Atheist I can't stand

[Rusha]

In a democracy, perhaps...

:think:

Democracy is stupid.

I don't really care what you call it ... the freedom to live my life as I see fit free from your religious constraints works for me ...

 

[Stripe]

I don't really care what you call it ... the freedom to live my life as I see fit free from your religious constraints works for me ...

:shocked:

You want to murder and rape?

 

[Rusha]

:shocked:

You want to murder and rape?

Nope ... those are common sense laws that are universally accepted as causing intentional, physical harm towards others.

 

[Stripe]

Nope ... those are common sense laws that are universally accepted as causing intentional, physical harm towards others.

You believe it is always morally wrong to cause physical harm to other people? Why do you believe that? I don't.

And what about non-physical harm? What does your morality tell you about that?

 

[Rusha]

You believe it is always morally wrong to cause physical harm to other people? Why do you believe that? I don't.

Defending yourself or a loved one from physical violence and having the state carry out the DP for capital offenders is NOT wrong ...

And what about non-physical harm? What does your morality tell you about that?

Unnecessary cruelty, lying, slander, verbal abuse, theft ... all wrong.

Here's a good rule to live by: If you wouldn't like someone to do something to you, then don't do it to them!

I would think a supposed Christian such as yourself would understand the golden rule, Stripe ...

 

[Stripe]

Defending yourself or a loved one from physical violence and having the state carry out the DP for capital offenders is NOT wrong ...

That's nice. I agree, Rusha.

But I clearly stated that in some circumstances I would condone causing physical harm. Yet you suggested common sense dictates that all physical harm is immoral. So I'll ask again:
You believe it is always morally wrong to cause physical harm to other people?

Unnecessary cruelty, lying, slander, verbal abuse, theft ... all wrong.

Great. We agree. So why are you so opposed to God's standards in favour of a democratically decided justice system?

Here's a good rule to live by: If you wouldn't like someone to do something to you, then don't do it to them! I would think a supposed Christian such as yourself would understand the golden rule, Stipe ...

Well, sure. But it is difficult to apply this rule when you're wrong. Tell us, Rusha. If you saw someone was wrong in some manner would you point it out to them. Why would you do that?

 

[Rusha]

That's nice. I agree, Rusha.

But I clearly stated that in some circumstances I would condone causing physical harm. Yet you suggested common sense dictates that all physical harm is immoral. So I'll ask again:
You believe it is always morally wrong to cause physical harm to other people?

What circumstances other than the DP or self defense would warrant causing physical harm to another human being, Stripe?

Great. We agree. So why are you so opposed to God's standards in favour of a democratically decided justice system?

For one, I can not agree on the standard of something or someone I do not know to exist.

And two, some of the things that you believe your God tells you should be crimes are things I don't agree with.

Well, sure. But it is difficult to apply this rule when you're wrong.

Yea ... it's a good thing I am always right, eh?

Tell us, Rusha. If you saw someone was wrong in some manner would you point it out to them. Why would you do that?

It would depend on the action and severity of the action. If someone were to be getting behind the wheel of a car and they were falling down drunk, I would try to physically restrain them (by taking their keys) or call the police.

If someone is beating their child or sexually abusing them, I would do more than just tell them they are wrong.

The difference between you and I is that you believe you have no problem with advocating that the laws are changed in such a way that it interferes with the private lives and actions of adults for actions that are currently legal and none of your beezwax.

 

[Stripe]

What circumstances other than the DP or self defense would warrant causing physical harm to another human being, Stripe?

Is that a "No"? Are you agreeing with me? Are you going to modify your reasoning for accepting God's standards? You said, "those are common sense laws that are universally accepted as causing intentional, physical harm towards others", but now you're saying that we can cause harm in some cases.

Is your modification going to be that "common sense" is the sole determiner of what is good law?

For one, I can not agree on the standard of something or someone I do not know to exist.

Well, for someone who doesn't know if He exists, it looks like you're trying really hard to satisfy God's law....

And two, some of the things that you believe your God tells you should be crimes are things I don't agree with.

God has told me that I am free from the law and to love others just as He loves us. What would these things be of which you speak?

The difference between you and I is that you believe you have no problem with advocating that the laws are changed in such a way that it interferes with the private lives and actions of adults for actions that are currently legal and none of your beezwax.

:squint: So you also think that privacy, age and current legality also determine what is good law? Does this go on top of 'common sense' and 'causing harm' or are you changing your mind?

 

[Rusha]

Is that a "No"? Are you agreeing with me?

No, I am not agreeing with *you* ... I stated my view very clearly ... it is MY view, not yours.

Are you going to modify your reasoning for accepting God's standards?

No

You said, "those are common sense laws that are universally accepted as causing intentional, physical harm towards others", but now you're saying that we can cause harm in some cases.

Is your modification going to be that "common sense" is the sole determiner of what is good law?

I have always based *my* standard on actions that cause intentional harm to others, including reckless endangerment to non consenting persons.

Well, for someone who doesn't know if He exists, it looks like you're trying really hard to satisfy God's law....

Oh please ... you just can't stand that I am not a Christian (and in fact a Satanist) and that I have GREAT morals. You have to insert your God's law into my reasoning because of your own insecurities.

God has told me that I am free from the law and to love others just as He loves us. What would these things be of which you speak?

Ah so once again, you are *saved* and therefore have the "get of hell and sin freely" card. Nice to know.

:squint: So you also think that privacy, age and current legality also determine what is good law? Does this go on top of 'common sense' and 'causing harm' or are you changing your mind?

It depends entirely on the action. What goes on in the private lives of consenting adults is not your business, mine or the governments as long as it is legal and consensual.

Do you or do you not agree that adults have the right to behavior that risks their own health? If not, then when will you be boycotting the tobacco industry, Hostess and Fritolay?

 

[Nazarene2000]

When speaking an opinion, please use fact whenever possible. There are plenty of Atheists I know who know what they are speaking of and never "bash."

 

[Stripe]

Golly, Rusha. You have a real problem answering questions, don't you?

No, I am not agreeing with *you* ... I stated my view very clearly ... it is MY view, not yours.

Oh, I understand whose views you are expressing. I'd have no problem if your views agreed with mine, even if only to a small extent. Would you have a problem agreeing with me if you discovered we agreed on something?

No

Really?

I have always based *my* standard on actions that cause intentional harm to others, including reckless endangerment to non consenting persons.

But you freely admit that this standard is not good enough. I'm interested in what other standards you have to determine how you would govern in situations where intentional harm is the right thing to do. But you've already said, "No" you will not modify your standards.

Oh please ... you just can't stand that I am not a Christian (and in fact a Satanist) and that I have GREAT morals. You have to insert your God's law into my reasoning because of your own insecurities.

I don't know that you do have great morals. From what you've told me I can think of any number of situations where I would act in direct opposition to your standards. Not only would I feel morally obliged to do so, but even popular law would support my view. But you seem singularly unmotivated to share your standards past what you've already given even though you admit they do not stand on their own.

Ah so once again, you are *saved* and therefore have the "get of hell and sin freely" card. Nice to know.

How would any sin ever be an act of love?

And were you going to answer the question? You said God has told me I must do things that you think are wrong. What would these things be of which you speak?

It depends entirely on the action. What goes on in the private lives of consenting adults is not your business, mine or the governments as long as it is legal and consensual.

So you are adding to your standards. First you claim that no physical harm should be done. Then you say you do not wish to modify that standard. Now you qualify that standard by saying that if it is private, legal and consensual then it is acceptable. Do you have any other qualifiers or exceptions, because I can still think of a long list of things that I'm sure you would gag at, but would slip through your net.

Do you or do you not agree that adults have the right to behavior that risks their own health? If not, then when will you be boycotting the tobacco industry, Hostess and Fritolay?

Sure, people have the right to act in many different ways that might put themselves or others in harm's way. People can drive cars, ride donkeys, open champagne and climb trees. My standards are not based on what might hurt people. Those would be your standards. It was you that claimed nobody should cause any physical harm. So are you going to boycott the tobacco industry? Are you going to protest the existence of whatever Hostess and Fritolay are?

You really haven't thought this through, have you?

 

[Rusha]

Golly, Rusha. You have a real problem answering questions, don't you?

Don't confuse yourself for me.

Oh, I understand whose views you are expressing. I'd have no problem if your views agreed with mine, even if only to a small extent. Would you have a problem agreeing with me if you discovered we agreed on something?

Nope

Really?

But you freely admit that this standard is not good enough.

You seem to be imagining things or either making them up ... any standard of *mine* is good enough and absolute.

I'm interested in what other standards you have to determine how you would govern in situations where intentional harm is the right thing to do. But you've already said, "No" you will not modify your standards.

Apparently your definition of *intentional harm* goes past the boundaries of mine. Actions that involve consenting adults do not fall in the category of intentionally harmful. How hard is it for you to understand this?

I don't know that you do have great morals.

Which is fine since *my* morals do not need your stamp of approval.

From what you've told me I can think of any number of situations where I would act in direct opposition to your standards. Not only would I feel morally obliged to do so, but even popular law would support my view.

Name one of those situations ...

But you seem singularly unmotivated to share your standards past what you've already given even though you admit they do not stand on their own.

I did share them ... you just happen to disagree just like I do with your standards. I have no problem with you dismissing my views and standards in the same way that I dismiss yours.

How would any sin ever be an act of love?

Sin does not exist ... it is a religious concept.

And were you going to answer the question? You said God has told me I must do things that you think are wrong. What would these things be of which you speak?

Why don't you share what you believe that your God has told you?

So you are adding to your standards.

Of course ...

First you claim that no physical harm should be done. Then you say you do not wish to modify that standard. Now you qualify that standard by saying that if it is private, legal and consensual then it is acceptable. Do you have any other qualifiers or exceptions, because I can still think of a long list of things that I'm sure you would gag at, but would slip through your net.

Feel free to mention what you believe I would *gag at* if you want clarification. I am not easily offended.

And yes, private acts by consenting adults (as long as they are legal) are no one else's business.

Sure, people have the right to act in many different ways that might put themselves or others in harm's way. People can drive cars, ride donkeys, open champagne and climb trees. My standards are not based on what might hurt people. Those would be your standards.

Nope, you are intentionally misrepresenting my views. I am against any actions that are illegal and purposefully harmful to others. Example: rape, murder, child molestation, theft, assault ....

It was you that claimed nobody should cause any physical harm. So are you going to boycott the tobacco industry? Are you going to protest the existence of whatever Hostess and Fritolay are?

You really haven't thought this through, have you?

Nope, those were questions I asked you because of your inconsistency and tendency to pick and choose harmful behavior based on that which bothers you the most.

I do not smoke or each junk foods, however, even though they *might* be harmful to others, people have a right to harm *themselves*.

Actions that are legal but foolhardy are not up for debate as far as prohibiting them ... I am against it. IF you were actually consistent, you wouldn't pick and choose what "potentially harmful" actions should be prohibited.

The only thing your whining has shown is that you willingly pick and choose what unhealthy habits you would like to see prohibited based on those that bother you the most ...

 

[Stripe]

Apparently your definition of *intentional harm* goes past the boundaries of mine. Actions that involve consenting adults do not fall in the category of intentionally harmful. How hard is it for you to understand this?

So you just get to make up what words mean? Where I come from there is nothing about "consent" that prohibits "intentional harm". You require an exception to your standard in order to accommodate this addition.

Name one of those situations ...

A situation where what? Tell me what your standards are for what should be legal and illegal and I might be able to give you an example. So far you've given me about 5 factors in piecemeal form. One of those factors is current legality. So I guess that stymies my claim to be able to point to current law that contravenes your standards. But if your standard truly is exactly the same as current law then your "intentional harm" standard is further compromised.

So, Rusha, you give a clear set of guidelines for what you think make good laws and I will be able to show you situations you will have to adjust for.

I did share them ... you just happen to disagree just like I do with your standards. I have no problem with you dismissing my views and standards in the same way that I dismiss yours.

I haven't dismissed your views and you haven't mine. We both seem to agree that murder is wrong. You just can't seem to give a good reason why that allows other laws to also stand.

Sin does not exist ... it is a religious concept.

Oh .. wow. So .. what does anyone need any laws for?

Why don't you share what you believe that your God has told you?

Already answered. I said God has set me free from the law. His standard is that we act in love toward others.

How about you back up your accusation against God? What do you think God has told me to do that you think is illegal?

Nope, you are intentionally misrepresenting my views. I am against any actions that are illegal and purposefully harmful to others. Example: rape, murder, child molestation, theft, assault ....

So you do not mind agreeing with God's standards. God said "Do not murder" and "Do not steal" and "Do not commit adultery" a long time ago, you know?

Nope, those were questions I asked you because of your inconsistency and tendency to pick and choose harmful behavior based on that which bothers you the most.

My standard is based on God's word. Not on what might be "intentionally harmful".

 

[Rusha]

So you just get to make up what words mean?

No, unlike you, I don't do that.

Where I come from there is nothing about "consent" that prohibits "intentional harm".

Most of us didn't come from and stay in the dark ages ... time to move forward, Stripe.

You require an exception to your standard in order to accommodate this addition.

:nono:

A situation where what? Tell me what your standards are for what should be legal and illegal and I might be able to give you an example. So far you've given me about 5 factors in piecemeal form. One of those factors is current legality. So I guess that stymies my claim to be able to point to current law that contravenes your standards. But if your standard truly is exactly the same as current law then your "intentional harm" standard is further compromised.

Since you are the one that claims *intentional harm* is not covered under the current laws, explain just what intentional harm you mean? Is it or is it not currently illegal to rape, molest, physically abuse or murder another person? THAT is intentional harm and therefore covered! :duh:

So, Rusha, you give a clear set of guidelines for what you think make good laws and I will be able to show you situations you will have to adjust for.

I already did.

I haven't dismissed your views and you haven't mine. We both seem to agree that murder is wrong. You just can't seem to give a good reason why that allows other laws to also stand.

Which laws?

Oh .. wow. So .. what does anyone need any laws for?

So intentionally malicious and harmful actions can be legally punished.

Already answered. I said God has set me free from the law.

So you agree ... you believe you are free to sin and that laws do not apply to you? How very moral ... not.

His standard is that we act in love toward others.

Then I suggest you get with it, Dude because you are currently missing the mark.

How about you back up your accusation against God? What do you think God has told me to do that you think is illegal?

Are you nuts? Why would I make accusations against a God I don't believe in.

Anything that *you* claim your God has told you is on you and you alone.

So you do not mind agreeing with God's standards. God said "Do not murder" and "Do not steal" and "Do not commit adultery" a long time ago, you know?

I don't mind agreeing with *those* standards ... I just disagree that they came from your unproven deity.

My standard is based on God's word. Not on what might be "intentionally harmful".

As I said, your standards are based on your religion ... nothing new.

 

[Stripe]

No, unlike you, I don't do that. Most of us didn't come from and stay in the dark ages ... time to move forward, Stripe. :nono:
Since you are the one that claims *intentional harm* is not covered under the current laws, explain just what intentional harm you mean? Is it or is it not currently illegal to rape, molest, physically abuse or murder another person? THAT is intentional harm and therefore covered! :duh: I already did. Which laws? So intentionally malicious and harmful actions can be legally punished. So you agree ... you believe you are free to sin and that laws do not apply to you? How very moral ... not. Then I suggest you get with it, Dude because you are currently missing the mark. Are you nuts? Why would I make accusations against a God I don't believe in. Anything that *you* claim your God has told you is on you and you alone. I don't mind agreeing with *those* standards ... I just disagree that they came from your unproven deity. As I said, your standards are based on your religion ... nothing new.

You're not very good at this are you?

I have not stated any rules for what should be legal or what shouldn't be. The "intentional harm" standard is yours.

Also yours is the "consent" standard. People can consent to intentional harm so you do need an exception to one or the other of your standards. Until you show how those exceptions are governed there is no way to make any sense from what you say.

 

[kj2010]

Hi

Is anybody else sick of those moron Atheist who have no idea what they are talking about. All they do I be this way to be "cool" or draw attention to themselves. You know the ones. The ones that are all ****y about it and full of themselves. I'm flat out tired of it. It gives all Atheist a bad reputation. I'm just tired of these punk kids who think they know everything and are *** to all the people who believe in God. Bugging the **** out of me. Why can't these people just grow up? If your gunna act like your on a higher level of knowledge(which I'm not saying Atheist are) at least grow up a bit. Geeze!

Thanks for your time.


EZ$

No, thank you. For generalizing.

Not all Atheists are immature and stupid, just like not all Christians are mature and intelligent.

There is a distinct difference between a punk kid going through a phase and someone who honestly believes in their convictions.