Most atheists are more moral than many Christians.

[Autodidact]

Can we start by agreeing that killing babies, genocide, and slavery are all immoral? O.K., great, here's my argument:

For most atheists, these things are always wrong.
For many Christians, they are wrong unless God commands them, in which case they are right.
Therefore, for many Christians, immoral things are sometimes right.
It is more moral to oppose wrong all the time than some of the time.
Therefore, most atheists are more moral than many Christians.

[Artie]

Ted, I'm with you on this one. Abortion is the killing of a human child, and I don't think it can be morally justified. Logically, if human life is sacred, then it is sacred at all stages, from conception until natural death.

Well, if the first cell to live is sacred then also the last cell to live must be equally sacred. This means that until we pronounce someone dead we will have to make absolutely sure that every cell in the persons body has stopped functioning. That might take days. And how do we make absolutely sure that not a single cell is still functioning? What about organ transplantation?

[ttruscott]

Can we start by agreeing that killing babies, genocide, and slavery are all immoral? O.K., great, here's my argument:

For most atheists, these things are always wrong.
For many Christians, they are wrong unless God commands them, in which case they are right.
Therefore, for many Christians, immoral things are sometimes right.
It is more moral to oppose wrong all the time than some of the time.
Therefore, most atheists are more moral than many Christians.

Sorry, just can't agree that the acts you mention or any act as having an intrinsic evil connotation outside of GOD's judgment.

Please show that God has a judgment on it.

All morality comes from God. Condemning a 6000 year old criminal with a 6000 year criminal career is morally required.

How do you know that? Can you provide evidence for that. I can't see the basis for that claim.

The fact this criminal has gotten into a baby's body is meaningless.

The prohibition against murder is to subdue our angers and selfish motives which are used to kill for our self interests and not as a legal judgment. Legal judgments are accepted eerywhere...the rejection of the nature of the spirits which reside in human bodies, babies and all, does not change the the moral certainty that GOD's right to judge is sancrosanct.

Peace, Ted

Why?? Why is 'God's right to judge' sacrosanct. Can you show that God cares at all? How do you know what God's judgment is , and what it would be.

I keep on getting reminded by a quote by Susan B Anthony.

I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.

No...

[Autodidact]

Can we start by agreeing that killing babies, genocide, and slavery are all immoral? O.K., great, here's my argument:

For most atheists, these things are always wrong.
For many Christians, they are wrong unless God commands them, in which case they are right.
Therefore, for many Christians, immoral things are sometimes right.
It is more moral to oppose wrong all the time than some of the time.
Therefore, most atheists are more moral than many Christians.

Sorry, just can't agree that the acts you mention or any act as having an intrinsic evil connotation outside of GOD's judgment.

All morality comes from God. Condemning a 6000 year old criminal with a 6000 year criminal career is morally required.

The fact this criminal has gotten into a baby's body is meaningless.

The prohibition against murder is to subdue our angers and selfish motives which are used to kill for our self interests and not as a legal judgment. Legal judgments are accepted eerywhere...the rejection of the nature of the spirits which reside in human bodies, babies and all, does not change the the moral certainty that GOD's right to judge is sancrosanct.

Peace, Ted

O.K. so you don't agree that killing babies, genocide and slavery are wrong, unless God prohibits them. What religion did you say you are?

Interestingly, there is, at this moment, a thread in this forum saying that these things are only always wrong for Christians. We see that for at least one Christian, these things are only sometimes wrong.

And I think we also see the problem that atheists have with Christianity.

[Autodidact]

Can we start by agreeing that killing babies, genocide, and slavery are all immoral? O.K., great, here's my argument:

For most atheists, these things are always wrong.
For many Christians, they are wrong unless God commands them, in which case they are right.

And for many atheists they are wrong unless Stalin or Mao, or Pol Pot, or ... commands them, in which case they are right.

Really? Can you name a single atheist here at D R & C who takes that position?

Most folks would probably agree that thoughtlessly denigrating an entire group of people is ignorant, bigoted, and wrong. What do you think?

I think you should read ttruscott's post.

[Autodidact]

Can we start by agreeing that killing babies, genocide, and slavery are all immoral? O.K., great, here's my argument:

For most atheists, these things are always wrong.
For many Christians, they are wrong unless God commands them, in which case they are right.
Therefore, for many Christians, immoral things are sometimes right.
It is more moral to oppose wrong all the time than some of the time.
Therefore, most atheists are more moral than many Christians.

Sorry, just can't agree that the acts you mention or any act as having an intrinsic evil connotation outside of GOD's judgment.

Please show that God has a judgment on it.

All morality comes from God. Condemning a 6000 year old criminal with a 6000 year criminal career is morally required.

How do you know that? Can you provide evidence for that. I can't see the basis for that claim.

The fact this criminal has gotten into a baby's body is meaningless.

The prohibition against murder is to subdue our angers and selfish motives which are used to kill for our self interests and not as a legal judgment. Legal judgments are accepted eerywhere...the rejection of the nature of the spirits which reside in human bodies, babies and all, does not change the the moral certainty that GOD's right to judge is sancrosanct.

ttruscott: Jayhawker thinks I'm smearing you, by claiming that you believe that infanticide is not always wrong. What have you to say to him?

[Jayhawker Soule]

ttruscott: Jayhawker thinks I'm smearing you, by claiming that you believe that infanticide is not always wrong. What have you to say to him?

Please don't presume to speak for me: you suck at it.

[Autodidact]

Cute pictures but a change of name doesn't make a change in it's nature.

An acorn is not a tree but it is an oak.

Simplistic emotionalism to cover a claimed right to selfishness. <shrug>

Ted

[Ted, I'm with you on this one. Abortion is the killing of a human child, and I don't think it can be morally justified. Logically, if human life is sacred, then it is sacred at all stages, from conception until natural death.

I'm probably one of the only non-theists who feels this way, but so be it. I can't compromise on human life.

All stages? Really? Unfertilized egg? Fertilized egg that has not divided? Blastocyst?

[Confused]

ttruscott: Jayhawker thinks I'm smearing you, by claiming that you believe that infanticide is not always wrong. What have you to say to him?

Please don't presume to speak for me: you suck at it.

Moderator Comment

Please review the Rules.
Please limit personal responses in threads. Though one should never be challenged to answer for another, it is more conducive to simply ignore or report such posts. Thank you.

______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster.

[Autodidact]

ttruscott: Jayhawker thinks I'm smearing you, by claiming that you believe that infanticide is not always wrong. What have you to say to him?

Please don't presume to speak for me: you suck at it.

Sorry, my mistake. When you asked about

thoughtlessly denigrating an entire group of people is ignorant, bigoted, and wrong.

, I thought you were referring to my characterization of "many Christians." If not, perhaps you could clarify your meaning?

[Confused]

Can we start by agreeing that killing babies, genocide, and slavery are all immoral? O.K., great, here's my argument:

For most atheists, these things are always wrong.
For many Christians, they are wrong unless God commands them, in which case they are right.
Therefore, for many Christians, immoral things are sometimes right.
It is more moral to oppose wrong all the time than some of the time.
Therefore, most atheists are more moral than many Christians.

Sorry, just can't agree that the acts you mention or any act as having an intrinsic evil connotation outside of GOD's judgment.

Please show that God has a judgment on it.

All morality comes from God. Condemning a 6000 year old criminal with a 6000 year criminal career is morally required.

How do you know that? Can you provide evidence for that. I can't see the basis for that claim.

The fact this criminal has gotten into a baby's body is meaningless.

The prohibition against murder is to subdue our angers and selfish motives which are used to kill for our self interests and not as a legal judgment. Legal judgments are accepted eerywhere...the rejection of the nature of the spirits which reside in human bodies, babies and all, does not change the the moral certainty that GOD's right to judge is sancrosanct.

Peace, Ted

Why?? Why is 'God's right to judge' sacrosanct. Can you show that God cares at all? How do you know what God's judgment is , and what it would be.

I keep on getting reminded by a quote by Susan B Anthony.

I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.

No...

Please clarify what you are stating no to. If you cannot support something, it is usually based in opinion. If you will not support something, it is generally illogical. Either way requires further clarification.