EvC Forum: Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals.

Yet there are Hitler quotes that indicate he hated Christianity. So it's a very confusing picture. Anyhow, there always exists the distinct possibility that he used pro-Christian rhetoric to appeal to a Christiian audience. Oldest trick in the book.

Perhaps you should hedge your bets, and only pray for his soul every other day.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 988 by Dredge, posted 05-12-2017 4:45 AM		Dredge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
	Message 992 by Davidjay, posted 05-12-2017 7:52 AM		bluegenes has not yet responded

Davidjay

Suspended Member (Idle past 303 days)

Posts: 1026

From: B.C Canada

Joined: 11-05-2004

Davidjay Posts Only

Message 992 of 1006 (808668)
05-12-2017 7:52 AM

Reply to: Message 991 by bluegenes
05-12-2017 5:57 AM

Re: Hitler's soul... was racist

Hitler was a racist and tried to literally and manually inbred 'superiority' into the human race, and xterminate all other humans.

This easily supported by the theory of evolution which states that branching brings on superior or more viable species from the original species or KIND.

SEE Evolution is a Racist Doctrine.

Do note, that this thread title should have been
Aethists/Evolutionists can NOT rationally explain Morals... for remember this is an evolution board and not an atheist board, even though atheistic comments abound.

.
The Lord is the GREAT SCIENTIST as He created SCIENCE and ALL LAWS and ALL MATTER and of course ALL LIFE. God is the Great Architect, Designer and Mathematician. Evolutioon is not mathematical and says there is no DESIGN but that all things came about by sheer LUCK.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 991 by bluegenes, posted 05-12-2017 5:57 AM		bluegenes has not yet responded

Chiroptera

Member

Posts: 6531

From: Oklahoma

Joined: 09-28-2003

Member Rating: 3.6

Chiroptera Posts Only

Message 993 of 1006 (808683)
05-12-2017 8:54 AM

Reply to: Message 989 by Dredge
05-12-2017 4:50 AM

Re: Evolutionists can not explain morals

To illustrate this point, if there were no religions, a great many people would still consider homosexuality to be immoral; likewise, many people would still consider abortion immoral.

We know that. The question is: so what? What is your point?

Edited by Chiroptera, : Typo.

Freedom is merely privilege extended, unless enjoyed by one and all. – Billy Bragg

This message is a reply to:
	Message 989 by Dredge, posted 05-12-2017 4:50 AM		Dredge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
	Message 994 by Davidjay, posted 05-12-2017 9:09 AM		Chiroptera has responded

Davidjay

Suspended Member (Idle past 303 days)

Posts: 1026

From: B.C Canada

Joined: 11-05-2004

Davidjay Posts Only

Message 994 of 1006 (808690)
05-12-2017 9:09 AM

Reply to: Message 993 by Chiroptera
05-12-2017 8:54 AM

Re: Evolutionists can not explain morals

Hi Chiroptera, meaning bat.....

Religions like evolution do destroy moral fiber, with their luck and chance philosphy... especially when they declare that they have no responsibility for what they write and discover and implement and force into childrens minds.

Yes, agreed the religion's of man are basically about self and selfishness and the appearnace of holiness, and about them appearing to be more righteous than others. Its about racism, and hoping and praying their superiority gets appreciated from those below them. Religion is a curse, which is why the religionists killed Jesus... why because Jesus was against religionists and their vile morality.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 993 by Chiroptera, posted 05-12-2017 8:54 AM		Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
	Message 998 by Chiroptera, posted 05-12-2017 1:01 PM		Davidjay has not yet responded

jar

Member

Posts: 30934

From: Texas!!

Joined: 04-20-2004

Member Rating: 1.3

jar Posts Only

Message 995 of 1006 (808695)
05-12-2017 9:30 AM

Reply to: Message 989 by Dredge
05-12-2017 4:50 AM

Re: Evolutionists can not explain morals

Dredge writes:

To illustrate this point, if there were no religions, a great many people would still consider homosexuality to be immoral; likewise, many people would still consider abortion immoral.

Which of course is fine. No one cares whether you consider something immoral. You are perfectly free to feel that way.

What people object to is you trying to impose the concept of legality rather than morality.

Thank God legality and morality are not synonyms.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
	Message 989 by Dredge, posted 05-12-2017 4:50 AM		Dredge has not yet responded

Taq

Member

Posts: 7610

Joined: 03-06-2009

Member Rating: 2.9

Taq Posts Only

Message 996 of 1006 (808722)
05-12-2017 11:10 AM

Reply to: Message 989 by Dredge
05-12-2017 4:50 AM

Re: Evolutionists can not explain morals

As I pointed out in an earlier post, if no Gods or gods exist, some of the morality invented by religions is as valid as any non-religious morality, because it is still the morality of human beings.

Why? Why can't one human based morality be superior to another?

To illustrate this point, if there were no religions, a great many people would still consider homosexuality to be immoral; likewise, many people would still consider abortion immoral.

And? For quite a while now there has been a humanistic argument for homosexuals having equal rights. In fact, philosophers have been basing human rights on humanistic and areligious arguments for quite a while now.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 989 by Dredge, posted 05-12-2017 4:50 AM		Dredge has not yet responded

ringo

Member

Posts: 15737

From: frozen wasteland

Joined: 03-23-2005

Member Rating: 1.7

ringo Posts Only

(1)

Message 997 of 1006 (808738)
05-12-2017 12:10 PM

Reply to: Message 988 by Dredge
05-12-2017 4:45 AM

Dredge writes:

Hitler was a politician - and not he most honest one in history. You can't believe everything he said.

If he talked about Christianity to appeal to Christians, then he probably also talked about evolution to appeal to evolutionists. So if you want to reject that he was a "True Christian", in all honesty you also have to let go of the claim that he was a "True Evolutionist".

This message is a reply to:
	Message 988 by Dredge, posted 05-12-2017 4:45 AM		Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
	Message 999 by Dredge, posted 05-14-2017 5:19 AM	ringo has acknowledged this reply
	Message 1005 by Aussie, posted 11-13-2018 4:26 PM	ringo has not yet responded

Chiroptera

Member

Posts: 6531

From: Oklahoma

Joined: 09-28-2003

Member Rating: 3.6

Chiroptera Posts Only

Message 998 of 1006 (808740)
05-12-2017 1:01 PM

Reply to: Message 994 by Davidjay
05-12-2017 9:09 AM

Re: Evolutionists can not explain morals

Thanks, Davidjay.

I don't think that gets to the point Dredge is trying to make. But who knows? I thought I got his point, but he's been pretty much ignored my responses. He's pretty reticent about explaining himself clearly.

Freedom is merely privilege extended, unless enjoyed by one and all. – Billy Bragg

This message is a reply to:
	Message 994 by Davidjay, posted 05-12-2017 9:09 AM		Davidjay has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
	Message 1000 by Dredge, posted 05-14-2017 5:23 AM		Chiroptera has acknowledged this reply

Dredge

Member

Posts: 715

From: Australia

Joined: 09-06-2016

Dredge Posts Only

Message 999 of 1006 (808848)
05-14-2017 5:19 AM

Reply to: Message 997 by ringo
05-12-2017 12:10 PM

Good point.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 997 by ringo, posted 05-12-2017 12:10 PM		ringo has acknowledged this reply

Dredge

Member

Posts: 715

From: Australia

Joined: 09-06-2016

Dredge Posts Only

Message 1000 of 1006 (808849)
05-14-2017 5:23 AM

Reply to: Message 998 by Chiroptera
05-12-2017 1:01 PM

Re: Evolutionists can not explain morals

Chiroptera writes:

He's pretty reticent about expalining himself clearly

Dredge is waiting for more pearls of wisdom from Chicko.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 998 by Chiroptera, posted 05-12-2017 1:01 PM		Chiroptera has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
	Message 1001 by Davidjay, posted 06-05-2017 10:57 AM		Dredge has not yet responded

Davidjay

Suspended Member (Idle past 303 days)

Posts: 1026

From: B.C Canada

Joined: 11-05-2004

Davidjay Posts Only

Message 1001 of 1006 (811131)
06-05-2017 10:57 AM

Reply to: Message 1000 by Dredge
05-14-2017 5:23 AM

Re: Religionists killed Jesus

Agreed Chiroptera...... as we must distinguish between the religionists that killed Jesus because He revealed their evil motivations, and the religion or love lifestyle that Jesus started anew with His 1st Coming.....

For the law and holiness religionists were confounded by the Lord at every step and so they had to put a plant cal;led Judas among His disciples to try and catch a time and place to capture HIM, and then buy false witnesses to try and accuse HIm... And it worked.... Jesus knew scriptures and the meaning of scriptures, so the Sanhedrin couldnt convict HIM so sent HIM to the political leader, Pilate. Pilate got him killed because of the religionists insistence and false witnesses. What was the accussation, He said, Destroy this temple in three days I shall raise it up. The politically aligned and submiisive religionists lied and misrepresented what Jesus said about His Body's Temple, and they said He was a terrorist going to destroy their stone temple on the Temple Mount.

People get very upset when they find out the truth about our Body's Temple and mathematics and they dont want to hear the prophecy or math or the great DESIGN of our TEMPLE. As before so today, no difference.

The religious always want to destroy the opposition, and how much more the opposition that knows the truth (from Jesus)

IMHO

David

Evolution is not science. It did not create life nor did it diversify life. It didn;t create the laws that exist nor did it create science. It is a religion and not Science.

Intelligent design always defeats evolutions lack of design and lack of intelligence. Luck and Chance is not a scientific doctrine,

This message is a reply to:
	Message 1000 by Dredge, posted 05-14-2017 5:23 AM		Dredge has not yet responded

dwise1

Member

Posts: 3207

Joined: 05-02-2006

Member Rating: 4.0

dwise1 Posts Only

(4)

Message 1002 of 1006 (817599)
08-18-2017 2:23 PM

Reply to: Message 791 by dwise1
04-28-2017 10:13 AM

Evolutionists can indeed explain morals

In evolutionary theory, getting your genes represented in subsequent generations is the basic game. If you sacrifice yourself to ensure the survival of your children, then that gets your genes into subsequent generations. If you sacrifice yourself to ensure the survival of your siblings' children, then the outcome is the same -- HINT: they share your genes. Same for your cousins and their children. Same for members of your tribe and for the tribe itself, since tribes have traditionally been peopled by kin. Even when the concept of tribe has been extended beyond kinship, working to preserve the tribe also helps ensure the survival of your kin who depend on that tribe for survival -- that is also an evolutionary basis for morality.

In contrast, in Christianity there is no basis for morality because it serves no other purpose than to appease an arbitrary and angry god. And because your entire theology is about seeking eternal reward and avoiding eternal punishment, there is no basis in Christianity for altruism and it is impossible for a Christian to be altruistic because of his theology. However, since a Christian is a human who has the same evolutionary history of normals, a Christian can indeed engage in altruistic acts only because he is human, not because he's a Christian.

Edited by dwise1, : Changed sub-title

This message is a reply to:
	Message 791 by dwise1, posted 04-28-2017 10:13 AM		dwise1 has not yet responded

granpa

Member (Idle past 315 days)

Posts: 128

Joined: 10-26-2010

granpa Posts Only

(1)

Message 1003 of 1006 (821803)
10-12-2017 8:01 PM

Reply to: Message 1 by Dawn Bertot
02-02-2017 3:56 PM

A moral person is a person that understands that the universe does not revolve around their ego.

A civilized society is a society whose laws do not revolve around any one person or group of people.
The more a society treats everyone as equals the more civilized it is.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 1 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-02-2017 3:56 PM		Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
	Message 1004 by Larni, posted 10-14-2017 3:18 PM		granpa has not yet responded

Larni

Member

Posts: 3965

From: Liverpool

Joined: 09-16-2005

Larni Posts Only

(2)

Message 1004 of 1006 (821902)
10-14-2017 3:18 PM

Reply to: Message 1003 by granpa
10-12-2017 8:01 PM

Very true.

That's the exact reason I have for not wanting a Christian Theocracy ruling the land.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134