Im not saying atheists cant be moral, they can, many are. I dont know you personally, but probably you are moral too.
Yeah, I get it - you're just saying their conclusions on God (and therefore really everything associated with God by association) are stupid. Believe me, I get it. And I didn't say I thought you felt atheists couldn't be moral. That's not what I think the Pope thinks either. But I still think the Pope's words were a knock against atheist's brand of "moral code." Basically stating that all of we atheists have a "second rate" way of viewing morality, but at least it's better than being a hypocritical Christian, apparently. It's a masked slur - which is clandestine and passive-aggressive - which is not cool by just about anyone's standards. But if it's cool for Christians, then hey - have at it. I hope you all burn yourselves out trying to appear logical/rational/right/good-natured while instead proving yourselves to be a large group composed mostly of insulting/backward-thinking/unloving people. The quicker the theology dies out and people find actual sound reasons to maintain their morality and outlook on life, the better off I believe humanity will be. At the moment, we apparently need Christianity, because people aren't mature enough to come to sound conclusions on their own - I can admit at least that.
Correct. But, hes not saying its BEST to be an atheist.
How could you
possibly think that I thought he was?
In otherwords, hes saying being stupid but none hypocritical is better then to be smart but hypocritical. You can be stupid yet still be moral and none hypocritical.
And with this you lost me. You just equated believing in God with being "smart" in that category. What a waste of words typed.
Say what? Your not understanding what im saying. Im not saying atheists conclusions about morality are stupid (in some areas) im saying there conclusions about God and the soul and spirit realm not existing is stupid.
But the logical conclusion for anyone with half a brain to draw is that along with God comes prescriptions of morality, and that if one does not believe in God (which is deemed "stupid" by you), then wherever they are deriving their morality is from an incorrect (i.e. also "stupid" by disassociation with God) place. In fact, anything that is not derived from God for that person, that you necessarily feel must be, would be examples of the person deriving their information in a "stupid" way. If you think God is the only "smart" way to derive these sorts of "godly" information, then what is the alternative?
Ok, if you dont follow a prescribed code, then where did you learn morality from?
Where I believe everyone else does - including you. Part instinct from our development into being a social species of animal, part upbringing - learning from our forebears and retelling of history - part personal experience and realizing what does and doesn't get us ahead with people and our relationships. Makes way more sense than "I read a book given to me by a magic spirit," doesn't it? Besides - almost half of even the 10 commandments themselves aren't even about morality. They
aren't about how you should treat your fellow human beings (beings that actually present themselves within reality), they're about how you should treat God. Does God seriously need coddling by a bunch of human beings in order to feel validated in His relationships? Even as a lowly human, do you think
I'd need praise and adoration from my children in order to feel pride and happiness in seeing them get along okay in life? Can you understand how horribly self-centered it would make me to require mutually exclusive praise and adoration from my children in order to feel good about them as people?
Also, i dont pretend to follow a moral code that i say i believe in.
So you don't care about the ten commandments, or any of the moral prescriptions of The Bible? Isn't Christianity pretty much all about "You'd better follow these rules, or else?" or "Do right, or else?" So I guess you're cool with the "or else" bit then? And if you don't believe in any of that... then why in the world do you call yourself Christian at all?
Also, if im suppose to follow a certain moral code, then SO ARE YOU.
Have I not said enough yet about how I believe that each person follows their own set of morals for you to get that I believe morality to be mostly a subjective matter? Two people can only hope to establish a fairly common grounding for what "morality" means definitionally for them to even come close to making "objective" claims/statement/decisions about what is moral, amoral or immoral.
This is denial now because you told me that me and Jesus cannot use harsh words but its ok for you to. That is a double standard on your part. Thus, YOU told me your standard, thus you break it, thus your the real hypocrite.
If you're always trying to come at a situation in love - even of your enemies, then I simply wondered where calling someone "stupid" in any context is loving. And if you don't believe that one should love even their enemies, then isn't there some amount of The Bible's teaching that you reject? How much of The Bible does one need to accept to be able to label themselves "Christian?" I suppose this is the question I was asking a couple paragraphs ago.
Witness champ?....ambassador?....i dont care about any of that nonsense your talking there. Also if i may add, your interpretation of the bible in regards to witness and ambassador is completely Twisted.
Got it. As a Christian, you don't care how you represent Christianity to the rest of the world. I should have suspected this from the start. Sorry for making assumptions without getting the facts first.
So, you dont think the pope thinks atheism is stupid?
I'm absolutely sure he does! He wouldn't come right out and say it, of course. Again - he has some amount of tact - unlike some people. Which is at least one mark in his favor.
Ok, so your morality is be tempered until provoked and then retaliate? Ok...i can understand that.
Not "until provoked and then retaliate", though I get why you would deduce that. It is more along the lines that whatever I am fed within a relationship with a person i consider a peer - whatever actions/reactions I get from them, I have little choice but to conclude that that person feels that it is okay/right/permissible to act/react in the way they are doing. If it wasn't okay to them, then they wouldn't do it. It's sort of along the lines of the saying "if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen." If you walk into the kitchen, I am going to have to assume you think you can stand the heat. So anything you do to me, be prepared to have come back to you from me within the understanding
you have established in our relationship. You seem to think it is okay to call people's views on God "stupid", so I know that between us, it is entirely permissible for me to do the same about your views on God. It has to be... otherwise, if you didn't feel it was permissible, then you wouldn't have done it first. Of course, there's always the possibility that you think it is permissible for you, but not for others. But one wouldn't want to be labeled a hypocrite, now would they?
For someone who doesnt believe in Jesus, you sure are praising him right now! Lol
Comparing what I know of Jesus to you and your activities I have borne witness to... yeah... Jesus deserves mountains of praise over you.
Also again, i cant help but ask, how is words like "blind fools" and "hypocrites" and "brood of vipers" and "your like your father the devil" and "The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” clever or poetic or metaphor? Medaphor for what?
So, when he said "blind fools" your opinion is that he literally meant the people he was speaking about were blind, right? When he said "brood of vipers", he literally meant they were actual snakes, correct? When he said their father was the devil, he literally meant that they were reproductive spawn of Satan himself, right? Do you even know what the word "metaphor" means? That is now an entirely serious question, because it literally (not metaphorically) appears that you have precisely zero idea.
Also how is saying stuff like that NOT an attack on the charectors he addressed?
It was, but it was at least slightly tactful. Note that he didn't use any words oft heard in early grade-school - like "stupid."
Oh come on, its not that bad, lol. If it makes ya feel better, i like you
Yeah... I'm sure you do.
Your not understanding. Yes, im confident in my views. But, apart from that, when i say other religious peoples views are not important, what i mean by this is in relation to OUR debate. If i was debating another religious person, THEN there views would be important to the discussion. But, since they are not debating here, its me and you, then that means your views and my views are whats important. Another atheists views is not important and another religious persons views are not important. Its just me and you at this time.
This makes sense, and I agree. Only our views matter in a discussion between just you and I. And as I said previously, the tone of our relationship is set by the specific actions of either of us, which become permissible for one or the other party to enact/adopt once the other has taken such action themselves. You prove to people what you find permissible in a peer relationship when you take an action yourself. It then becomes permissible between you both for that action to be taken by either party. To deny this is "do as I say, not as I do." i.e. hypocrisy.
No....no.....i wasnt TRYING to win. I was just comitting myself to logic and i then by ACCIDENT happen to win. Thats the byproduct or side effect of comitment to logic.
Delusional.
