If God doesn't exist...

[RWNJ]

I said that nature rejects nobody. Based on what you're saying, I think we are in agreement.

You just misinterpreted that, i think. But I'm with you and I agree that morality is not something that "God" gave us.

It is an evolutionary trait that we, and other life forms, evolved to guarantee the success of our species'. Rather than killing each other for shits and giggles.

Only religion promotes killing each other for giggles. They try to tell us that what we define as "good" was given to us by "god". But no, the truth is that animals don't randomly kill their own species for fun or sport. They realize the importance of keeping their own alive. A species that goes around randomly killing others of its own species will soon disappear. It is not "god" that teaches them this, it is evolutionary principles.

Only religion tells people to kill other people and promotes genocide for no reason other than imaginary ideas.

Of course, there are crazy people out there that just kill people for no reason, but they are not organized to do that. The sole purpose of religion is to amass legions of people willing to donate, die, and kill, for the whims of their leaders and their interests, based on the idea that they will rot in hell if they don't, or go to heaven if they do. It's so stupid.

Where, in the Bible, does it instruct Christians to go out kill each other for giggles? I must have missed that one. That, or you're a blithering idiot.

 

[ding]

I said that nature rejects nobody. Based on what you're saying, I think we are in agreement.

You just misinterpreted that, i think. But I'm with you and I agree that morality is not something that "God" gave us.

It is an evolutionary trait that we, and other life forms, evolved to guarantee the success of our species'. Rather than killing each other for shits and giggles.

Only religion promotes killing each other for giggles. They try to tell us that what we define as "good" was given to us by "god". But no, the truth is that animals don't randomly kill their own species for fun or sport. They realize the importance of keeping their own alive. A species that goes around randomly killing others of its own species will soon disappear. It is not "god" that teaches them this, it is evolutionary principles.

Only religion tells people to kill other people and promotes genocide for no reason other than imaginary ideas.

Of course, there are crazy people out there that just kill people for no reason, but they are not organized to do that. The sole purpose of religion is to amass legions of people willing to donate, die, and kill, for the whims of their leaders and their interests, based on the idea that they will rot in hell if they don't, or go to heaven if they do. It's so stupid.

I guess we don't see eye to eye after all. I believe we know the moral law because we are God's creatures. I believe that by any objective measure, religion has been a force for good. I don't believe you are being objective. I believe your assessment is biased. You have not weighed the good and the bad.

Morality is subjective, no a universal force. Now you know.

No. Morality is not subjective, but thank you for proving my point that atheists/socialists practice moral relativity.

Do you believe that slavery is moral? Do you believe there was a time in the past it was moral? Do you believe there is a time in the future it will be moral? If you answered no to all three questions we have just proven that morals are not relative.

Slavery was moral to some people in history. You suffer an EPIC FAILURE.

Sure. That is moral relativity. My question was directed to you. Do you believe that slavery is moral? Do you believe there was a time in the past it was moral? Do you believe there is a time in the future it will be moral? If you answered no to all three questions we have just proven that morals are not relative.

 

[Mudda]

I said that nature rejects nobody. Based on what you're saying, I think we are in agreement.

You just misinterpreted that, i think. But I'm with you and I agree that morality is not something that "God" gave us.

It is an evolutionary trait that we, and other life forms, evolved to guarantee the success of our species'. Rather than killing each other for shits and giggles.

Only religion promotes killing each other for giggles. They try to tell us that what we define as "good" was given to us by "god". But no, the truth is that animals don't randomly kill their own species for fun or sport. They realize the importance of keeping their own alive. A species that goes around randomly killing others of its own species will soon disappear. It is not "god" that teaches them this, it is evolutionary principles.

Only religion tells people to kill other people and promotes genocide for no reason other than imaginary ideas.

Of course, there are crazy people out there that just kill people for no reason, but they are not organized to do that. The sole purpose of religion is to amass legions of people willing to donate, die, and kill, for the whims of their leaders and their interests, based on the idea that they will rot in hell if they don't, or go to heaven if they do. It's so stupid.

I guess we don't see eye to eye after all. I believe we know the moral law because we are God's creatures. I believe that by any objective measure, religion has been a force for good. I don't believe you are being objective. I believe your assessment is biased. You have not weighed the good and the bad.

Morality is subjective, no a universal force. Now you know.

No. Morality is not subjective, but thank you for proving my point that atheists/socialists practice moral relativity.

Do you believe that slavery is moral? Do you believe there was a time in the past it was moral? Do you believe there is a time in the future it will be moral? If you answered no to all three questions we have just proven that morals are not relative.

Slavery was moral to some people in history. You suffer an EPIC FAILURE.

Sure. That is moral relativity. My question was directed to you. Do you believe that slavery is moral? Do you believe there was a time in the past it was moral? Do you believe there is a time in the future it will be moral? If you answered no to all three questions we have just proven that morals are not relative.

How can anyone know what the future will hold?
So my answers are: no, yes, and maybe. You fail epically again.

 

[ding]

I guess we don't see eye to eye after all. I believe we know the moral law because we are God's creatures. I believe that by any objective measure, religion has been a force for good. I don't believe you are being objective. I believe your assessment is biased. You have not weighed the good and the bad.

Morality is subjective, no a universal force. Now you know.

No. Morality is not subjective, but thank you for proving my point that atheists/socialists practice moral relativity.

Do you believe that slavery is moral? Do you believe there was a time in the past it was moral? Do you believe there is a time in the future it will be moral? If you answered no to all three questions we have just proven that morals are not relative.

Slavery was moral to some people in history. You suffer an EPIC FAILURE.

Sure. That is moral relativity. My question was directed to you. Do you believe that slavery is moral? Do you believe there was a time in the past it was moral? Do you believe there is a time in the future it will be moral? If you answered no to all three questions we have just proven that morals are not relative.

How can anyone know what the future will hold?
So my answers are: no, yes, and maybe. You fail epically again.

So basically you are admitting that under some circumstance you believe that slavery could be moral.

 

[Mudda]

Morality is subjective, no a universal force. Now you know.

No. Morality is not subjective, but thank you for proving my point that atheists/socialists practice moral relativity.

Do you believe that slavery is moral? Do you believe there was a time in the past it was moral? Do you believe there is a time in the future it will be moral? If you answered no to all three questions we have just proven that morals are not relative.

Slavery was moral to some people in history. You suffer an EPIC FAILURE.

Sure. That is moral relativity. My question was directed to you. Do you believe that slavery is moral? Do you believe there was a time in the past it was moral? Do you believe there is a time in the future it will be moral? If you answered no to all three questions we have just proven that morals are not relative.

How can anyone know what the future will hold?
So my answers are: no, yes, and maybe. You fail epically again.

So basically you are admitting that under some circumstance you believe that slavery could be moral.

That's not what you asked. You said in the past or in the future. And do I believe that it's moral, and I said no.
You confused yourself with your own questions.

 

[ding]

No. Morality is not subjective, but thank you for proving my point that atheists/socialists practice moral relativity.

Do you believe that slavery is moral? Do you believe there was a time in the past it was moral? Do you believe there is a time in the future it will be moral? If you answered no to all three questions we have just proven that morals are not relative.

Slavery was moral to some people in history. You suffer an EPIC FAILURE.

Sure. That is moral relativity. My question was directed to you. Do you believe that slavery is moral? Do you believe there was a time in the past it was moral? Do you believe there is a time in the future it will be moral? If you answered no to all three questions we have just proven that morals are not relative.

How can anyone know what the future will hold?
So my answers are: no, yes, and maybe. You fail epically again.

So basically you are admitting that under some circumstance you believe that slavery could be moral.

That's not what you asked. You said in the past or in the future. And do I believe that it's moral, and I said no.
You confused yourself with your own questions.

I don't believe I did.

Do you believe that slavery is moral? You answered no

Do you believe there was a time in the past it was moral? You answered yes

Do you believe there is a time in the future it will be moral? You answered maybe

I am not asking you how society answers these questions. I am asking you how you personally answer these questions.

I'm happy enough with your answers because I believe you don't have a defined moral code. That's why you do the things you do. Are you having fun yet?

 

[Mudda]

Slavery was moral to some people in history. You suffer an EPIC FAILURE.

Sure. That is moral relativity. My question was directed to you. Do you believe that slavery is moral? Do you believe there was a time in the past it was moral? Do you believe there is a time in the future it will be moral? If you answered no to all three questions we have just proven that morals are not relative.

How can anyone know what the future will hold?
So my answers are: no, yes, and maybe. You fail epically again.

So basically you are admitting that under some circumstance you believe that slavery could be moral.

That's not what you asked. You said in the past or in the future. And do I believe that it's moral, and I said no.
You confused yourself with your own questions.

I don't believe I did.

Do you believe that slavery is moral? You answered no

Do you believe there was a time in the past it was moral? You answered yes

Do you believe there is a time in the future it will be moral? You answered maybe

I am not asking you how society answers these questions. I am asking you how you personally answer these questions.

I'm happy enough with your answers because I believe you don't have a defined moral code. That's why you do the things you do. Are you having fun yet?

It was moral to own slaves in the US at one point. And it might be considered normal in the future. How does that reflect on me?

 

[ding]

Sure. That is moral relativity. My question was directed to you. Do you believe that slavery is moral? Do you believe there was a time in the past it was moral? Do you believe there is a time in the future it will be moral? If you answered no to all three questions we have just proven that morals are not relative.

How can anyone know what the future will hold?
So my answers are: no, yes, and maybe. You fail epically again.

So basically you are admitting that under some circumstance you believe that slavery could be moral.

That's not what you asked. You said in the past or in the future. And do I believe that it's moral, and I said no.
You confused yourself with your own questions.

I don't believe I did.

Do you believe that slavery is moral? You answered no

Do you believe there was a time in the past it was moral? You answered yes

Do you believe there is a time in the future it will be moral? You answered maybe

I am not asking you how society answers these questions. I am asking you how you personally answer these questions.

I'm happy enough with your answers because I believe you don't have a defined moral code. That's why you do the things you do. Are you having fun yet?

It was moral to own slaves in the US at one point. And it might be considered normal in the future. How does that reflect on me?

Do you believe it was moral of them to own slaves in the past?

Do you believe it would be moral to own slaves in the future?

 

[RWS]

I said that nature rejects nobody. Based on what you're saying, I think we are in agreement.

You just misinterpreted that, i think. But I'm with you and I agree that morality is not something that "God" gave us.

It is an evolutionary trait that we, and other life forms, evolved to guarantee the success of our species'. Rather than killing each other for shits and giggles.

Only religion promotes killing each other for giggles. They try to tell us that what we define as "good" was given to us by "god". But no, the truth is that animals don't randomly kill their own species for fun or sport. They realize the importance of keeping their own alive. A species that goes around randomly killing others of its own species will soon disappear. It is not "god" that teaches them this, it is evolutionary principles.

Only religion tells people to kill other people and promotes genocide for no reason other than imaginary ideas.

Of course, there are crazy people out there that just kill people for no reason, but they are not organized to do that. The sole purpose of religion is to amass legions of people willing to donate, die, and kill, for the whims of their leaders and their interests, based on the idea that they will rot in hell if they don't, or go to heaven if they do. It's so stupid.

Where, in the Bible, does it instruct Christians to go out kill each other for giggles? I must have missed that one. That, or you're a blithering idiot.

It's not in the Bible, it's in the religious leaders words and actions that the followers have to follow or die. That's exactly the point.

They instruct you to kill people for their benefit, and use the Bible as the reason. And everyone is obliged to do so, whether they check first or not, and the Church compels them to do so.... And so they killed, raped, and looted with glee. Because "God" commanded them to do so...

Now if you cannot admit that it was wrong of "God" to command those actions, then you have to at least admit it was wrong for God's religious leaders to command those slaughters and rapes and genocides. And torture that hurts to even think about...

Either way, it is not a good sign for God being real. It's just something people in power use to make others follow their will. And it applies in every religion.

 

[RWS]

You have to remember, back then people didn't have guns and rifles and long-range-missiles.

They had to fight hand-to-hand. Which means a very high probability of getting killed after enough battles.

How do you get people to sign up for that?

Easy! Tell them that their God demands them to, and they will live in eternal Heaven or Paradise or Valhalla or whatever!


How many people that supposedly went to those paradises for their martyrdom, do you really think believe it now...

I'll tell you... zero.

 

[RWS]

And btw, slavery is not moral when it comes to humans. Because we are using other humans for financial gain.

In the insect world, slavery is rampant, but it is done so for the good of the population, and is how they survive.

Humans use slavery so they can be lazy and make money, based on other people's efforts. Just like religion does.

Religion is just a colony of human slaves, donating their money and lives for the benefit of individuals who get richer and more powerful.

The problem, unlike insects, is that it is not good for the rest of the population.

 

[ding]

And btw, slavery is not moral when it comes to humans. Because we are using other humans for financial gain.

In the insect world, slavery is rampant, but it is done so for the good of the population, and is how they survive.

Humans use slavery so they can be lazy and make money, based on other people's efforts. Just like religion does.

Religion is just a colony of human slaves, donating their money and lives for the benefit of individuals who get richer and more powerful.

The problem, unlike insects, is that it is not good for the rest of the population.

Do you believe morals are subjective?

 

[Mudda]

How can anyone know what the future will hold?
So my answers are: no, yes, and maybe. You fail epically again.

So basically you are admitting that under some circumstance you believe that slavery could be moral.

That's not what you asked. You said in the past or in the future. And do I believe that it's moral, and I said no.
You confused yourself with your own questions.

I don't believe I did.

Do you believe that slavery is moral? You answered no

Do you believe there was a time in the past it was moral? You answered yes

Do you believe there is a time in the future it will be moral? You answered maybe

I am not asking you how society answers these questions. I am asking you how you personally answer these questions.

I'm happy enough with your answers because I believe you don't have a defined moral code. That's why you do the things you do. Are you having fun yet?

It was moral to own slaves in the US at one point. And it might be considered normal in the future. How does that reflect on me?

Do you believe it was moral of them to own slaves in the past?

Do you believe it would be moral to own slaves in the future?

They felt morally justified, yes.
People in the future might also justify slavery, like they do today in some parts of the world, as in sexual slavery, for example.

 

[RWNJ]

I said that nature rejects nobody. Based on what you're saying, I think we are in agreement.

You just misinterpreted that, i think. But I'm with you and I agree that morality is not something that "God" gave us.

It is an evolutionary trait that we, and other life forms, evolved to guarantee the success of our species'. Rather than killing each other for shits and giggles.

Only religion promotes killing each other for giggles. They try to tell us that what we define as "good" was given to us by "god". But no, the truth is that animals don't randomly kill their own species for fun or sport. They realize the importance of keeping their own alive. A species that goes around randomly killing others of its own species will soon disappear. It is not "god" that teaches them this, it is evolutionary principles.

Only religion tells people to kill other people and promotes genocide for no reason other than imaginary ideas.

Of course, there are crazy people out there that just kill people for no reason, but they are not organized to do that. The sole purpose of religion is to amass legions of people willing to donate, die, and kill, for the whims of their leaders and their interests, based on the idea that they will rot in hell if they don't, or go to heaven if they do. It's so stupid.

Where, in the Bible, does it instruct Christians to go out kill each other for giggles? I must have missed that one. That, or you're a blithering idiot.

It's not in the Bible, it's in the religious leaders words and actions that the followers have to follow or die. That's exactly the point.

They instruct you to kill people for their benefit, and use the Bible as the reason. And everyone is obliged to do so, whether they check first or not, and the Church compels them to do so.... And so they killed, raped, and looted with glee. Because "God" commanded them to do so...

Now if you cannot admit that it was wrong of "God" to command those actions, then you have to at least admit it was wrong for God's religious leaders to command those slaughters and rapes and genocides. And torture that hurts to even think about...

Either way, it is not a good sign for God being real. It's just something people in power use to make others follow their will. And it applies in every religion.

You have confirmed what I just said. The Bible has nothing to do with such behavior. It is the actions of evil men. People who engage in such actions are not Christians. End of story.

 

[ding]

And btw, slavery is not moral when it comes to humans. Because we are using other humans for financial gain.

In the insect world, slavery is rampant, but it is done so for the good of the population, and is how they survive.

Humans use slavery so they can be lazy and make money, based on other people's efforts. Just like religion does.

Religion is just a colony of human slaves, donating their money and lives for the benefit of individuals who get richer and more powerful.

The problem, unlike insects, is that it is not good for the rest of the population.

If slavery was for the good of the population and not so humans could be lazy and make money, would you accept slavery then?

 

[RWS]

I said that nature rejects nobody. Based on what you're saying, I think we are in agreement.

You just misinterpreted that, i think. But I'm with you and I agree that morality is not something that "God" gave us.

It is an evolutionary trait that we, and other life forms, evolved to guarantee the success of our species'. Rather than killing each other for shits and giggles.

Only religion promotes killing each other for giggles. They try to tell us that what we define as "good" was given to us by "god". But no, the truth is that animals don't randomly kill their own species for fun or sport. They realize the importance of keeping their own alive. A species that goes around randomly killing others of its own species will soon disappear. It is not "god" that teaches them this, it is evolutionary principles.

Only religion tells people to kill other people and promotes genocide for no reason other than imaginary ideas.

Of course, there are crazy people out there that just kill people for no reason, but they are not organized to do that. The sole purpose of religion is to amass legions of people willing to donate, die, and kill, for the whims of their leaders and their interests, based on the idea that they will rot in hell if they don't, or go to heaven if they do. It's so stupid.

Where, in the Bible, does it instruct Christians to go out kill each other for giggles? I must have missed that one. That, or you're a blithering idiot.

It's not in the Bible, it's in the religious leaders words and actions that the followers have to follow or die. That's exactly the point.

They instruct you to kill people for their benefit, and use the Bible as the reason. And everyone is obliged to do so, whether they check first or not, and the Church compels them to do so.... And so they killed, raped, and looted with glee. Because "God" commanded them to do so...

Now if you cannot admit that it was wrong of "God" to command those actions, then you have to at least admit it was wrong for God's religious leaders to command those slaughters and rapes and genocides. And torture that hurts to even think about...

Either way, it is not a good sign for God being real. It's just something people in power use to make others follow their will. And it applies in every religion.

You have confirmed what I just said. The Bible has nothing to do with such behavior. It is the actions of evil men. People who engage in such actions are not Christians. End of story.

But they were following the words of the Pope. The all-see. Speaks directly to God. Why is your version of Christianity not ready to follow the words of the Pope next time? Was there something wrong with previous versions of Christianity? And if there was, how do you know your version is right?

 

[RWS]

And btw, slavery is not moral when it comes to humans. Because we are using other humans for financial gain.

In the insect world, slavery is rampant, but it is done so for the good of the population, and is how they survive.

Humans use slavery so they can be lazy and make money, based on other people's efforts. Just like religion does.

Religion is just a colony of human slaves, donating their money and lives for the benefit of individuals who get richer and more powerful.

The problem, unlike insects, is that it is not good for the rest of the population.

If slavery was for the good of the population and not so humans could be lazy and make money, would you accept slavery then?

You're putting forth a straw-man argument. Whatever my answer is, you already have a reply ready for either. So my answer isn't relevant at this point. You're just waiting for an opportunity to attack something.

State your point, and then I will comment on that... I already told you what I think and you have your answer. Don't know why you're seeking more...

 

[RWS]

Why Did So Many Christians Support Slavery?

 

[ding]

Why Did So Many Christians Support Slavery?

I am asking if your morals are relative, not anyone else's.

 

[Dr Grump]

[
Do you believe it was moral of them to own slaves in the past?

Do you believe it would be moral to own slaves in the future?

Do you?