Quote:
|
I'm changing the subject?
|
Yes, I believe you are. I asked you to tell me where your morality would come from and how an atheist’s morals would be superior intrinsically (without borrowing from religions). Again, this will be the third time I’m saying this. Morality is different from actions. We were discussing the standards people set up for proper, ethical, behavior. I wanted to see what your views were on this and you brought up a statistically irresponsible point. In fact, if you remember correctly, the point about murder was simply a starting point to discuss morality and where it comes from FOR ATHEISTS. We know where religious morality comes from – texts, verbal tradition, etc. Do you understand the difference between “in theory” and “in practice”?
Quote:
|
you make the outlandish claim that atheists believe murder is sometimes acceptable, with your diction implying that this is a trait that religious individuals don't share. So I call you out saying that none of us said that (and imrightuarewrong's statement that you quoted in no way is equivalent to him saying murder is sometimes right).
|
Okay then, what DO you believe then? This is what I’ve been asking you the wholllllllle timeeeee. You said it’s from “yourself.” Then I said I don’t think that’s an actual source or morals that can sustain a society. Are you going to teach your children out of history books? Are you going to let people learn through trial and error? The way I see it, an atheist can commit any crime such as murder (NOTE how this is an example that I’m using to discuss a GREATER POINT) as long as they don’t get excluded from the “social circle” that protects their livelihood. Are you saying you should borrow from the moralities you think are best then implement them? If so, how would that be possible without invoking a standard system that people agree on?
Some religious individuals may in fact share the belief that murder is okay, but most religions have a strict moral guideline on what is right and what is wrong. Murder is explicitly put in stone (literally, as in the Ten Commandments) that murder is wrong, period. However, that isn’t to say that people who are religious don’t murder. Following what your logic is implying, we’d have to get rid of laws because people break laws.
Quote:
|
You're right. Good thing that's not what I'm claiming at all. You imply that atheists have the quality that they feel murder is sometimes justified, and I show more christians have this quality than atheists.
|
You’re right. Good thing we’re not discussing the same issue here. Read the previous paragraph above. I don’t care how many Christians believe in murder. The fact is we were discussing morality and its source. Again, source of morality. Again, morality and its source was the topic. How many times do I need to say that? And now all of your claims are invalidated if you can not demonstrate that an atheistic moral value system would be significantly better for the world than religious ones.
I don’t know if you’ve taken statistics or not, but you still seem to think that your evidence is valid. Do you really show more Christians have this quality than atheist? Let’s see. Do any of your sources do any of the following:
1. Show that all the crimes committed were in the name of religion and religion alone?
2. Have a percentile breakdown comparing atheists who committed crime to religious people who committed crime?
3. Know for certain that the person who committed the crime was actually a follower of the religion and not a hypocrite?
4. Controlled for all the variables including the individual, the historical time frame, the location, the political climate, the socioeconomic status?
I must say, I’m very disappointed in what you’re doing to these statistical claims. I expected more from someone who was all about truth and rational thinking. If this were a formal debate, this alone would be enough reason for me to get up and leave.
Quote:
|
So...what? Do you just throw these statements out when it's convenient for you? This is the second time I've called you out on these crazy claims, and it's getting old.
|
The funny thing is you’re hiding behind ambiguities here. I told you to define your source of morals. The response I got from “imrighturwrong” was in fact an indication that morality is relative. Using this line of reasoning, it is a valid claim to say that murder is sometimes acceptable. Look:
1. Right and wrong are relative
2. Murder is a type of wrong.
3. Therefore, murder can be relative.
With that as the only indication I got about your beliefs on murder, it was a sound line of reasoning. Now if you are going to say that murder is always wrong, then I’ll have to ask you why. In your nihilistic, minimalist, Darwinian body of knowledge, where does it anywhere indicate that it is always wrong?