts is "garbage"?

No. What is garbage is his ignoring those posts I've made which destroy the macro-evolution theory, his false claims of what evidence science has to support macro-evolution and the absolute FAITH one must have to believe that life just spontaneously started when man's science shows that life as we know it ONLY comes from life and, once again, the utter implausibility that life 'just started'. There are too many things that must happen at the same time (coming alive, having the means to sustain itself, dispose of toxins and replicate itself) for abiogenesis to be true.

If the blinders are taken off it becomes apparent that there is intelligent design behind life on Earth and all that man is coming to know as reality. But of course THAT is an absolutely hateful thought to many as it means that there is an intelligence vastly superior to mans and that that intelligence may well have provided moral laws that mankind does not want to follow. Since most men do not want to abandon their evil, God must be denied at all costs and macro-evolution is a comforting although badly flawed excuse to do just that.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Not only does he not prohibit slavery, rape, ethnicide and pillaging, but he does seem to be quite concerned about their fashion sense, and what they eat.

'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material."

God Hates Shrimp

 

[Gadarene]

Not only does he not prohibit slavery, rape, ethnicide and pillaging, but he does seem to be quite concerned about their fashion sense, and what they eat.

'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material."

God Hates Shrimp

Yes, it really is sickening that someone would wear a mixed-fabric garment while beating their slave half to death.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

No. What is garbage is his ignoring those posts I've made which destroy the macro-evolution theory,...

Your Nobel awaits. Let us know how that goes.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Yes, it really is sickening that someone would wear a mixed-fabric garment while beating their slave half to death.

And I shudder to think the horror of planting mixed seeds in ONE field.

 

[freezerman2000]

If the blinders are taken off it becomes apparent that there is intelligent design behind life on Earth and all that man is coming to know as reality. But of course THAT is an absolutely hateful thought to many as it means that there is an intelligence vastly superior to mans and that that intelligence may well have provided moral laws that mankind does not want to follow. Since most men do not want to abandon their evil, God must be denied at all costs and macro-evolution is a comforting although badly flawed excuse to do just that.

The "blinders" are what keep people from exploring other possibilities, other than what is literally written in scripture, especially, Genesis.
My "blinders" have been removed for quite some time,I no longer march in lock step and my faith is stronger for it.

 

[selfinflikted]

The "blinders" are what keep people from exploring other possibilities, other than what is literally written in scripture, especially, Genesis.

Many atheists used to be Christians. I think a lot of people forget that.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Well, DARWINIAN evolution is a flawed theory because it can't explain the origin of life, but it's more than a bit unfair to expect it to explain anything beyond biological systems.

ToE does not purport to explain the origin of life.

It's ATHEISM that's a flawed theory because it can't explain the origin of the universe, or the existence of the physical laws that govern it (which obviously would include gravity).

Why is Theism any better in that regard? It can't explain the origin of the universe either, or the existence of the physical laws that govern it, such as gravity. "God did it" is not an explanation.

Lol! There's a big difference when that "might making right" is the eternal, infinite, omniscient creator of the universe as opposed to some thug.

Before you said that atheism led to "might makes right". Now you acknowledge that, at least in some versions of theism, might makes right is intrinsic. But for some reason you don't see it as bad anymore. Why? It was obviously bad when you judged it to be the consequence of atheism. But now it is suddenly something noble?

And even if it is different in some important way when the might we speak of is the might of an eternal, omniscient creator, why should I believe that your particular conception of that creator correctly identifies who that creator is and what he wants?

Re: Nietzsche and morality. What, pray tell, do you understand him to have said in his books "Beyond Good and Evil" and "The Will to Power"? What did he mean by calling himself an "immoralist"? What did he intend when he asserted that with the "death of God" morality is no longer given to us from above, but now becomes something that we devise for ourselves? How do you interpret his declaring that the old codes of "thou shalt not" are now replaced by "I will"? How do you understand his announcing that it's not so much that God has died as it is that man has killed God in order to win for himself the freedom to make his own morality, and that this morality consists of striving and self-assertion, "the deification of passion" which constitutes a "splendid animality"? What, according to you, does Nietzsche mean when he contends that any goal, even one that imposes massive hardship or great suffering on the human race, is legitimate if we pursue it with energy, resolution, and commitment?

It's been a while since I read Nietzsche's works, but I didn't read any of what you apparently read into it. My favourite of his works are probably Twilight of the Idols and Human, All Too Human. When Nietzsche proclaims "the death of god", he is reversing Plato's "error" -- the introduction of a metaphysical "beyond" or "true" world, which took form in the Christian notion of a heavenly paradise. Much like Freud, Nietzsche noticed that Christianity sought to suppress mankind's vital energy, in the promise that it would reward the sacrifice of life in this world with a better life in the "true" world. In doing so, Nietzsche believed that Christianity was being hostile toward life itself. He saw it as a negative reaction to life and therefore a symptom of the decline of life; a sort of cultural disease.

 

[TerranceL]

Many atheists used to be Christians. I think a lot of people forget that.

That or it's the "Well you weren't a REAL christian."

 

[selfinflikted]

No. What is garbage is his ignoring those posts I've made which destroy the macro-evolution theory,

I haven't seen one post containing anything that destroys the ToE.

his false claims of what evidence science has to support macro-evolution

The evidence is there, wide open, for all to see. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away.

and the absolute FAITH one must have to believe that life just spontaneously started

I don't know how life began. So for you to claim I have "FAITH" about the origins of life is incorrect. If you had simply asked me, I'dve just said, "I don't know."

when man's science shows that life as we know it ONLY comes from life and, once again, the utter implausibility that life 'just started'. There are too many things that must happen at the same time (coming alive, having the means to sustain itself, dispose of toxins and replicate itself) for abiogenesis to be true.

This, to you, is implausible yet a God with magical powers poofing everything into existence is perfectly reasonable? This is what's wrong with the world today.

If the blinders are taken off it becomes apparent that there is intelligent design behind life on Earth and all that man is coming to know as reality. But of course THAT is an absolutely hateful thought to many as it means that there is an intelligence vastly superior to mans and that that intelligence may well have provided moral laws that mankind does not want to follow. Since most men do not want to abandon their evil, God must be denied at all costs and macro-evolution is a comforting although badly flawed excuse to do just that.

My blinders were removed years ago.

 

[selfinflikted]

That or it's the "Well you weren't a REAL christian."

Maybe I was, maybe I wasn't. The accusations of people not being "REAL Christian" are thrown around so much nowadays, I'm not even sure I'd recognize a REAL Christian if one was standing right in front of me. I'm fairly certain, though, if I had to judge, I've only met a handfull of REAL Christians on this site.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

The "blinders" are what keep people from exploring other possibilities, other than what is literally written in scripture, especially, Genesis.
My "blinders" have been removed for quite some time,I no longer march in lock step and my faith is stronger for it.

I almost remember the exact moment in time I began to feel this way when I was a Christian, and I will never forget the amount of freedom I felt to consider and accept things as they really are. I too, felt my faith was stronger at that point.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Which one? I'll go and refute those points tonight, link the thread.

Lochness monster thread.

1, Yes they do count, it proves that God exist, thus "atheism" doesn't exist. you aren't an "atheist"

2, Now that it is proven, that God exist. the True God is confirmed to be The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit as evident from The Bible, and Jesus Christ Resurrection.

Jesus Christ Resurrection is the proof that proves that the one and only True God is, The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit.

The Muslim version of you replies: "The Koran is the proof that proves that the one and only True God is Allah. Christianity is null and void. Christians don't exist."

So back to my original question:

And how do we find out who the "true" God is? Why should I be convinced that your particular conception of God is the right one and that everyone else's is mistaken? Let's pretend, for a moment, that there is a Muslim guy about your age who is just as devout as you are. Like you, he believes that he knows who the one true God is and what the one true God wants. Like you, he believes that his holy book provides sufficient proof and that the cosmological, ontological, fine tuning, and ID arguments all support his particular conception of God. Like you, he believes that anyone who believes differently is mistaken. Like you, he says (to you) "if you object, provide evidence, not opinions, presupposition, unathentic word of mouth, or assumptions". He is exactly like you, but believes in a different universal law, and a different "commander". Now suppose that there is some disagreement between you two on what is and isn't a moral law instituted by the "commander". Given that you are both completely convinced that your own interpretation of Scripture is correct, and that your preferred holy books give the undeniable "proof", how are you two going to resolve the disagreement? Never mind the atheist. Consider him a spectator in this case. How are you two religious devotees going to determine who is right?​

 

[blankgirl]

.

 

[blankgirl]

I almost remember the exact moment in time I began to feel this way when I was a Christian, and I will never forget the amount of freedom I felt to consider and accept things as they really are. I too, felt my faith was stronger at that point.

Thanks for sharing.

I'm ambivalent about this. I've been exploring beyond the Bible and going into theology that is non-traditional and postmodern theory even. On one hand, I feel 'free', on the other hand, I'm feeling a lot of guilt as well. But I guess I'm glad I"m not alone.

 

[SavedByChrist94]

No, that's not rational. Simply plugging your God in to the answer is unjustified, it could be any number of things that caused the universe to start,

The commander of morality isn't a "thing", the commander of morality is a mind who is above all humanity and has authority over humanity.

Nobody

Invalid.

The commander of morality, is a being, above all humanity and has authority over all humanity.

so I ask again, who is the commander of morality that has authority over all humanity and is above all humanity?

Only God can explain that.

Morals are not universal

Yes they are, unless someone is a sociopath.

No he doesn't, even if there is a universal moral law, it doesn't have to come from your God. You also have no evidence that Jesus existed either I may add.

The Gospels, The early Christians martyrs, extra Biblical sources

Who are these 40 witnesses, where are their accounts, and how do you know they are truthful?



There's plenty of contradiction, and plenty of error. Some historical accuracy, but lots of inaccuracies. There's no contemporary extra-biblical sources, it's unconfirmed if those predictions were predictions, or actually came true, and Martyrs exist in every religion.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/christian-martyr

That video proves nothing, there's no evidence to back up his claims.

Your opinion is not evidence, if you object to the evidence provided, then provide evidence, not opinion. he analyzed the evidence, and the fact is, Jesus Christ Resurrected from the dead.

There's no evidence for an intelligent designer, We are not irreducibly complex, and it has been proven we have evolved.

Yes there is, we are intelligently designed, thus we need an intelligent designer. we are irreducibly complex, we need a designer. if you object, provide evidence or an example of an intelligent irreducible complex design that requires no designer, created itself accidentally, randomly, and from nothing, you will not find any.

There's no reason to assume it could have come out any other way than it did.

The universe is so Fine Tuned for life, that it is not a coincidence or chance.

The ontological argument is a load of baloney... you can't define something into existence, you have to demonstrate it actually exists.

And I have, add the Ontological argument to the other evidence, and without a doubt, God exist.

People disbelieve in Gods, therefore Atheism exists. How is this hard?

Nope, no one is an "atheist". since God exist, we know have to find who is the True God. "atheism" is still, null and void.

lets use zeus for example, zeus not existing has no effect whatsoever on God's existence, it just means zeus isn't God. not believing in zeus isn't being an "atheist", it's just knowing that zeus isn't God.

Jesus Christ exist, and it is proven that He is God, thus the True God is The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit.

There's no evidence for anything apart from Personal Experiences, and even those we can't determine if the person was hallucinating or actually having an experience.

The evidence I provided backs up personal experiences of God.

Actually, no they don't count... even if those arguments are correct, it doesn't tie directly to the Christian God... it could tie to any possible concept of God, Muslim, Hindu, Greek, Viking, Deist, Etc.

And we are Atheists, all we have to do is not believe any god claims. Therefore Atheists, and Atheism exist.

Nope, you have to back up your "atheism" with proof and evidence, since you cannot, you are not an "atheist". "atheism" has no evidence, "atheism" doesn't exist.

Please show evidence Jesus's resurrection happened.

Already did, so I'll repost â€[bless and do not curse] Proof Jesus Christ is A.L.I.V.E. (Free gift included) â€[bless and do not curse] - YouTube

Please provide evidence for this claim

There is no evidence for "atheism", "atheism" is null and void, you aren't an "atheist", "atheism" doesn't exist.


@Freodin, I replied to your post.

Based on the evidence, it looks like he gave lots of different contradictory ones. Or he doesn't exist and people made up a bunch of different ones. The results are inconclusive.

Your proof? word of mouth isn't evidence.

This question makes no sense. Who implies the question refers to a person yet you want an answer of something that's obviously not. What is it you really want to know?

I established that there is a commander who is above humanity and has authority over humanity, who is the commander of morality who is above all humanity and has authority over all humanity?

You know only God can answer that question.

How do you know the Universe has not always existed in one form or another? We only know it hasn’t existed as it is right now! Your argument fails.

1, Infinite Regression is impossible, 2, Science agrees that the universe had a beginning

Since the universe had a beginning, God exist.

If morality came from one person, it would be consistent from society to society, from time to time. A quick look at history and geography proves otherwise. Morality comes from a variety of societies, and each society will claim it came from their various Gods. Again, your argument fails

Culture might be different but not morals. don't confuse moral with culture. morals, right and wrong is objective. also that doesn't counter the fact that morals could have only come from God.

Your bible isn’t the only witness writing their accounts of God that speaks of Jesus you know! And many of the witness contradict each other within the bible and outside your bible. What makes your Bible account of Jesus more credible than say the Koran account of Jesus? The Koran account of Jesus definitively sounds more realistic than what your Bible says of him! Argument fails.

1, Your opinion isn't evidence. the evidence I provided stands, The Bible is evidence.

2, Jesus Christ Resurrection, Early Christians, Bible being free from error, free from contradiction, approximately 40 different witnesses. The Bible is evidence, if this were a court of law and you objected, you would be dismissed.

That is not evidence; Those are just claims! Argument fail

Your opinion isn't evidence. as I said, if you object provide evidence/example of an intelligent irreducible complex design that requires no designer, created itself accidentally, randomly, and from nothing, you won't find any.

How do you know we weren’t just 1 hair away from evolving differently than we are right now?

1, We did not evolved since "macro-evolution" didn't happen.

2, We are irreducibly complex.

3, You didn't provide any evidence, you just asked a question, that isn't evidence.

Do you even know what Atheism is? Atheism is simply a lack of belief in God; That’s it! There are people (myself included) who will tell you they lack belief in God and people like you put your fingers in your ears, cover your eyes and say “I don’t hear you, I don’t see you; you don’t exist. Your argument fails

Ken

And you have to provide evidence for a "lack" of belief, opinions, assumptions, presupposition, insults aren't evidence.

Since you cannot provide evidence for "atheism", "atheism" is null and void, you are not an "atheist", "atheism" doesn't exist.

Lochness monster thread.

Link the post.

The Muslim version of you replies: "The Koran is the proof that proves that the one and only True God is Allah. Christianity is null and void. Christians don't exist."

Nope, because The Bible can be backed up with evidence, such as Christian Martyrs, Jesus teachings, extra Biblical logical and evidence. since The Bible is true, and since the koran isn't backed up, The Bible is the truth and The Resurrection confirms that.

So back to my original question:

And how do we find out who the "true" God is? Why should I be convinced that your particular conception of God is the right one and that everyone else's is mistaken? Let's pretend, for a moment, that there is a Muslim guy about your age who is just as devout as you are. Like you, he believes that he knows who the one true God is and what the one true God wants. Like you, he believes that his holy book provides sufficient proof and that the cosmological, ontological, fine tuning, and ID arguments all support his particular conception of God. Like you, he believes that anyone who believes differently is mistaken. Like you, he says (to you) "if you object, provide evidence, not opinions, presupposition, unathentic word of mouth, or assumptions". He is exactly like you, but believes in a different universal law, and a different "commander". Now suppose that there is some disagreement between you two on what is and isn't a moral law instituted by the "commander". Given that you are both completely convinced that your own interpretation of Scripture is correct, and that your preferred holy books give the undeniable "proof", how are you two going to resolve the disagreement? Never mind the atheist. Consider him a spectator in this case. How are you two religious devotees going to determine who is right?​

1, There is a God, God exist, that is established with the cosmological, ontological, and fine tuning, now what you want to know is who the True God is. thus your "atheism" is nonexistent.

2, The True God as confirmed by Jesus Christ Resurrection is, The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit. if you object, provide evidence.

Jesus Christ Resurrection, The historical accuracy of The Bible, no contradiction, no error, approximately 40 different witnesses of God, extra Biblical sources, Christian martyrs, confirms The Bible is true, everything else is including "atheism" is null and void.

 

[Freodin]

If the blinders are taken off it becomes apparent that there is intelligent design behind life on Earth and all that man is coming to know as reality. But of course THAT is an absolutely hateful thought to many as it means that there is an intelligence vastly superior to mans and that that intelligence may well have provided moral laws that mankind does not want to follow. Since most men do not want to abandon their evil, God must be denied at all costs and macro-evolution is a comforting although badly flawed excuse to do just that.

I think this is quite sad.

You think that you have the backing of a vastly superiour intelligence, and a benevolent intelligence on top.
But all of your argumentation do not manage to convince these unbelievers.
That must mean they are evil and unwilling, because anyone serious and open minded would be convinced by those arguments of superiour intelligence.
So you don't even need to present all those arguments of superiour intelligence, because you know from the start that those who dare to doubt your claims are unwilling to hear them, evil and hard-hearted.
Look at them! They want to be evil and not following good divine morals! They want to defend human rights and abortion, empathy and homosexuality! All with arguments, which do not have to be debated, because you already know that they are not up to the arguments of superiour intelligence, which you don't need to even bring up, because the other side is wrong by default.

Sad, really. If the only argument that you do dare to bring up is "You are wrong! Accept that you are wrong and you will see that you are wrong!"

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

I'm ambivalent about this. I've been exploring beyond the Bible and going into theology that is non-traditional and postmodern theory even. On one hand, I feel 'free', on the other hand, I'm feeling a lot of guilt as well. But I guess I'm glad I"m not alone.

The guilt I felt stemmed from an early age, where I was taught what to believe, not how to believe.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Link the post.

You can't find the thread?

Nope, because The Bible can be backed up with evidence, such as Christian Martyrs, Jesus teachings, extra Biblical logical and evidence. since The Bible is true, and since the koran isn't backed up, The Bible is the truth and The Resurrection confirms that.

The Muslim version of you replies that "the Koran can be backed up with evidence, such as Muslim martyrs, Muhammad's teachings, extra-Koranic logic and evidence. Since the Koran is true, and since the Bible isn't, the Koran is the truth and it proves that."

1, There is a God, God exist, that is established with the cosmological, ontological, and fine tuning, now what you want to know is who the True God is. thus your "atheism" is nonexistent.

2, The True God as confirmed by Jesus Christ Resurrection is, The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit. if you object, provide evidence.

Jesus Christ Resurrection, The historical accuracy of The Bible, no contradiction, no error, approximately 40 different witnesses of God, extra Biblical sources, Christian martyrs, confirms The Bible is true, everything else is including "atheism" is null and void.

You don't seem to understand the question. The atheist is just a member of the crowd in this thought experiment. I want to know how you deal with someone who is exactly like you, but of a different faith. How are you two going to resolve your disagreement over what is and isn't moral law?