Atheist Shut The Freak Up!!!

[QUOTE="battlefront23"]garrett_duffman

are you dumb???? the common good is what the best thing is for the people, which is decided BY THE PEOPLE, not by a higher being up in the clouds serving 24 hour snocones

So its a percentage of people who decide what is right and wrong? So really its the majority of the people. So if 51% said murder is right, then it is indeed right?

... how many ways can i put this...?

no, your wrong, guess again, close but no cigar, incorrect, nope, nuh-uh, and heck no

just going and randomly killing a guy is homocide

killing a guy for a reason is homocide

killing a man in war is "heroic" in the views of the people and the government, but that has nothing to do with religion

But you haven't answered my question, if its not majority, then what is it? The views of people are ever-changing but there needs to be a foundation for morality which is not based upon people or government.

[QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"][QUOTE="battlefront23"]

Who determines what is the common good?

battlefront23

Alright seriously, this is getting annoying, make your goddamned point. If I'm going to argue about what is right and wrong with some chump that I've never met before over the internet, I'd at least like it if said chump were a little more direct about what they're getting at.

The point is that there needs to be universal morals based upon a God who has a unchanging character.

Why do there need to be universal morals? And how would one determine which god to base these morals upon? And why would this god have to be unchanging? Circumstances change...

[QUOTE="import_fighter1"]

[QUOTE="battlefront23"]I agree. I'm always attacked if I go in the forums about life, derpession, and the such just because I'm religous and I know the true difference between right and wrong.battlefront23

Now your saying that atheists don't know the difference between right and wrong? or were you saying there are 2 versions of right and wrong?

There is one version of right and wrong... and also I hate the whole liberal "whats right for you, is right for YOU" crap. So if I'm a murderer, but its what I think isn't wrong, doesn't it mean I'm right?

But that doesn't mean in this case your version of right and wrong is correct.

But you haven't answered my question, if its not majority, then what is it? The views of people are ever-changing but there needs to be a foundation for morality which is not based upon people or government.

battlefront23

Answer me this: What good will come out of attempting to instill a universal set of laws pertaining to morality? What difference will it make? It's not going to happen, and it isn't meant to happen because of our basic human nature. You can call me wrong, you can call me a sinner, you can even say I don't deserve to live, but you can't take away my ability to think for myself.

[QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"][QUOTE="battlefront23"]

Who determines what is the common good?

Blood-Scribe

Alright seriously, this is getting annoying, make your goddamned point. If I'm going to argue about what is right and wrong with some chump that I've never met before over the internet, I'd at least like it if said chump were a little more direct about what they're getting at.

The point is that there needs to be universal morals based upon a God who has a unchanging character.

Well it appears that no matter what point you make, you fail to factor in the fact that people can't agree over who's god is right. And why the hell should I surrender my views of right and wrong to something that cannot be proven by virtue of the laws of faith? I don't see any reason to believe that doing so would make anything better, because there's no point in being partially free if you're completely blind.

But I'm talking about my view of God, and I'm not asking you to surrender, I just want you to think about why it's necessary to have moral absolutes because if we don't, then we're left to the rule of the mob.

[QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"][QUOTE="battlefront23"]

Who determines what is the common good?

muthsera666

Alright seriously, this is getting annoying, make your goddamned point. If I'm going to argue about what is right and wrong with some chump that I've never met before over the internet, I'd at least like it if said chump were a little more direct about what they're getting at.

The point is that there needs to be universal morals based upon a God who has a unchanging character.

Why do there need to be universal morals? And how would one determine which god to base these morals upon? And why would this god have to be unchanging? Circumstances change...

1. So that were not ruled by the mob. 2. I'm a Christian and because I'm a Christian I am unabashed in referring to the God of the Bible 3. So that truth doesn't change.

[QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"][QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"][QUOTE="battlefront23"]

Who determines what is the common good?

battlefront23

Alright seriously, this is getting annoying, make your goddamned point. If I'm going to argue about what is right and wrong with some chump that I've never met before over the internet, I'd at least like it if said chump were a little more direct about what they're getting at.

The point is that there needs to be universal morals based upon a God who has a unchanging character.

Well it appears that no matter what point you make, you fail to factor in the fact that people can't agree over who's god is right. And why the hell should I surrender my views of right and wrong to something that cannot be proven by virtue of the laws of faith? I don't see any reason to believe that doing so would make anything better, because there's no point in being partially free if you're completely blind.

But I'm talking about my view of God, and I'm not asking you to surrender, I just want you to think about why it's necessary to have moral absolutes because if we don't, then we're left to the rule of the mob.

And if we have our actions dictated by an unchanging master, that is called tyranny.

But I'm talking about my view of God, and I'm not asking you to surrender, I just want you to think about why it's necessary to have moral absolutes because if we don't, then we're left to the rule of the mob.

battlefront23

But there can never be moral absolutes. Muslims believe eating pork is a sin. Christians think it's delicious. You simply can't have moral absolutes b/c one religion can never provide it. The only moral absolutes we have are the built in ones, we know killing someone is bad even without the law. We know hurting a person, stealing is bad even without laws. If you adopt a religion's way of thinking as moral absolutes, that's just wrong. It's forcibly taking a person's choice and freedom away on matters that is not crimes.

EDIT: Do you think everyone should follow the Christian way of thinking? Or do you think they should be forced to follow Christianity?

[QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"][QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"][QUOTE="battlefront23"]

Who determines what is the common good?

battlefront23

Alright seriously, this is getting annoying, make your goddamned point. If I'm going to argue about what is right and wrong with some chump that I've never met before over the internet, I'd at least like it if said chump were a little more direct about what they're getting at.

The point is that there needs to be universal morals based upon a God who has a unchanging character.

Well it appears that no matter what point you make, you fail to factor in the fact that people can't agree over who's god is right. And why the hell should I surrender my views of right and wrong to something that cannot be proven by virtue of the laws of faith? I don't see any reason to believe that doing so would make anything better, because there's no point in being partially free if you're completely blind.

But I'm talking about my view of God, and I'm not asking you to surrender, I just want you to think about why it's necessary to have moral absolutes because if we don't, then we're left to the rule of the mob.

Because there's no point in having everyone look at everything under the same light. It doesn't solve anything, it just turns everyone into a mindless drone. Under those circumstances, there wouldn't be any balancing factors to insure that the human population doesn't rapidly reproduce and consume natural resources and eventually starve to death because of a lack of war or conflict in general. As bleak as it may seem, war is just as necessary as peace.

Society would not advance in terms of technology or social standards, there wouldn't be any point because no one would be able to come up with something new and different because it'd probably be considered wrong in some way.

The fact is, such an idea simply isn't plausible in any way. Conflicting opinions are prevalent everywhere in the world, because everyone is different, and with more than six billion people in the world, you couldn't possibly count on them agreeing on right and wrong. Anything short of genocide wouldn't be able to force people into it.

[QUOTE="battlefront23"]

But you haven't answered my question, if its not majority, then what is it? The views of people are ever-changing but there needs to be a foundation for morality which is not based upon people or government.

Blood-Scribe

Answer me this: What good will come out of attempting to instill a universal set of laws pertaining to morality? What difference will it make? It's not going to happen, and it isn't meant to happen because of our basic human nature. You can call me wrong, you can call me a sinner, you can even say I don't deserve to live, but you can't take away my ability to think for myself.

Let me ask you this: In your point of view, what should be considered right and what should be considered wrong?

[QUOTE="muthsera666"][QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"][QUOTE="battlefront23"]

Who determines what is the common good?

battlefront23

Alright seriously, this is getting annoying, make your goddamned point. If I'm going to argue about what is right and wrong with some chump that I've never met before over the internet, I'd at least like it if said chump were a little more direct about what they're getting at.

The point is that there needs to be universal morals based upon a God who has a unchanging character.

Why do there need to be universal morals? And how would one determine which god to base these morals upon? And why would this god have to be unchanging? Circumstances change...

1. So that were not ruled by the mob. 2. I'm a Christian and because I'm a Christian I am unabashed in referring to the God of the Bible 3. So that truth doesn't change.

1) Ruled by common good does not mean ruled by the mob. Actually, seldom what people want is what is best for them. 2) You are unabashed to decide what everyone should believe. That is arrogance coupled with ignorance. 3) Truth doesn't change, merely man's interpretation. Hence we harken back to Socrate when he states that philosophers should be kings in order to seek knowledge and the truth.

Walking out a shooting a random person is murder. Walking out and shooting the man who just killed your wife is justice. In my view.

[QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"][QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"][QUOTE="battlefront23"]

Who determines what is the common good?

Blood-Scribe

Alright seriously, this is getting annoying, make your goddamned point. If I'm going to argue about what is right and wrong with some chump that I've never met before over the internet, I'd at least like it if said chump were a little more direct about what they're getting at.

The point is that there needs to be universal morals based upon a God who has a unchanging character.

Well it appears that no matter what point you make, you fail to factor in the fact that people can't agree over who's god is right. And why the hell should I surrender my views of right and wrong to something that cannot be proven by virtue of the laws of faith? I don't see any reason to believe that doing so would make anything better, because there's no point in being partially free if you're completely blind.

But I'm talking about my view of God, and I'm not asking you to surrender, I just want you to think about why it's necessary to have moral absolutes because if we don't, then we're left to the rule of the mob.

Because there's no point in having everyone look at everything under the same light. It doesn't solve anything, it just turns everyone into a mindless drone. Under those circumstances, there wouldn't be any balancing factors to insure that the human population doesn't rapidly reproduce and consume natural resources and eventually starve to death because of a lack of war or conflict in general. As bleak as it may seem, war is just as necessary as peace.

Society would not advance in terms of technology or social standards, there wouldn't be any point because no one would be able to come up with something new and different because it'd probably be considered wrong in some way.

The fact is, such an idea simply isn't plausible in any way.

I definitely think you misunderstood me.

[QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"][QUOTE="battlefront23"]

But you haven't answered my question, if its not majority, then what is it? The views of people are ever-changing but there needs to be a foundation for morality which is not based upon people or government.

battlefront23

Answer me this: What good will come out of attempting to instill a universal set of laws pertaining to morality? What difference will it make? It's not going to happen, and it isn't meant to happen because of our basic human nature. You can call me wrong, you can call me a sinner, you can even say I don't deserve to live, but you can't take away my ability to think for myself.

Let me ask you this: In your point of view, what should be considered right and what should be considered wrong?

Absolutely nothing. It is entirely subjective in terms of views from person to person. But under the law, it is a matter of whether or not people's freedoms are infringed upon, in which case legal action is applicable. Anything other than that is unconstitutional and completely unreasonable as far as standards of freedom go.

[QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"][QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"][QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"][QUOTE="battlefront23"]

Who determines what is the common good?

battlefront23

Alright seriously, this is getting annoying, make your goddamned point. If I'm going to argue about what is right and wrong with some chump that I've never met before over the internet, I'd at least like it if said chump were a little more direct about what they're getting at.

The point is that there needs to be universal morals based upon a God who has a unchanging character.

Well it appears that no matter what point you make, you fail to factor in the fact that people can't agree over who's god is right. And why the hell should I surrender my views of right and wrong to something that cannot be proven by virtue of the laws of faith? I don't see any reason to believe that doing so would make anything better, because there's no point in being partially free if you're completely blind.

But I'm talking about my view of God, and I'm not asking you to surrender, I just want you to think about why it's necessary to have moral absolutes because if we don't, then we're left to the rule of the mob.

Because there's no point in having everyone look at everything under the same light. It doesn't solve anything, it just turns everyone into a mindless drone. Under those circumstances, there wouldn't be any balancing factors to insure that the human population doesn't rapidly reproduce and consume natural resources and eventually starve to death because of a lack of war or conflict in general. As bleak as it may seem, war is just as necessary as peace.

Society would not advance in terms of technology or social standards, there wouldn't be any point because no one would be able to come up with something new and different because it'd probably be considered wrong in some way.

The fact is, such an idea simply isn't plausible in any way.

I definitely think you misunderstood me.

And I definitely think you didn't contemplate the implications of adapting a divine doctrine that applies to every last person on this planet.

[QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="muthsera666"][QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"][QUOTE="battlefront23"]

Who determines what is the common good?

muthsera666

Alright seriously, this is getting annoying, make your goddamned point. If I'm going to argue about what is right and wrong with some chump that I've never met before over the internet, I'd at least like it if said chump were a little more direct about what they're getting at.

The point is that there needs to be universal morals based upon a God who has a unchanging character.

Why do there need to be universal morals? And how would one determine which god to base these morals upon? And why would this god have to be unchanging? Circumstances change...

1. So that were not ruled by the mob. 2. I'm a Christian and because I'm a Christian I am unabashed in referring to the God of the Bible 3. So that truth doesn't change.

1) Ruled by common good does not mean ruled by the mob. Actually, seldom what people want is what is best for them. 2) You are unabashed to decide what everyone should believe. That is arrogance coupled with ignorance. 3) Truth doesn't change, merely man's interpretation. Hence we harken back to Socrate when he states that philosophers should be kings in order to seek knowledge and the truth.

Walking out a shooting a random person is murder. Walking out and shooting the man who just killed your wife is justice. In my view.

1. Who decides whats best for people? People themselves? 2. You have a view and you are basing that view upon something and that could be considered arrogant. 3.What do you base upon your statement "truth doesn't change"? You, Socrates, the mob? Thats why the Bible is important to me because its God revealing His truth to me a sinful human being.

[QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"][QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"][QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"][QUOTE="battlefront23"]

Who determines what is the common good?

Blood-Scribe

Alright seriously, this is getting annoying, make your goddamned point. If I'm going to argue about what is right and wrong with some chump that I've never met before over the internet, I'd at least like it if said chump were a little more direct about what they're getting at.

The point is that there needs to be universal morals based upon a God who has a unchanging character.

Well it appears that no matter what point you make, you fail to factor in the fact that people can't agree over who's god is right. And why the hell should I surrender my views of right and wrong to something that cannot be proven by virtue of the laws of faith? I don't see any reason to believe that doing so would make anything better, because there's no point in being partially free if you're completely blind.

But I'm talking about my view of God, and I'm not asking you to surrender, I just want you to think about why it's necessary to have moral absolutes because if we don't, then we're left to the rule of the mob.

Because there's no point in having everyone look at everything under the same light. It doesn't solve anything, it just turns everyone into a mindless drone. Under those circumstances, there wouldn't be any balancing factors to insure that the human population doesn't rapidly reproduce and consume natural resources and eventually starve to death because of a lack of war or conflict in general. As bleak as it may seem, war is just as necessary as peace.

Society would not advance in terms of technology or social standards, there wouldn't be any point because no one would be able to come up with something new and different because it'd probably be considered wrong in some way.

The fact is, such an idea simply isn't plausible in any way.

I definitely think you misunderstood me.

And I definitely think you didn't contemplate the implications of adapting a divine doctrine that applies to every last person on this planet.

I'm not adapting or adopting a divine decree, I'm just listening to "The Truth"

[QUOTE="muthsera666"][QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="muthsera666"][QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"][QUOTE="battlefront23"]

Who determines what is the common good?

battlefront23

Alright seriously, this is getting annoying, make your goddamned point. If I'm going to argue about what is right and wrong with some chump that I've never met before over the internet, I'd at least like it if said chump were a little more direct about what they're getting at.

The point is that there needs to be universal morals based upon a God who has a unchanging character.

Why do there need to be universal morals? And how would one determine which god to base these morals upon? And why would this god have to be unchanging? Circumstances change...

1. So that were not ruled by the mob. 2. I'm a Christian and because I'm a Christian I am unabashed in referring to the God of the Bible 3. So that truth doesn't change.

1) Ruled by common good does not mean ruled by the mob. Actually, seldom what people want is what is best for them. 2) You are unabashed to decide what everyone should believe. That is arrogance coupled with ignorance. 3) Truth doesn't change, merely man's interpretation. Hence we harken back to Socrate when he states that philosophers should be kings in order to seek knowledge and the truth.

Walking out a shooting a random person is murder. Walking out and shooting the man who just killed your wife is justice. In my view.

1. Who decides whats best for people? People themselves? 2. You have a view and you are basing that view upon something and that could be considered arrogant. 3.What do you base upon your statement "truth doesn't change"? You, Socrates, the mob? Thats why the Bible is important to me because its God revealing His truth to me a sinful human being.

1) The conditions which provide for the continuance of mankind. 2) I have a view, yes. But I am not saying that everyone should agree with me. You are. You are saying that the Christian ideals should be what are esteemed by all; should govern all. 3) Metaphysics is a great field, but many have expressed their thoughts that true does not change. I, through my research, happen to agree with them. Man's ideas of the truth and the manifestations of the truth in the world may change, but the absolute truths themselves do not. Again, this is my view.

Question about the Bible that is not for here, but something for you to think upon: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, all tell different stories about Jesus' death and resurrection. How do you know which one of them or what parts to believe? This isn't for here, but think about it. :)

[QUOTE="muthsera666"][QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="muthsera666"][QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"][QUOTE="battlefront23"]

Who determines what is the common good?

battlefront23

Alright seriously, this is getting annoying, make your goddamned point. If I'm going to argue about what is right and wrong with some chump that I've never met before over the internet, I'd at least like it if said chump were a little more direct about what they're getting at.

The point is that there needs to be universal morals based upon a God who has a unchanging character.

Why do there need to be universal morals? And how would one determine which god to base these morals upon? And why would this god have to be unchanging? Circumstances change...

1. So that were not ruled by the mob. 2. I'm a Christian and because I'm a Christian I am unabashed in referring to the God of the Bible 3. So that truth doesn't change.

1) Ruled by common good does not mean ruled by the mob. Actually, seldom what people want is what is best for them. 2) You are unabashed to decide what everyone should believe. That is arrogance coupled with ignorance. 3) Truth doesn't change, merely man's interpretation. Hence we harken back to Socrate when he states that philosophers should be kings in order to seek knowledge and the truth.

Walking out a shooting a random person is murder. Walking out and shooting the man who just killed your wife is justice. In my view.

1. Who decides whats best for people? People themselves? 2. You have a view and you are basing that view upon something and that could be considered arrogant. 3.What do you base upon your statement "truth doesn't change"? You, Socrates, the mob? Thats why the Bible is important to me because its God revealing His truth to me a sinful human being.

1. In terms of law for the freedom of the people, the government regulates what is legal and illegal. Howevery, in reality, the people decide what's best for them, because they know who they are and they know what they need. I am me, and no one else, I know what's best for me, no one else does.

2. As opposed to basing a view on a book forged by the minds of men full of edited scriptures that are taken too far? I think you're on the wrong end of the arguement here, but I'm not going to argue semantics about your bible, I'm going to argue on why right and wrong isn't an absolute.

3. I never said truth doesn't change. In fact, I never said anything about truth, even truth doesn't have an absolute to it, it's just as subjective as an opinion, it's only considered absolute from a legal point of view. I never said any one person determines what is right and wrong, I never said the people determine what is right and wrong, I never said the federal government determines what is right and wrong. I said that right and wrong isn't real, it's a concept, it is not an absolute that applies to every last person on this world.

And on the note of being a "sinful" human being, I don't get why people force this upon themselves. Part of the reason why I left the catholic faith is because I couldn't bring myself to saying that I am wrong for being me. I cannot deny my freedom or my human nature, so go push the law of the scriptues unto something else, because I'm just getting tired of all this crap.

**** this crap, I'm going to bed. Maybe one day your pride won't blind your capacity for reason.

hey Bloodscribe and and the other intelligent guy (I mean that honestly) I got to go but if you're on later and I'm on send me a friend request and we can continue our discussion! God Bless :)battlefront23

I hope he means me! :P

Know what I'm sick of? Nothing at the moment. o.O

Well that was exciting.

How 'bout you shut the freak up,. Then I might shut the freak up.