Author Topic: worst response to a rebuttal of the moral arguement for god?  (Read 1517 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline wigglytuff

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 74
  • Darwins +0/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
worst response to a rebuttal of the moral arguement for god?
« on: August 02, 2013, 11:47:01 AM »
I had this chat with Jason Lisle a little while back about the moral argument for his god and i gave him some quotes by chinese thinkers in secular contexts about how to behave- and he gave me a few "rebuttals" after i gave i a secular account for morality take a look.... this makes me wanna bang my head on the table all day long...

“If people regarded other people’s families in the same way that they regard their own, who then would incite their own family to attack that of another? For one would do for others as one would do for oneself.” – Mozi

[Dr. Lisle: In the Christian worldview, yes, we should treat others as we want to be treated since they are created in the image of God. But on your worldview, it seems the only reason to be nice to other is in hopes that they will in the future make the logical mistake of reciprocating. In other words, it will likely benefit me. So this quote reinforces my interpretation of your story, that morality is just another word for selfishness in your worldview - which of course is not true morality at all.]

“The sage has no interest of his own, but takes the interests of the people as his own. He is kind to the kind; he is also kind to the unkind: for Virtue is kind. He is faithful to the faithful; he is also faithful to the unfaithful: for Virtue is faithful.” –Laozi

[Dr. Lisle: Makes sense in the Christian worldview. But in the secular worldview, WHY? Why should I be "kind" unless I think it will benefit me in the future (selfishness)? Can you answer that Tony?]

“Regard your neighbor’s gain as your own gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.” –Laozi

[Dr. Lisle: In the Christian worldview, we should indeed love others as ourselves. We are all made in God's image. But if other people are just chemical accidents of nature, it makes no sense to treat their gain as my gain. Are you starting to understand now? You are stealing from the Christian worldview to support ideas that make no sense on your own professed worldview.]

Offline Aaron123

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2781
  • Darwins +80/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: worst response to a rebuttal of the moral arguement for god?
« Reply #1 on: August 02, 2013, 12:47:22 PM »
I've heard of this argument before.

For whatever reasons, they think that such things as kindness and love are alien concepts without god.  Though I don't think I've ever seen it explained just why those are magical things that only god can poof into being.
Being a Christian, I've made my decision. That decision offers no compromise; therefore, I'm closed to anything else.

Offline Traveler

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2056
  • Darwins +142/-2
  • Gender: Female
  • no god required
    • I am a Forum Guide
    • Gryffin Designs
Re: worst response to a rebuttal of the moral arguement for god?
« Reply #2 on: August 02, 2013, 01:00:03 PM »
Never mind that the "golden rule" and the even better "silver rule" both were in existence LONG before christianity.  &)
If we ever travel thousands of light years to a planet inhabited by intelligent life, let's just make patterns in their crops and leave.

Offline Aaron123

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2781
  • Darwins +80/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: worst response to a rebuttal of the moral arguement for god?
« Reply #3 on: August 02, 2013, 01:11:55 PM »
Never mind that the "golden rule" and the even better "silver rule" both were in existence LONG before christianity.  &)

[christain rebuttal]Ah, but those rules didn't exist before god!  Checkmate, atheist![/christian rebuttal]


This guy argues about how the secular worldview is about "selfishness" and "personal gains".  I wonder then, how he feels about the idea of "believe in god, and you'll be rewarded with heaven".  Sounds pretty self-centered to me...
Being a Christian, I've made my decision. That decision offers no compromise; therefore, I'm closed to anything else.

Offline wigglytuff

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 74
  • Darwins +0/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: worst response to a rebuttal of the moral arguement for god?
« Reply #4 on: August 02, 2013, 01:36:44 PM »
and aaron thats what he told me as a second "rebuttal" :laugh:

Offline thunderridge

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 445
  • Darwins +16/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: worst response to a rebuttal of the moral arguement for god?
« Reply #5 on: August 02, 2013, 02:01:24 PM »
There is an excellent recent debate between Frank Turek and David Silverman on youtube.  Turek uses the same bullshit argument as Dr. Lisle.  Presupps they are.


« Last Edit: August 02, 2013, 02:05:32 PM by thunderridge »

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12698
  • Darwins +709/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: worst response to a rebuttal of the moral arguement for god?
« Reply #6 on: August 02, 2013, 03:38:18 PM »
Dr. Lisle: In the Christian worldview, we should indeed love others as ourselves. We are all made in God's image.

?  that's no motivation to be nice to anyone.  If I'm god and you're god, why am I not more motivated to demand your fear and supplication than to love you?

But if other people are just chemical accidents of nature, it makes no sense to treat their gain as my gain.

We are chemical accidents, but that is a gross oversimplification.  We are chemical accidents that have been programed by natural selection to to be social for our benefit. 

You are stealing from the Christian worldview to support ideas that make no sense on your own professed worldview.

Nope.  Human morality evolved.  Religions manily just record the morality of the day and try to institutionalize it.  Religions are conservative mechanisms of society in that regard.  As such, their morals always lag behind the morals of a culture.  To paraphrase kcrady:

before jesus H: slavery A-OK
after jesus H: slavery A-OK
after Appomattox: slavery NOT OK.

And note, they've still not updated their holy books to reflect this improvement. So xianity is lagging at least 150 years behind culture in this regard.



Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline stuffin

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 747
  • Darwins +26/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: worst response to a rebuttal of the moral arguement for god?
« Reply #7 on: August 02, 2013, 08:23:50 PM »
There is Dr. Lisle's world, and then there is everybody else's world, you know, the ones who don't worship his God.

Quote
chemical accidents of nature

I like this phrase, I think I'm gonna use it.
When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.

Offline wigglytuff

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 74
  • Darwins +0/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: worst response to a rebuttal of the moral arguement for god?
« Reply #8 on: August 03, 2013, 10:32:35 PM »
There is Dr. Lisle's world, and then there is everybody else's world, you know, the ones who don't worship his God.

Quote
chemical accidents of nature

I like this phrase, I think I'm gonna use it.
what do u mean? how are u gonna use it

Offline DumpsterFire

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 383
  • Darwins +61/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • The Flaming Duck of Death!
Re: worst response to a rebuttal of the moral arguement for god?
« Reply #9 on: August 04, 2013, 12:25:39 AM »
Wigglytuff, just take a look at his sig.
Providing rednecks with sunblock since 1996.

I once met a man who claimed to be a genius, then boasted that he was a member of "Mesa".

Think for yourself.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6951
  • Darwins +941/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: worst response to a rebuttal of the moral arguement for god?
« Reply #10 on: August 04, 2013, 06:55:14 PM »
It seems that their morality is the shaky one, based on old books and interpreted by supposedly wise men. They have to ignore so much of their own beliefs to live in modern society. No slavery, no genocide, no mistreatment of women, no persecution of gays, no cruelty to animals, no stoning of children or adulterers. How can they call themselves moral if they don't follow their own rules?

I don't get how religious folks can go on about how, if we humans are not made all special by a magic god then we are worthless or just the same as ants or grass. Why is the idea of nature making stuff so scary to them? Do they think it is okay to pollute the ocean and its fish, or burn down a forest full of wildlife-- because they aren't humans and don't have special magic souls? Why not just torture and kill animals for fun--no souls, right?
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7318
  • Darwins +171/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: worst response to a rebuttal of the moral arguement for god?
« Reply #11 on: August 04, 2013, 09:59:10 PM »
It seems that their morality is the shaky one, based on old books and interpreted by supposedly wise men. They have to ignore so much of their own beliefs to live in modern society. No slavery, no genocide, no mistreatment of women, no persecution of gays, no cruelty to animals, no stoning of children or adulterers. How can they call themselves moral if they don't follow their own rules?

I don't get how religious folks can go on about how, if we humans are not made all special by a magic god then we are worthless or just the same as ants or grass. Why is the idea of nature making stuff so scary to them? Do they think it is okay to pollute the ocean and its fish, or burn down a forest full of wildlife-- because they aren't humans and don't have special magic souls? Why not just torture and kill animals for fun--no souls, right?

Basically, any "religious" person who tries to claim that we cannot be moral, or even have morals without a god, is full of shit.  We know this is true because many non-believers are as moral, or even more moral than many believers.  This is a fact that cannot be refuted by the mythological and unsupported nonsense spouted by delusional people.  My "religious" friends that I have come out to at work simply don't know what to do with me, as I am in a software support role for almost 1,000 people, and I am well known for going out of my way to help anyone with whatever problems they are having.  Their last resort is to patronizingly tell me that they pray for me, and that they just don't want me to end up in hell. 

Boy, they make me feel so special.

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4719
  • Darwins +107/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: worst response to a rebuttal of the moral arguement for god?
« Reply #12 on: August 04, 2013, 10:45:13 PM »
Not to mention,Jetson that this "God" has only been around 2500 years give or take a century......Where did morals come from before then?

 18,000 years of my ancestors living on the west coast of North America. They only heard about the morals of "God" 500 years ago. This "God"and his moral followers made short work of Aboriginals,killing all but about 10-20% of them in a hundred years of invading the shores. Then again did the Bible tell them to? or did they just use the Bible and God to justify the deeds?
« Last Edit: August 04, 2013, 10:46:46 PM by 12 Monkeys »
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 13116
  • Darwins +357/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: worst response to a rebuttal of the moral arguement for god?
« Reply #13 on: August 05, 2013, 03:09:23 AM »
It seems that their morality is the shaky one, based on old books and interpreted by supposedly wise men. They have to ignore so much of their own beliefs to live in modern society. No slavery, no genocide, no mistreatment of women, no persecution of gays, no cruelty to animals, no stoning of children or adulterers. How can they call themselves moral if they don't follow their own rules?

I don't get how religious folks can go on about how, if we humans are not made all special by a magic god then we are worthless or just the same as ants or grass. Why is the idea of nature making stuff so scary to them? Do they think it is okay to pollute the ocean and its fish, or burn down a forest full of wildlife-- because they aren't humans and don't have special magic souls? Why not just torture and kill animals for fun--no souls, right?


I love to hear on TV or the radio, or what not, who condemn other nations who commit such atrocities yet their precious Bible promotes it. That's when you know they never read the book and if they have they ignore the implication and become hypocrites.

I also love some of the excuses: that's about back then, not today. Funny how they recognize the implication yet stay Christian.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12561
  • Darwins +304/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: worst response to a rebuttal of the moral arguement for god?
« Reply #14 on: August 05, 2013, 06:40:57 AM »
We know Junebug is back because the bottom of the main page has turned red with negativity.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline stuffin

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 747
  • Darwins +26/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: worst response to a rebuttal of the moral arguement for god?
« Reply #15 on: August 05, 2013, 07:53:27 AM »
Basically, any "religious" person who tries to claim that we cannot be moral, or even have morals without a god, is full of shit.  We know this is true because many non-believers are as moral, or even more moral than many believers.  This is a fact that cannot be refuted by the mythological and unsupported nonsense spouted by delusional people.  My "religious" friends that I have come out to at work simply don't know what to do with me, as I am in a software support role for almost 1,000 people, and I am well known for going out of my way to help anyone with whatever problems they are having.  Their last resort is to patronizingly tell me that they pray for me, and that they just don't want me to end up in hell. 

Boy, they make me feel so special.

I work in  a room (call center) with about  a dozen people (me included). I have told them all I am an Atheist and do not give or acknowledge God Bless You, or any blessings. They still continue to say God Bless You every time I sneeze.  They don't understand I find it offensive.

Like you, I am extremely helpful to others. My perception of work situations and understanding of proclamations issued by our superiors is second to none (I see through the bullshit). I share all my wisdom with them, frequently clearing up much of their muddled perceptions. Also, my medical background (Registered Nurse) is much more extensive then any of the others in the room. Over the past months several of my coworkers have had family members  get serious ill, one recently had her 21 year old nephew die from a heroin overdose. I have chimed in their conversations using my experience, knowledge and logic to blow them out of the water. They now come to me with questions regularly. I give them honest  guidance which they often find helpful. I get many thank you(s), I also get the occasional innuendo insinuating religion is superior. So far I haven't confronted anyone but I will wait and pick a time to strike.
When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6780
  • Darwins +821/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: worst response to a rebuttal of the moral arguement for god?
« Reply #16 on: August 05, 2013, 09:40:39 AM »
We know Junebug is back because the bottom of the main page has turned red with negativity.

She's getting pretty good at it. She should audition for "America's got Talent"G
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2350
  • Darwins +438/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: worst response to a rebuttal of the moral arguement for god?
« Reply #17 on: August 05, 2013, 10:58:46 AM »
We know Junebug is back because the bottom of the main page has turned red with negativity.
One easy way to fight the sea of negativity would be to flood the bottom page with +1 karma.  To save confusion, you may wish to just focus on one member and go about applauding their past posts.  Pick someone with a name that starts with 'j' because that...looks...more...better...something...
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline Mrjason

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1401
  • Darwins +103/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: worst response to a rebuttal of the moral arguement for god?
« Reply #18 on: August 05, 2013, 11:02:56 AM »
To save confusion, you may wish to just focus on one member and go about applauding their past posts.
Sounds like a plan
Pick someone with a name that starts with 'j' because that...looks...more...better...something...

Give junebug a bunch of +1s, sure thing

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11228
  • Darwins +296/-38
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: worst response to a rebuttal of the moral arguement for god?
« Reply #19 on: August 05, 2013, 11:05:19 AM »
Pick someone with a name that starts with 'j' because that...looks...more...better...something...

Give junebug a bunch of +1s, sure thing

Or give a god[1] a bunch of +1's. I'm sure they'll reward your efforts. &)
 1. Note the gender. Not talking about a goddess.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4719
  • Darwins +107/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: worst response to a rebuttal of the moral arguement for god?
« Reply #20 on: August 05, 2013, 07:26:26 PM »
For the record and the -1 Junebug......Believers say the earth is 6000 years old. Their chosen religion has not been around that long,,,thats just the age of "earth". That's how they can explain the fossil record,before their arrival....that is NOT how old their religion is,JUST how old their "earth" is.

 Or are you discounting the fact  aboriginals are NOT that old?
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)