Smoking Gun, Oh Atheists?

[BilliardsBall]

Easily. It is not axiomatically true that something is always true or false because what is true or false can change, or may not even be determinable to our minds, or may not even exist beyond a subjective or conceptual level.


Yes. You don't need to hold something as axiomatic in order to hold it as true. I don't need to conclude that objectivity exists AXIOMATICALLY, I just need to accept that - as far as I am reasonably capable - I can determine that objectivity is a concept that does exist, or is at least useful in examining the world.


Thank you for your answer.

Now, since you believe that what is right or wrong is independent of what God says, and that humans are capable of using free will to determine what is right or wrong, does that not imply that God's input is unnecessary in the moral process? Ergo, atheists can be right - even objectively - and not require a God to tell them so.

I've also already explained this. It's the same way I concluded that having a hand that is not on fire is preferable to having a hand that IS on fire.

“Don’t let me burn my hand or yours!” is not a moral code.

We are animals, but we are cognitive, thinking animals that are capable of making moral determinations that are entirely apart from any instinctual or natural requirements, urges or imperatives. So bringing up other, non-cognitive animals is irrelevant.

If we are capable of moral determinations, why do we breach them? Why do rapists rape, or you and I do things often that are against our conscience and create guilt?

No. "Right and wrong" only exist once they are ATTACHED to specific, objective concepts. They do not exist in and of themselves. For example, if I were looking to raise a child that is healthy, it is easy to determine that feeding that child battery acid every day is objectively wrong. On the other hand, if someone were to ask me "What's a really good way to get your child taken into protective custody?" me responding with "Feed them battery acid every day" would be right.

I see—right and wrong don’t exist when attached to subjective concepts? Are you sure?

And right and wrong don’t exist if attached to immaterial things? You just made an absolute statement that “right and wrong . . . exist . . . if attached.” If you didn’t presuppose they exist on their own, where did you take them from to attach them?

Which is what makes them objectively wrong by my moral standard.

So if you derive objectivity and objective wrongs from your moral standard, is your moral standard (set) subjective or objective?

I didn't mention intuition or conscience. To assess the suffering of others takes actual understanding and empathy, not intuition or conscience.

A rapist is imprisoned for lacking empathy but not for lacking understanding. If they lack understanding of right and wrong, they are deemed mentally unwell or mentally disabled, yes?

You've already read my five values, so you already know my answer to that question. Not one of those five values is "What the majority of people around me determined to be right".

Should I applaud you then, for being possibly a contrarian? I didn’t ask if you have unique moral standards, I asked if you have objective moral standards. You seem to be saying you enjoy subjective moral standards from which you derive objective values. That begs the question, yes?

It is not "subjectively" causing suffering, it is demonstrably and OBJECTIVELY causing it, and since I determine right or wrong in accordance - partially - with what causes or prevents suffering, it is objectively wrong.

Sure, but follow my reasoning. In rape involving two parties only, victim and rapist, one experiences pleasure, the other suffering and pain. After the event, this dichotomy remains true. You seem to hold as an objective standard:

“Pleasure taken must be consensual/not cause pain.”

Yet I derive great pleasure from eating meat from animals whose throats were slit for my pleasure and from eating plants yanked up by their roots, also for my pleasure and sustenance. Why I’ve been asking why we seem to be “more right” than other animals.

This argument doesn't even make sense. Do you not understand that I have determined that rape is objectively wrong? What about this is difficult for you to grasp?

I think it difficult for me (and for you) to grasp how you start with your subjective morality to impose objective morality on me and others. You have 5 values so I have to do what you say because you are objectively true? Do you see the issue?

No, we couldn't. "Subjectively exists" is an oxymoron. Something either objectively exists or it doesn't exist at all. It can't exist "subjectively".

But your 5 values are your values—you even said, “whether society mostly agrees or not”. God cannot subjectively exist but your 5 values can? Are you now recanting to say your 5 values are objective truth? How would you prove that assertion?

Easily. It is not axiomatically true that something is always true or false because what is true or false can change, or may not even be determinable to our minds, or may not even exist beyond a subjective or conceptual level.

So God might exist and you’re an agnostic?

Yes. You don't need to hold something as axiomatic in order to hold it as true. I don't need to conclude that objectivity exists AXIOMATICALLY, I just need to accept that - as far as I am reasonably capable - I can determine that objectivity is a concept that does exist, or is at least useful in examining the world.

Yes, in practical terms, you don’t need to hold something as axiomatic to hold it as true—however when you move from subjective (opinion) to objective (real truth) you certainly must employ axioms.

Now, since you believe that what is right or wrong is independent of what God says, and that humans are capable of using free will to determine what is right or wrong, does that not imply that God's input is unnecessary in the moral process? Ergo, atheists can be right - even objectively - and not require a God to tell them so.

In your last post, you asked re: 2 if X exists apart from God so that God is reporting to us. God reports to us in the scriptures that we are self-deceptive (all men are liars) and hide from God when He walks in the Gardens of our lives. God reports that only foolish (immoral) people say there is no God (and also, a uniformitarian approach to the creation, and also, hedonism, etc.)

Certainly, to answer your question, atheists can be right, even objectively, without requiring God’s ordination, announcement or direction. Humbly, therefore, I submit to you that 1) you know when you do something your conscience tells you not to do 2) you do wrong, willfully and 3) neither you nor I can be in a utopia without ruining the place for others.

This becomes a) we need to be transformed to be in the utopia that is coming and b) neither you nor I, with God’s light or without, could say to God, “I didn’t know I did wrong when I did it willfully.”

 

[BilliardsBall]

Perhaps, but the rule of law does not allow, and should not allow, for mercy. It should act in the best interest of society. Anything else is irresponsible.



And Daniel was thrown in a lions den while jonah was swallowed by a whale.

I couldn't care less what a religious judicial system did. It sounds good until you realize any system that is based in how someone feels is bound to make mistakes. (as it did in your example)

Which is my entire point.



Society will never go there. Using a terrible movie as an example doesn't help your case.

Even at its lowest society simply ignored rape.



A psychopath might say rape is good.



What next world? I'm not going to argue nonsense. If god made the world, and knows everything, then he knew exactly what he was creating. He is a true monster of the worst kind. He is the person who beats a child for stealing candy that you leave in easy reach.



I have said it at least 6 times now. Do you have a reading disability?

The point is that using religion to dictate law is a dangerous game and I gave two good examples.

Perhaps, but the rule of law does not allow, and should not allow, for mercy. It should act in the best interest of society. Anything else is irresponsible.

I agree.

And Daniel was thrown in a lions den while jonah was swallowed by a whale.

I couldn't care less what a religious judicial system did. It sounds good until you realize any system that is based in how someone feels is bound to make mistakes. (as it did in your example)

Which is my entire point.

I agree—a judicial system is a system of flawed people. Correct. Makes you think men are flawed, sometimes, more so than “wonderfully evolved”.

And Jonah was swallowed by a fish. Whales strain. Fish swallow.

A psychopath might say rape is good.

Yes, but so might a sociopath. A sociopath is someone who ignored commonly held subjective or objective values?

What next world? I'm not going to argue nonsense. If god made the world, and knows everything, then he knew exactly what he was creating. He is a true monster of the worst kind. He is the person who beats a child for stealing candy that you leave in easy reach.

If you mean the tree of life, you should know God comments on this. He said, “Lest they eat the other tree and live forever…” and then bop!

I’m not only anticipating eternal life, eternal play and learning and fun with friends and food and so on, I’m anticipating an eternal moral life where I won’t harm myself or others, ruining utopia. I may say I am punished in Hell for disobeying God, or I may rather say keeping out the wrong people (not transformed) makes Heaven a true utopia, if you follow.

Now, here’s the other thing—God made that candy! Instead of saying as a Christian, “Oh why, God, must I struggle with illicit desire?” I should say, “THANKS GOD, FOR SEX!” Instead of saying God shouldn’t have given the tree of knowledge, I say thanks for the knowledge. Etc.

Skeptics always seem to focus on the beatings and never the candy they get in your example. Do you feel like God is beating you down? Is your life filled with suffering, really, or is it First World suffering—too much candy to eat at one time, too much dip for your chips and etc.?

I have said it at least 6 times now. Do you have a reading disability?

The point is that using religion to dictate law is a dangerous game and I gave two good examples.

Do I strike you as having intellectual disabilities or intellectual openness?

You have said rape is always wrong, fine. Based on whose objective standard? And if it’s your standard, how is it an objective standard? I’m genuinely curious. Please tell me more. I’ve long felt that skeptics listen to themselves first, second and third only. I may be wrong!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

“Don’t let me burn my hand or yours!” is not a moral code.

I didn't say it was. It's a direct method you have of understanding that suffering is a non-preferable state to non-suffering.

If we are capable of moral determinations, why do we breach them? Why do rapists rape, or you and I do things often that are against our conscience and create guilt?

Because morality is complicated, as are people. We don't always make the correct determination, and sometimes even when we do we end up acting contrary to that determination because of selfishness, fear, malice or ignorance. We are flawed.

I see—right and wrong don’t exist when attached to subjective concepts? Are you sure?

That depends. Do those subjective concepts have objective measures?

And right and wrong don’t exist if attached to immaterial things? You just made an absolute statement that “right and wrong . . . exist . . . if attached.” If you didn’t presuppose they exist on their own, where did you take them from to attach them?

Your language here makes no sense. Do you not understand that "right" and "wrong" are meaningless if you don't ascribe some objective measure to them?

So if you derive objectivity and objective wrongs from your moral standard, is your moral standard (set) subjective or objective?

You've got it the wrong way around. You derive your moral standard from objectivity, not your objectivity from a moral standard. I think you're getting confused.

A rapist is imprisoned for lacking empathy but not for lacking understanding.

No, they are imprisoned for raping someone.

If they lack understanding of right and wrong, they are deemed mentally unwell or mentally disabled, yes?

Not really. A person could have a concept of right and wrong and still be mentally unwell or disabled. A person who lacks one could just be ignorant.

Should I applaud you then, for being possibly a contrarian? I didn’t ask if you have unique moral standards, I asked if you have objective moral standards. You seem to be saying you enjoy subjective moral standards from which you derive objective values. That begs the question, yes?

I don't think you're reading/understanding what I've read. I said I base my moral values on OBJECTIVE standards. Again, you appear to be getting very confused. What is it you are not understanding?

Sure, but follow my reasoning. In rape involving two parties only, victim and rapist, one experiences pleasure, the other suffering and pain. After the event, this dichotomy remains true. You seem to hold as an objective standard:

“Pleasure taken must be consensual/not cause pain.”

Yet I derive great pleasure from eating meat from animals whose throats were slit for my pleasure and from eating plants yanked up by their roots, also for my pleasure and sustenance. Why I’ve been asking why we seem to be “more right” than other animals.

Again, you're comparing the actions and emotions of thinking, intelligent beings to the lives to non-intelligent beings. This is the mentality of a sociopath.

I think it difficult for me (and for you) to grasp how you start with your subjective morality to impose objective morality on me and others. You have 5 values so I have to do what you say because you are objectively true? Do you see the issue?

When have I ever said that I wish to impose my morality on others? When have I ever told you what to do?

But your 5 values are your values—you even said, “whether society mostly agrees or not”. God cannot subjectively exist but your 5 values can?

I never said anything about God not existing (although "subjectively existing" is an oxymoron). My values are things I hold to be true because of their OBJECTIVE and QUANTIFIABLE basis. If you reject that drinking battery acid is wrong if you wish to be healthy, be my guest.

Are you now recanting to say your 5 values are objective truth? How would you prove that assertion?

I never said they were objective truths. I said they were BASED on objective truth and quantifiability. You seem unable to actually comprehend my position, no matter how clearly I explain it to you.

So God might exist and you’re an agnostic?

Sure. I'm an agnostic atheist.

Yes, in practical terms, you don’t need to hold something as axiomatic to hold it as true—however when you move from subjective (opinion) to objective (real truth) you certainly must employ axioms.

Again, sure. Like "existence exists". But you don't have to assume the axioms that you have imposed as axioms.

In your last post, you asked re: 2 if X exists apart from God so that God is reporting to us. God reports to us in the scriptures that we are self-deceptive (all men are liars) and hide from God when He walks in the Gardens of our lives. God reports that only foolish (immoral) people say there is no God (and also, a uniformitarian approach to the creation, and also, hedonism, etc.)

Certainly, to answer your question, atheists can be right, even objectively, without requiring God’s ordination, announcement or direction. Humbly, therefore, I submit to you that 1) you know when you do something your conscience tells you not to do 2) you do wrong, willfully and 3) neither you nor I can be in a utopia without ruining the place for others.

This becomes a) we need to be transformed to be in the utopia that is coming and b) neither you nor I, with God’s light or without, could say to God, “I didn’t know I did wrong when I did it willfully.”

This is mostly just babble. You have basically already admitted that we don't need God to be objectively right or wrong. The rest of what you say is just desperate back-peddling.

 

[Pudding]

Conversation is being held on other threads about absolutes and objective rights and wrongs.

I say rape is inherently bad, not "a societal misdeed" but wrong.

inherently - In a permanent, essential, or characteristic way.
societal - Relating to society or social relations.
misdeed - A wicked or illegal act.

Rape is a wicked or illegal act in most country which it is also relating to society or social relations.

Why do you think rape is not a societal misdeed?

Rape is indeed bad.
Consequences of rape can be:
- victim will mentally hurt and/or bodily hurt
- unwanted pregnancies

- the rapist might spreading std to the victim

- if capture, the rapist will be punish by law in most country
- most people will despise and not welcome the rapist's existence

Is rape inherently bad, as in rape is bad in a permanent, essential, or characteristic way?

A minority of people might have some fetish about rape and they could have enjoy being rape by other people, in someway they think it's good for them, but i think it is somewhat unhealthy in that activity and relationship.

A group of rapists might enjoy non consensual sex and think it's good for them, but i think it's selfish and unhealthy and bad for them and also harmful for the victim.

So is rape inherently bad?
I think rape is inherently bad but there could be a minority of people who don't think so.

Then I watch as atheists (in error) criticize the Bible for not condemning rape, when it most certainly does (as usual atheists point to the Bible and miss). If two fornicate in the Old Testament, they both receive capital punishment but if a woman cries for help while assaulted, only her rapist is punished . . . by death. Of course both passages regarding consensual sex and rape are collocated in the Bible, but why bother to ask an atheist to actually read more than a verse or two? It's taking for them, poor souls.

I need to do more research about it before commenting about it.

Of course, we would say that the atheists who say on one hand "rape isn't inherently bad" but on the other hand, "the Bible is inherently bad for not condemning rape" are behaving both ignorantly (quick, name every American President and Supreme Court Justice on record for condemning rape--are the ones not on the list bad?) and SELF-RIGHTEOUSLY.

Please cite evidence and quote the posts from that thread where those atheists say "rape isn't inherently bad".

How can an atheist behave self-righteously when they believe neither in righteousness nor its opposite, sinfulness?

Please define "atheist".

self-righteous - Having or characterized by a certainty, especially an unfounded one, that one is totally correct or morally superior.
righteousness - The quality of being morally right or justifiable.
sinful - Wicked and immoral.
sinfulness - synonyms: immorality, wickedness, wrongdoing.

Please provide evidence to support your claim that those atheists behave self-righteously.

Please provide evidence to support your claim that those atheists don't believe in righteousness.

Please provide evidence to support your claim that those atheists don't believe immorality/wickedness/wrongdoing is wrong.

Stop being self-righteous, oh atheists! (At least until such time as you admit to absolute, objective moral codes.)

Please elaborate the "absolute, objective moral codes" you're talking about.

Am i an atheist?

Spoiler

"Atheist" is a term which have many different meanings from people to people.
Some people think that all atheist believe no God/god exist.
Some people think that all atheist is materialist.
Some people think that all evolutionist is atheist.

My definition for atheist is that: a person who don't have the belief that at least one God/god exist (whether it is God from Abrahamic religion or God/god from other religion).

I'm a person who don't have the belief that at least one God/god exist.

I'm not a materialist.

I'm not very knowledgeable about evolution, i do not profoundly study it. I do not have many interest about it. Do i think evolution happen? I do have some belief that it happen, i'll need to do more research about it before i can comment about it in detail.

Do i believe any God/god doesn't exist?
I have some belief that the deity flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist because i have heard that its follower's intention for their deity is a parody to mock religion's God/god.

I don't have the belief that the Abrahamic God (regardless of which interpretation from which denomination which i have heard their concept thru book/media/people/religion) or any other religion's God/god (which i have heard their concept thru book/media/people/religion) doesn't exist.
Neither do i have the belief that they exist.

(What i mean 'exist' is that exist as real beings, i'm not saying the concept of God/god doesn't exist in book/religion/people's mind)

 

[Underhill]

I agree.


I agree—a judicial system is a system of flawed people. Correct. Makes you think men are flawed, sometimes, more so than “wonderfully evolved”.

And Jonah was swallowed by a fish. Whales strain. Fish swallow.

Yes, but so might a sociopath. A sociopath is someone who ignored commonly held subjective or objective values?

Actually, a sociopath is "a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience."

They don't simply choose to ignore values. Everyone does that.

If you mean the tree of life, you should know God comments on this. He said, “Lest they eat the other tree and live forever…” and then bop!

I’m not only anticipating eternal life, eternal play and learning and fun with friends and food and so on, I’m anticipating an eternal moral life where I won’t harm myself or others, ruining utopia. I may say I am punished in Hell for disobeying God, or I may rather say keeping out the wrong people (not transformed) makes Heaven a true utopia, if you follow.

Now, here’s the other thing—God made that candy! Instead of saying as a Christian, “Oh why, God, must I struggle with illicit desire?” I should say, “THANKS GOD, FOR SEX!” Instead of saying God shouldn’t have given the tree of knowledge, I say thanks for the knowledge. Etc.

Skeptics always seem to focus on the beatings and never the candy they get in your example. Do you feel like God is beating you down? Is your life filled with suffering, really, or is it First World suffering—too much candy to eat at one time, too much dip for your chips and etc.?

You have this odd methodology that involves distorting everything I say. You really need to work on this.

It has nothing to do with me, or with candy. A all knowing god who creates a world of savagery and suffering is a criminal. It's that simple. You talk about the tree of life as though that lets god off the hook in that story. But god knew the outcome. What do you call it when you hand a 2 year old a fillet knife? Criminal negligence? How much more so a god who created everything knowing how it would turn out.

My conclusion roughly 20 years ago is that I have to believe, based on the facts, he doesn't exist but if he does I want nothing to do with him.

Do I strike you as having intellectual disabilities or intellectual openness?

You have said rape is always wrong, fine. Based on whose objective standard? And if it’s your standard, how is it an objective standard? I’m genuinely curious. Please tell me more. I’ve long felt that skeptics listen to themselves first, second and third only. I may be wrong!

I think you cannot read something without twisting it to fit your view of the world.

I also think you do not understand the difference between objective and subjective. Objective means it is based in measurable facts. Subjective means it is based in personal opinion.

The fact that I see rape as wrong may be subjective. The fact that it harms thousands of people all over the world every day is an objective fact.

If 99.99999% of the world believes something is wrong, evil, twisted and should not be done, not because of some old text, but because that thing hurts people physically and psychologically, then of course it is wrong. That is not subjective, it is based in reason, statistics and the realities of the damage done.

On the other hand something like homosexuality, which is a personal choice and harms nobody, is obviously impossible to claim is wrong in any way other than the irrational. There is no way to quantify the damage as there is none. There is nothing other than religious teachings to discount it as criminal. Any objection is purely subjective.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I didn't say it was. It's a direct method you have of understanding that suffering is a non-preferable state to non-suffering.


Because morality is complicated, as are people. We don't always make the correct determination, and sometimes even when we do we end up acting contrary to that determination because of selfishness, fear, malice or ignorance. We are flawed.


That depends. Do those subjective concepts have objective measures?


Your language here makes no sense. Do you not understand that "right" and "wrong" are meaningless if you don't ascribe some objective measure to them?


You've got it the wrong way around. You derive your moral standard from objectivity, not your objectivity from a moral standard. I think you're getting confused.


No, they are imprisoned for raping someone.


Not really. A person could have a concept of right and wrong and still be mentally unwell or disabled. A person who lacks one could just be ignorant.


I don't think you're reading/understanding what I've read. I said I base my moral values on OBJECTIVE standards. Again, you appear to be getting very confused. What is it you are not understanding?


Again, you're comparing the actions and emotions of thinking, intelligent beings to the lives to non-intelligent beings. This is the mentality of a sociopath.


When have I ever said that I wish to impose my morality on others? When have I ever told you what to do?


I never said anything about God not existing (although "subjectively existing" is an oxymoron). My values are things I hold to be true because of their OBJECTIVE and QUANTIFIABLE basis. If you reject that drinking battery acid is wrong if you wish to be healthy, be my guest.


I never said they were objective truths. I said they were BASED on objective truth and quantifiability. You seem unable to actually comprehend my position, no matter how clearly I explain it to you.



Sure. I'm an agnostic atheist.


Again, sure. Like "existence exists". But you don't have to assume the axioms that you have imposed as axioms.


This is mostly just babble. You have basically already admitted that we don't need God to be objectively right or wrong. The rest of what you say is just desperate back-peddling.

I appreciate many of your answers above. I think you may be right:

That depends. Do those subjective concepts have objective measures?

Right and wrong are potentially objective measures. What presuppositions must be made regarding right and wrong before we use them as measures?

Your language here makes no sense. Do you not understand that "right" and "wrong" are meaningless if you don't ascribe some objective measure to them?

Why don’t you understand that “ascribing an objective term” means we presuppose axiomatic definitions? Definition of axiom from Merriam-Webster: In mathematics or logic, an axiom is an unprovable rule or first principle accepted as true because it is self-evident or particularly useful.

This is mostly just babble. You have basically already admitted that we don't need God to be objectively right or wrong. The rest of what you say is just desperate back-peddling.

We don’t need God to be objectively right or wrong in knowledge, but we do in action.

We need God to avoid the perpetual trap of humanity – going against conscience. You and I act wrongly when we are fully aware of right action. Do you disagree? You and I make subjective choices and disobey what we know is objectively right (or as the Bible says, righteous).

PS. I won’t believe you if you tell me you never “sin” (you never act wrongly despite knowing you are acting wrongly).

 

[BilliardsBall]

inherently - In a permanent, essential, or characteristic way.
societal - Relating to society or social relations.
misdeed - A wicked or illegal act.

Rape is a wicked or illegal act in most country which it is also relating to society or social relations.

Why do you think rape is not a societal misdeed?

Rape is indeed bad.
Consequences of rape can be:
- victim will mentally hurt and/or bodily hurt
- unwanted pregnancies

- the rapist might spreading std to the victim

- if capture, the rapist will be punish by law in most country
- most people will despise and not welcome the rapist's existence

Is rape inherently bad, as in rape is bad in a permanent, essential, or characteristic way?

A minority of people might have some fetish about rape and they could have enjoy being rape by other people, in someway they think it's good for them, but i think it is somewhat unhealthy in that activity and relationship.

A group of rapists might enjoy non consensual sex and think it's good for them, but i think it's selfish and unhealthy and bad for them and also harmful for the victim.

So is rape inherently bad?
I think rape is inherently bad but there could be a minority of people who don't think so.


I need to do more research about it before commenting about it.


Please cite evidence and quote the posts from that thread where those atheists say "rape isn't inherently bad".


Please define "atheist".

self-righteous - Having or characterized by a certainty, especially an unfounded one, that one is totally correct or morally superior.
righteousness - The quality of being morally right or justifiable.
sinful - Wicked and immoral.
sinfulness - synonyms: immorality, wickedness, wrongdoing.

Please provide evidence to support your claim that those atheists behave self-righteously.

Please provide evidence to support your claim that those atheists don't believe in righteousness.

Please provide evidence to support your claim that those atheists don't believe immorality/wickedness/wrongdoing is wrong.


Please elaborate the "absolute, objective moral codes" you're talking about.

Am i an atheist?

Spoiler

"Atheist" is a term which have many different meanings from people to people.
Some people think that all atheist believe no God/god exist.
Some people think that all atheist is materialist.
Some people think that all evolutionist is atheist.

My definition for atheist is that: a person who don't have the belief that at least one God/god exist (whether it is God from Abrahamic religion or God/god from other religion).

I'm a person who don't have the belief that at least one God/god exist.

I'm not a materialist.

I'm not very knowledgeable about evolution, i do not profoundly study it. I do not have many interest about it. Do i think evolution happen? I do have some belief that it happen, i'll need to do more research about it before i can comment about it in detail.

Do i believe any God/god doesn't exist?
I have some belief that the deity flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist because i have heard that its follower's intention for their deity is a parody to mock religion's God/god.

I don't have the belief that the Abrahamic God (regardless of which interpretation from which denomination which i have heard their concept thru book/media/people/religion) or any other religion's God/god (which i have heard their concept thru book/media/people/religion) doesn't exist.
Neither do i have the belief that they exist.

(What i mean 'exist' is that exist as real beings, i'm not saying the concept of God/god doesn't exist in book/religion/people's mind)

[snip]

Please provide evidence to support your claim that those atheists don't believe in righteousness.

I was using biblical terms – a righteous person reverences God, for one thing. The word in English has slid to mean “morally right or justifiable”.

I’m still dealing with the New Atheism, where atheists say they can be not just ethical, but moral, while using subjective standards and no absolutes. Therefore this thread.

Please cite evidence and quote the posts from that thread where those atheists say "rape isn't inherently bad".

Throughout the thread, I ask atheists if rape is wrong, and they waffle, wiggle, misquote the Bible, goalpost shift. It’s rather obvious to me. You yourself wrote, “I think rape is inherently bad but there could be a minority of people who don’t think so,” which is again equivocating.

The minority of people who think rape is okay are called rapists! I’m saying their conscience is diseased due to unrighteous behavior and action.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Right and wrong are potentially objective measures.

Calling something "Potentially objective" is meaningless. Anything can be "POTENTIALLY" anything, but based on your simple, human experience, do you think that exactly what is right and what is wrong in specific instances differs or doesn't differ across the vast spectrum of human experience?

What presuppositions must be made regarding right and wrong before we use them as measures?

You don't have to make any presuppositions - your basis can be entirely evidenciary or based on objective assessment.

Why don’t you understand that “ascribing an objective term” means we presuppose axiomatic definitions?

Because it doesn't.

Definition of axiom from Merriam-Webster: In mathematics or logic, an axiom is an unprovable rule or first principle accepted as true because it is self-evident or particularly useful.

And I re-state, it doesn't.

We don’t need God to be objectively right or wrong in knowledge, but we do in action.

How? If right and wrong exist independent of God's command, then we can do right or wrong without using (or even knowing) anything about God or their commands.

We need God to avoid the perpetual trap of humanity – going against conscience. You and I act wrongly when we are fully aware of right action. Do you disagree? You and I make subjective choices and disobey what we know is objectively right (or as the Bible says, righteous).

Not what is objectively right, but what we know may objectively cause harm. That doesn't make it OBJECTIVELY right, and nor is it really a matter of pure conscience.

PS. I won’t believe you if you tell me you never “sin” (you never act wrongly despite knowing you are acting wrongly).

I don't believe in the concept of sin, but I can and do act in a way that is sometimes contrary to what I believe is the morally correct way.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Actually, a sociopath is "a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience."

They don't simply choose to ignore values. Everyone does that.



You have this odd methodology that involves distorting everything I say. You really need to work on this.

It has nothing to do with me, or with candy. A all knowing god who creates a world of savagery and suffering is a criminal. It's that simple. You talk about the tree of life as though that lets god off the hook in that story. But god knew the outcome. What do you call it when you hand a 2 year old a fillet knife? Criminal negligence? How much more so a god who created everything knowing how it would turn out.

My conclusion roughly 20 years ago is that I have to believe, based on the facts, he doesn't exist but if he does I want nothing to do with him.



I think you cannot read something without twisting it to fit your view of the world.

I also think you do not understand the difference between objective and subjective. Objective means it is based in measurable facts. Subjective means it is based in personal opinion.

The fact that I see rape as wrong may be subjective. The fact that it harms thousands of people all over the world every day is an objective fact.

If 99.99999% of the world believes something is wrong, evil, twisted and should not be done, not because of some old text, but because that thing hurts people physically and psychologically, then of course it is wrong. That is not subjective, it is based in reason, statistics and the realities of the damage done.

On the other hand something like homosexuality, which is a personal choice and harms nobody, is obviously impossible to claim is wrong in any way other than the irrational. There is no way to quantify the damage as there is none. There is nothing other than religious teachings to discount it as criminal. Any objection is purely subjective.

I also think you do not understand the difference between objective and subjective. Objective means it is based in measurable facts. Subjective means it is based in personal opinion.

The fact that I see rape as wrong may be subjective. The fact that it harms thousands of people all over the world every day is an objective fact.

So you “know” causing harm to people is wrong, an objective fact. But you think raping people as wrong may be subjective, a personal opinion. Based on what you just said, raping is objectively, not subjectively, wrong. Why won’t atheists say rape is always wrong?

It has nothing to do with me, or with candy. A all knowing god who creates a world of savagery and suffering is a criminal. It's that simple.

So everyone and everything who creates suffering is a criminal? My parents made me brush my teeth when I wanted to watch TV. My teachers made me read textbooks when I wanted to play outside. My parents and teachers aren’t criminals! It’s not “simple” as you wrote.

Atheists sound uninformed when they say ALL suffering is bad. Do you want to discuss the necessity of suffering or not? You seem okay with a rapist suffering loneliness in prison or loss of income, etc. if he causes suffering from raping in the first place. So you support the rapist’s suffering but not the victim’s suffering? You can see better now, I hope, that God has a tough job and some tough calls to make.

You talk about the tree of life as though that lets god off the hook in that story. But god knew the outcome. What do you call it when you hand a 2 year old a fillet knife? Criminal negligence? How much more so a god who created everything knowing how it would turn out.

Having trouble following you here. When we lost a child, the child went to a better place. Suffering in this world is temporary for children—and true believers.

My conclusion roughly 20 years ago is that I have to believe, based on the facts, he doesn't exist but if he does I want nothing to do with him.

So you’re “done”? Why on a religious forum then? So that the religious can present facts which you will accept while rejecting the one who gave the facts, the universe and your mind?

Then the Lord said to Job,

2 “Will the faultfinder contend with the Almighty?

Let him who reproves God answer it.”

3 Then Job answered the Lord and said,

4 “Behold, I am insignificant; what can I reply to You?

I lay my hand on my mouth.

5 “Once I have spoken, and I will not answer;

Even twice, and I will add nothing more.”


6 Then the Lord answered Job out of the storm and said,

7 “Now gird up your loins like a man;

I will ask you, and you instruct Me.

8 “Will you really annul My judgment?

Will you condemn Me that you may be justified?

9 “Or do you have an arm like God,

And can you thunder with a voice like His?

10 “Adorn yourself with eminence and dignity,

And clothe yourself with honor and majesty.

11 “Pour out the overflowings of your anger,

And look on everyone who is proud, and make him low.

12 “Look on everyone who is proud, and humble him,

And tread down the wicked where they stand.

13 “Hide them in the dust together;

Bind them in the hidden place.

14 “Then I will also confess to you,

That your own right hand can save you.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Calling something "Potentially objective" is meaningless. Anything can be "POTENTIALLY" anything, but based on your simple, human experience, do you think that exactly what is right and what is wrong in specific instances differs or doesn't differ across the vast spectrum of human experience?


You don't have to make any presuppositions - your basis can be entirely evidenciary or based on objective assessment.


Because it doesn't.


And I re-state, it doesn't.


How? If right and wrong exist independent of God's command, then we can do right or wrong without using (or even knowing) anything about God or their commands.


Not what is objectively right, but what we know may objectively cause harm. That doesn't make it OBJECTIVELY right, and nor is it really a matter of pure conscience.


I don't believe in the concept of sin, but I can and do act in a way that is sometimes contrary to what I believe is the morally correct way.

Calling something "Potentially objective" is meaningless. Anything can be "POTENTIALLY" anything, but based on your simple, human experience, do you think that exactly what is right and what is wrong in specific instances differs or doesn't differ across the vast spectrum of human experience?

People make different choices as individuals and as groups. I think rape is always wrong, which is the OP.

How? If right and wrong exist independent of God's command, then we can do right or wrong without using (or even knowing) anything about God or their commands.

Yes, I agree:

1. We can know right or wrong without God’s specific intervention, religion or a book. Atheists do—atheists know rape is always wrong (or harmful).

2. We can do right and wrong without God, yes.

The issue is we don’t always have a type match between what we know and what we do. We know right and do wrong. We sometimes also know wrong and choose the better way.

I don't believe in the concept of sin, but I can and do act in a way that is sometimes contrary to what I believe is the morally correct way.

Then if you are like all others in this behavior, there will be no utopia apart from transformation. I’m saying I need to be changed morally to be fit for Heaven. I’m a Christian but I would be utterly unable to go to Heaven now, because I’d ruin it for others and myself.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

People make different choices as individuals and as groups. I think rape is always wrong, which is the OP.

I agree, because I have an objective measure by which I determine it to be wrong.

Yes, I agree:

1. We can know right or wrong without God’s specific intervention, religion or a book. Atheists do—atheists know rape is always wrong (or harmful).

2. We can do right and wrong without God, yes.

The issue is we don’t always have a type match between what we know and what we do. We know right and do wrong. We sometimes also know wrong and choose the better way.

The point is, you admit, that God is unnecessary in being objective right or wrong, correct? Heck, even by your own admission, just because God SAYS something is right or wrong doesn't make it so either, so doing what God says may even be objectively wrong.

Then if you are like all others in this behavior, there will be no utopia apart from transformation. I’m saying I need to be changed morally to be fit for Heaven. I’m a Christian but I would be utterly unable to go to Heaven now, because I’d ruin it for others and myself.

I don't care about heaven, because I have no reason to believe one exists. My being good or bad is not dependent on some form of reward after I die - I am happy to do what is right for its own sake, in the hopes that when I die I leave this world a slightly better place for those who live on after me.

 

[Underhill]

So you “know” causing harm to people is wrong, an objective fact. But you think raping people as wrong may be subjective, a personal opinion. Based on what you just said, raping is objectively, not subjectively, wrong. Why won’t atheists say rape is always wrong?

Are you on drugs? I think I am up to 7 times now saying rape is always wrong. And based on what I said, doing harm to people is subjectively and objectively wrong in that we can point to statistics that show how many people are harmed.

So everyone and everything who creates suffering is a criminal?

Everyone who knowingly does wrong, yes.

My parents made me brush my teeth when I wanted to watch TV. My teachers made me read textbooks when I wanted to play outside. My parents and teachers aren’t criminals! It’s not “simple” as you wrote.

Now you are just being ignorant. Your parents and teachers weren't creating suffering, they were preventing it. You mistakenly saw it as a hardship. But a child crying 'woe is me' is not true suffering.

Atheists sound uninformed when they say ALL suffering is bad. Do you want to discuss the necessity of suffering or not? You seem okay with a rapist suffering loneliness in prison or loss of income, etc. if he causes suffering from raping in the first place. So you support the rapist’s suffering but not the victim’s suffering? You can see better now, I hope, that God has a tough job and some tough calls to make.

Where did I say all suffering is wrong? This is exactly what I was talking about.

The God of the bible is supposed to know everything. He is supposed to love everyone. Yet knowing what was coming he creates a world full of suffering. It is criminal.

Having trouble following you here. When we lost a child, the child went to a better place. Suffering in this world is temporary for children—and true believers.

I am saying god is the parent handing a 2 year old the knife. The outcome was predictable and he is criminally negligent for allowing it, and worse for creating the dangerous situation in the first place.

So you’re “done”? Why on a religious forum then? So that the religious can present facts which you will accept while rejecting the one who gave the facts, the universe and your mind?

Then the Lord said to Job,

2 “Will the faultfinder contend with the Almighty?

Let him who reproves God answer it.”

3 Then Job answered the Lord and said,

4 “Behold, I am insignificant; what can I reply to You?

I lay my hand on my mouth.

5 “Once I have spoken, and I will not answer;

Even twice, and I will add nothing more.”


6 Then the Lord answered Job out of the storm and said,

7 “Now gird up your loins like a man;

I will ask you, and you instruct Me.

8 “Will you really annul My judgment?

Will you condemn Me that you may be justified?

9 “Or do you have an arm like God,

And can you thunder with a voice like His?

10 “Adorn yourself with eminence and dignity,

And clothe yourself with honor and majesty.

11 “Pour out the overflowings of your anger,

And look on everyone who is proud, and make him low.

12 “Look on everyone who is proud, and humble him,

And tread down the wicked where they stand.

13 “Hide them in the dust together;

Bind them in the hidden place.

14 “Then I will also confess to you,

That your own right hand can save you.

Yes, clearly I am the problem. The proud man who has built a life around charity and helping society... who believes that I and everyone else should unabashedly be held accountable here and now, in this life, for our choices... obviously I am the problem.

Not the religion that tells people that prayer is the answer, that good works don't get you to heaven, that all your sins are forgiven. "Only one life twill soon be past, only what's done for Christ will last." Suffering doesn't matter because the next life is what really counts. Yet we wonder why the world is heading towards mass extinction...

You ask why I come here. It is for the conversation. It is also in the hope that someone might read something I write and actually think about it. Not twist my words into something unrecognizable and evil.

Also, I would recommend laying off the bible verses. I would bet money that I know the bible better than you do.

 

[1robin]

Hey 1robin, hope everything is fine for you.

Unfortunately -- or, maybe, it's good -- the saying, one bad apple spoils the rest, is true. It should get people to consider exactly what they are supporting. Christendom, for the most part, has established a bad reputation in valuing human life! 99.9% of all religion!

Hello HC. I do not share as bleak an outlook on Christian behavior as you seem to. I do however acknowledge our misdeeds. Paul said of himself that he was the chief of sinners. I think the average Christian and the average non-theist are probably similar in a moral context. However Christianity contains a higher amount of positive exceptions compared to any similar group. Christians have begun or dominated everything from Nobel Laureates to the red cross.

 

[Pudding]

[snip]

Question and demand you haven't answer:
Why do you think rape is not a societal misdeed?

Please provide evidence to support your claim that in the other thread (you mention in your op) those atheists say "rape isn't inherently bad".

Please share your definition of 'atheist' here.

I was using biblical terms – a righteous person reverences God, for one thing. The word in English has slid to mean “morally right or justifiable”.

Your op say:
"How can an atheist behave self-righteously when they believe neither in righteousness nor its opposite, sinfulness?"

You say you're using the biblical terms, a righteous person reverences God.

I'm still not very clear of how to properly intergrate your definition individually into the terms 'self-righteously', 'righteousness' or 'sinfulness'

Please give clear definition for the terms below one by one, by using your biblical terms:
Self-righteously -
Righteousness -
Sinfulness -

You say you're using biblical terms – a righteous person reverences God.
There're many different denominations from christianity. Different denominations have similar but also sometimes different interpretation of what is right and what is wrong which they think their God command them to follow.

So which denomination's version of God are you refering to in your sentence 'a righteous person reverences God'?

I’m still dealing with the New Atheism, where atheists say they can be not just ethical, but moral, while using subjective standards and no absolutes. Therefore this thread.

Please define 'New Atheism'.

Please elaborate the difference of 'New Atheism' and 'Old Atheism'.

Please elaborate what do you mean by 'they can be not just ethical, but moral'.

Please provide evidence to support your claim that 'those atheists say they can be not just ethical, but moral'.

Throughout the thread, I ask atheists if rape is wrong, and they waffle, wiggle, misquote the Bible, goalpost shift.

Throughout 'the thread'?
You mean this thread? Or do you mean the other thread which you mention in your op?

You said throughout 'the thread', those atheists waffle, misquote the Bible and shifting goalpost.
Are you refering to all atheists who have comment in 'the thread', or just majority atheists or some atheists?

Please provide evidence for your claim that 'they waffle'.

Please provide evidence for your claim that they shifting goal post.

Please elaborate the goal of your post for 'the thread'.

I need to do more research before comment whether they have misquote the Bible or not.

It’s rather obvious to me. You yourself wrote, “I think rape is inherently bad but there could be a minority of people who don’t think so,” which is again equivocating.

What have i equivocating?
Please elaborate.

The minority of people who think rape is okay are called rapists! I’m saying their conscience is diseased due to unrighteous behavior and action.

And i haven't say otherwise.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I agree, because I have an objective measure by which I determine it to be wrong.


The point is, you admit, that God is unnecessary in being objective right or wrong, correct? Heck, even by your own admission, just because God SAYS something is right or wrong doesn't make it so either, so doing what God says may even be objectively wrong.


I don't care about heaven, because I have no reason to believe one exists. My being good or bad is not dependent on some form of reward after I die - I am happy to do what is right for its own sake, in the hopes that when I die I leave this world a slightly better place for those who live on after me.

Yes, what God is doing may be objectively wrong. It may have been objectively wrong to allow men to choose Heaven or Hell via free will, and to let us into Heaven as a free gift by trusting the death and resurrection of Christ, which reminds me of the free will preacher who was asked by a Calvinist, "What if a bunch of people who trusted Christ tonight at your sermon aren't foreordained for Heaven?"

"God will forgive me, I'm sure," was the answer.

I don't care about heaven, because I have no reason to believe one exists. My being good or bad is not dependent on some form of reward after I die - I am happy to do what is right for its own sake, in the hopes that when I die I leave this world a slightly better place for those who live on after me.

Which begs the questions:

Why leave the world better and do good? Smoke 'em if you've got 'em, there's no judgment coming, right?

If not, why do you love and care? You and do-gooders like you could be de-enhancing the survivability of the species with your do-gooder ways!

What you are mistaken in is in thinking I do good to make Heaven better . . . I love Jesus, He saved me, I like to do nice stuff for Him. There's no reward I crave or fear of Hell I cringe from. I couldn't go to Hell if I tried!

Why can't we just say we both want to leave the world a slightly better place? Why do you feel compelled to judge me as if my motives are less pure or more burdened by guilt than yours? That gets old fast.

Besides, I think the world would be a better place if people followed the teachings of Jesus and adored Him.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Are you on drugs? I think I am up to 7 times now saying rape is always wrong. And based on what I said, doing harm to people is subjectively and objectively wrong in that we can point to statistics that show how many people are harmed.




Everyone who knowingly does wrong, yes.



Now you are just being ignorant. Your parents and teachers weren't creating suffering, they were preventing it. You mistakenly saw it as a hardship. But a child crying 'woe is me' is not true suffering.



Where did I say all suffering is wrong? This is exactly what I was talking about.

The God of the bible is supposed to know everything. He is supposed to love everyone. Yet knowing what was coming he creates a world full of suffering. It is criminal.



I am saying god is the parent handing a 2 year old the knife. The outcome was predictable and he is criminally negligent for allowing it, and worse for creating the dangerous situation in the first place.



Yes, clearly I am the problem. The proud man who has built a life around charity and helping society... who believes that I and everyone else should unabashedly be held accountable here and now, in this life, for our choices... obviously I am the problem.

Not the religion that tells people that prayer is the answer, that good works don't get you to heaven, that all your sins are forgiven. "Only one life twill soon be past, only what's done for Christ will last." Suffering doesn't matter because the next life is what really counts. Yet we wonder why the world is heading towards mass extinction...

You ask why I come here. It is for the conversation. It is also in the hope that someone might read something I write and actually think about it. Not twist my words into something unrecognizable and evil.

Also, I would recommend laying off the bible verses. I would bet money that I know the bible better than you do.

Now you are just being ignorant. Your parents and teachers weren't creating suffering, they were preventing it. You mistakenly saw it as a hardship. But a child crying 'woe is me' is not true suffering.

How did you become empowered to understand true suffering? If it was a pain meter, that’s one thing, but I hope you aren’t taking emotional suffering as consequential, because that means you give credence to immaterial things, you know, spiritual things. Plus again, you get to dictate which tears are evil and which are good? How do you know?

My guess is your answer is “I treat as I feel” which means the rapist who enjoys rape is wrong. Yes, you said rape is wrong, but now, it sure looks like you think the rapist himself is wrong or “off”. That’s pretty judgmental, is it not?

I am saying god is the parent handing a 2 year old the knife. The outcome was predictable and he is criminally negligent for allowing it, and worse for creating the dangerous situation in the first place.

Did the knife come with any training, directions, instructions, tutelage, life experience, conscience, human law, natural law, free will? How come I’ve never stabbed anyone before I got saved? What’s right with me?

Yes, clearly I am the problem. The proud man who has built a life around charity and helping society... who believes that I and everyone else should unabashedly be held accountable here and now, in this life, for our choices... obviously I am the problem.

Not the religion that tells people that prayer is the answer, that good works don't get you to heaven, that all your sins are forgiven. "Only one life twill soon be past, only what's done for Christ will last." Suffering doesn't matter because the next life is what really counts. Yet we wonder why the world is heading towards mass extinction...

You ask why I come here. It is for the conversation. It is also in the hope that someone might read something I write and actually think about it. Not twist my words into something unrecognizable and evil.

Also, I would recommend laying off the bible verses. I would bet money that I know the bible better than you do.

It’s always a problem when good people like you say good people are good enough and don’t need salvation, sure.

I never said suffering doesn’t matter. I said “would you like to discuss the meaning of suffering”?

I bet I know the Bible better! Let’s bet something meaningful. I recently finished memorizing the Book of Romans. If you know the Bible better than me, you'd advocate NOT laying off the Bible verses. They are eternal life and the blessing to those who hear and receive them. At least that's what the Bible says about them.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Are you on drugs? I think I am up to 7 times now saying rape is always wrong. And based on what I said, doing harm to people is subjectively and objectively wrong in that we can point to statistics that show how many people are harmed.




Everyone who knowingly does wrong, yes.



Now you are just being ignorant. Your parents and teachers weren't creating suffering, they were preventing it. You mistakenly saw it as a hardship. But a child crying 'woe is me' is not true suffering.



Where did I say all suffering is wrong? This is exactly what I was talking about.

The God of the bible is supposed to know everything. He is supposed to love everyone. Yet knowing what was coming he creates a world full of suffering. It is criminal.



I am saying god is the parent handing a 2 year old the knife. The outcome was predictable and he is criminally negligent for allowing it, and worse for creating the dangerous situation in the first place.



Yes, clearly I am the problem. The proud man who has built a life around charity and helping society... who believes that I and everyone else should unabashedly be held accountable here and now, in this life, for our choices... obviously I am the problem.

Not the religion that tells people that prayer is the answer, that good works don't get you to heaven, that all your sins are forgiven. "Only one life twill soon be past, only what's done for Christ will last." Suffering doesn't matter because the next life is what really counts. Yet we wonder why the world is heading towards mass extinction...

You ask why I come here. It is for the conversation. It is also in the hope that someone might read something I write and actually think about it. Not twist my words into something unrecognizable and evil.

Also, I would recommend laying off the bible verses. I would bet money that I know the bible better than you do.

PS. You've read Job, right?

The whole "Yes, clearly I am the problem. The proud man who has built a life around charity and helping society..." was Job's statement over and again in the book before God appeared to Him personally!

 

[BilliardsBall]

Question and demand you haven't answer:
Why do you think rape is not a societal misdeed?

Please provide evidence to support your claim that in the other thread (you mention in your op) those atheists say "rape isn't inherently bad".

Please share your definition of 'atheist' here.


Your op say:
"How can an atheist behave self-righteously when they believe neither in righteousness nor its opposite, sinfulness?"

You say you're using the biblical terms, a righteous person reverences God.

I'm still not very clear of how to properly intergrate your definition individually into the terms 'self-righteously', 'righteousness' or 'sinfulness'

Please give clear definition for the terms below one by one, by using your biblical terms:
Self-righteously -
Righteousness -
Sinfulness -

You say you're using biblical terms – a righteous person reverences God.
There're many different denominations from christianity. Different denominations have similar but also sometimes different interpretation of what is right and what is wrong which they think their God command them to follow.

So which denomination's version of God are you refering to in your sentence 'a righteous person reverences God'?


Please define 'New Atheism'.

Please elaborate the difference of 'New Atheism' and 'Old Atheism'.

Please elaborate what do you mean by 'they can be not just ethical, but moral'.

Please provide evidence to support your claim that 'those atheists say they can be not just ethical, but moral'.


Throughout 'the thread'?
You mean this thread? Or do you mean the other thread which you mention in your op?

You said throughout 'the thread', those atheists waffle, misquote the Bible and shifting goalpost.
Are you refering to all atheists who have comment in 'the thread', or just majority atheists or some atheists?

Please provide evidence for your claim that 'they waffle'.

Please provide evidence for your claim that they shifting goal post.

Please elaborate the goal of your post for 'the thread'.

I need to do more research before comment whether they have misquote the Bible or not.


What have i equivocating?
Please elaborate.


And i haven't say otherwise.

Question and demand you haven't answer:
Why do you think rape is not a societal misdeed?

Please provide evidence to support your claim that in the other thread (you mention in your op) those atheists say "rape isn't inherently bad".

Please share your definition of 'atheist' here.

Rape is inherently wrong. Most societies tack on their taboos and cultural understanding to rape. Any culture promoting rape is wrong, like where it is currently used as a wartime weapon overseas.

I’ll settle for YOU saying rape is inherently/always/100% wrong.

An atheist is someone who says, “I lack evidence for the existence of a god(s).”

Please give clear definition for the terms below one by one, by using your biblical terms:
Self-righteously -
Righteousness -
Sinfulness -

You say you're using biblical terms – a righteous person reverences God.
There're many different denominations from christianity. Different denominations have similar but also sometimes different interpretation of what is right and what is wrong which they think their God command them to follow.

So which denomination's version of God are you refering to in your sentence 'a righteous person reverences God'?

Denomination/shenomination. What does the Bible say? Righteous people love God. Unrighteous people serve themselves, not others. You and I fall somewhere on that number line.

Self-righteously – acting as though being a good human is good enough for all practical and eternal purposes.

Righteousness – Doing the laws, precepts and commands of the Bible, honoring parents, the Sabbath, God, men.

Sinfulness – An excessive amount of sin.

Please define 'New Atheism'.

Please elaborate the difference of 'New Atheism' and 'Old Atheism'.

Please elaborate what do you mean by 'they can be not just ethical, but moral'.

Please provide evidence to support your claim that 'those atheists say they can be not just ethical, but moral'.

Old Atheism – the good old kind I grew up with – everything is subjective, “good, evil, bad and moral” are nonsense words.

New Atheism – Following the misstatements of Hitchens et al to “prove” how people can believe in righteousness, judgment, morals, etc. without any god at all. Hitchens was a genius who combatted the old apologetics against old atheism with new refinements.

Throughout 'the thread'?
You mean this thread? Or do you mean the other thread which you mention in your op?

You said throughout 'the thread', those atheists waffle, misquote the Bible and shifting goalpost.
Are you refering to all atheists who have comment in 'the thread', or just majority atheists or some atheists?

Please provide evidence for your claim that 'they waffle'.

Please provide evidence for your claim that they shifting goal post.

Please elaborate the goal of your post for 'the thread'.

I need to do more research before comment whether they have misquote the Bible or not.

The OP – I bet atheists won’t say “rape is wrong” without equivocation, backpedaling, justification. I didn’t mention the Bible in the OP or after until multiple atheists said, “Buh-buh-buh the Bible says rape is cool, so there! Take that!” which is a misquote for sure.

What have i equivocating?
Please elaborate.

You aren’t, you are asking me to define terms, which is a good and fair thing. I stand corrected.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Which begs the questions:

Why leave the world better and do good? Smoke 'em if you've got 'em, there's no judgment coming, right?

Because I'm not a selfish person, and I am aware of the suffering and happiness of other people, and appreciate the fact that I was born into a society that, by and large, that treated me well, and that societies (and the lives of people in those societies) are better when they function in a way that is fair and treats people well. Ergo, I would rather leave the world functioning better than I would leave it functioning worse. It's no different to being asked "Would you rather somebody 1,000 years n the future died painfully or that they lived a comfortable and happy life", only a sociopath would opt for the former, regardless of any gain they get out of it.

If not, why do you love and care? You and do-gooders like you could be de-enhancing the survivability of the species with your do-gooder ways!

But we aren't. We're improving people's quality of life.

What you are mistaken in is in thinking I do good to make Heaven better . . . I love Jesus, He saved me, I like to do nice stuff for Him. There's no reward I crave or fear of Hell I cringe from. I couldn't go to Hell if I tried!

Because hell doesn't exist, obviously.

Why can't we just say we both want to leave the world a slightly better place?

We can.

Why do you feel compelled to judge me as if my motives are less pure or more burdened by guilt than yours? That gets old fast.

Firstly, I didn't judge you. I just think that fear of heaven or hell is a poor and selfish motivation to do go. I have no idea of your motivation.

Secondly, look at this thread. You yourself have been judging the motivations of non-believers this whole time.

Besides, I think the world would be a better place if people followed the teachings of Jesus and adored Him.

And I think it would be a better place if people generally followed SOME of the ideas of Jesus (if they were his ideas initially), but by and large ignored some of the teachings that are demonstrably nonsensical or not required and didn't believe in their divinity but instead the objective value of some of their teachings, and place no more stock in them than the other moral philosophers of history, and that people's motivations weren't drawn from a selfish desire to avoid a suboptimal afterlife.

 

[Underhill]

How did you become empowered to understand true suffering? If it was a pain meter, that’s one thing, but I hope you aren’t taking emotional suffering as consequential, because that means you give credence to immaterial things, you know, spiritual things. Plus again, you get to dictate which tears are evil and which are good? How do you know?

My guess is your answer is “I treat as I feel” which means the rapist who enjoys rape is wrong. Yes, you said rape is wrong, but now, it sure looks like you think the rapist himself is wrong or “off”. That’s pretty judgmental, is it not?

You have to be among the most annoying people I have ever dealt with on the forums. And that is saying something.

Suffering is not in question. It exist. I don't have to be some faith based entity to see that.

Did the knife come with any training, directions, instructions, tutelage, life experience, conscience, human law, natural law, free will? How come I’ve never stabbed anyone before I got saved? What’s right with me?

You need to go back and read what was wrote. The point is the inevitability of it. If you give a 2 year old a knife, you are criminally negligent. If you allow murder to happen and don't stop it, or warn someone, or do something... you are guilty. That is an all knowing creator in a nutshell. You can try and claim I just don't understand. But the reality is that a god who would knowingly create a world full of cancer and suffering beyond our control... isn't worthy of my respect.

It’s always a problem when good people like you say good people are good enough and don’t need salvation, sure.

I never said suffering doesn’t matter. I said “would you like to discuss the meaning of suffering”?

Then the answer is no.

I bet I know the Bible better! Let’s bet something meaningful. I recently finished memorizing the Book of Romans. If you know the Bible better than me, you'd advocate NOT laying off the Bible verses. They are eternal life and the blessing to those who hear and receive them. At least that's what the Bible says about them.

Christian household, father a deacon, mother a youth leader, 8 years of private christian school education where we had to memorize a chapter a week (unless it was a long chapter like those in Psalms). 2 years at bible college. I've read the book cover to cover at least a dozen times. Used to stand on the street witnessing to people walking by.

I know what the book says. But when I started, after my 2nd year at bible college, to look a bit deeper I found it coming up short. Jesus taught some good ideas. Much like Ghandi. But the old testament describes a petulant child of a god, while the new testament treats him like a powerless drifter.