Mr_Anony:
Very interesting.

Logicboy03:

Interesting how you talk through both sides of your mouth:

From one side of your mouth - "Those who reject God have no moral code"
From the other side of your mouth -"Some people are good without God"

You are either a liar or you are just a confused boy.

Mr_Anony:
Interesting how you talk through both sides of your mouth:

From one side of your mouth - "Those who reject God have no moral code"
From the other side of your mouth -"Some people are good without God"

You are either a liar or you are just a confused boy.

Ignorance in excess.


Atheism has no moral code. It is not the same as saying that those without God have no morals. Secular humanism has ethics without god. Many atheists are secular humanists


I am moral because I am a human being not because I am an atheist.





You are very illogical at times

Failed logic of Anony;

Atheism has no moral code = those without God have no moral principles.

Logicboy03:


Ignorance in excess.


Atheism has no moral code. It is not the same as saying that those without God have no morals. Secular humanism has ethics without god. Many atheists are secular humanists


I am moral because I am a human being not because I am an atheist.

You miss it. The moment you say that atheism (the rejection of the belief in God) has no moral codes. It then follows that as long as secular humanism rejects the belief in God, it too cannot have any moral code. You cannot have it both ways.

Also interestingly, the moment you say that the rejection of the belief in God is characterized by the absence of a moral code you have made God the defining factor for morality. Therefore God according to you is the basis for morality. Thank you very much.

You are very illogical at times

Failed logic of Anony;

Atheism has no moral code = those without God have no moral principles.

Lolz, you have just made my point. This quote is priceless.

It is sad that you really think it is bad logic.
Try applying it to any other field and you'll see it makes perfect sense let us give you a few examples to test your logic ability.

The Nigerian police force upholds Nigerian Law = Nigerian policemen uphold Nigerian laws.
Judaism mandates circumcision of all males = All Jewish men are circumcised
Barcelona FC is a highly tactical team = The guys who play for Barcelona FC have high tactical ability.

If you think the three statements above are illogical then you are not logicboy - in the true sense of the word - rather you'd be more like confusedboy

Me and my popcorn......so happy and enjoying the show

*looking like another logicboy-slaughter*

Ihedinobi: Me and my popcorn......so happy and enjoying the show

*looking like another logicboy-slaughter*

If only you can see the way I am laughing here.

Mr_Anony:
If only you can see the way I am laughing here.

Lol

Mr_Anony:
You miss it. The moment you say that atheism (the rejection of the belief in God) has no moral codes. It then follows that as long as secular humanism rejects the belief in God, it too cannot have any moral code. You cannot have it both ways.

Also interestingly, the moment you say that the rejection of the belief in God is characterized by the absence of a moral code you have made God the defining factor for morality. Therefore God according to you is the basis for morality. Thank you very much.

Just witness the abuse of logic here. Anony is losing it.

Atheism has no moral code because it is only a stance on one issue and not because it is a disbelief in God.

You have turned the argument upside down. This is so silly, I cant even believe it.

Belief in god does not = morality.




Yo had to overlook the fact that morality comes from humans not God.


I wonder how you even overlooked the fact that secular humanism has ethics? How silly do you have to become? So now secular humanism doesnt have moral principles?

Mr_Anony:
Lolz, you have just made my point. This quote is priceless.

It is sad that you really think it is bad logic.
Try applying it to any other field and you'll see it makes perfect sense let us give you a few examples to test your logic ability.

The Nigerian police force upholds Nigerian Law = Nigerian policemen uphold Nigerian laws.
Judaism mandates circumcision of all males = All Jewish men are circumcised
Barcelona FC is a highly tactical team = The guys who play for Barcelona FC have high tactical ability.

If you think the three statements above are illogical then you are not logicboy - in the true sense of the word - rather you'd be more like confusedboy

Note that Anony's examples are have no negative statement as the original argument

Here is Anony's logical failure

Atheism has no moral code = those without god have no moral princples
Veganism has no moral code = those without meat in their diet have no moral codes
Veganism has no view of goverment = those without meat in their diet have no view of government.


Anony makes the fallacy that people cant hold two or more concepts that address different issues. Veganism is a diet it doesnt address morality or Govt. Just a atheism doesnt address morality. People can be atheist and humanist or atheist and buddhists


Anony follows the fallacy that atheism has no moral codes because of God. No. It has no moral code bacuse it is only a simple stance not a body of philosophy or religion.

And Ihedinobi has to come and support his masters foolishness

Lolz, This just became funnier

Logicboy03:

Atheism has no moral code because it is only a stance on one issue and not because it is a disbelief in God.

I believe that the stance you are referring to is the disbelief in God. So essentially all you have done here is say

"Atheism has no moral code because it only takes the stance that there is no God and not because it rejects the belief in God."
This my friend is a blatant contradiction.

Yo had to overlook the fact that morality comes from humans not God.

and upon what is this "fact" based?

I wonder how you even overlooked the fact that secular humanism has ethics? How silly do you have to become? So now secular humanism doesnt have moral principles?

You have still not logically shown how it does. Read my comment again.

Note that Anony's examples are have no negative statement as the original argument

Here is Anony's logical failure

Atheism has no moral code = those without god have no moral princples
Veganism has no moral code = those without meat in their diet have no moral codes
Veganism has no view of goverment = those without meat in their diet have no view of government.

You see this reply would have made sense if veganism was in any way connected to government or morality.

But then atheism is not neutral in the same way as veganism is. Theists hold God as the basis for morality. God by definition is the absolute moral law giver for all creation. Therefore atheism becomes the stance that the absolute moral law giver does not exist.

Let us look at your definition again:

"Atheism (the rejection of an ultimate moral law giver for all humanity) has no moral code = those who reject an absolute moral law-giver for all mankind have no moral principles." makes perfect sense.

Veganism (the rejection of meat) has no moral code = ? What has rejecting meat got to with morality??

Anony makes the fallacy that people cant hold two or more concepts that address different issues. Veganism is a diet it doesnt address morality or Govt. Just a atheism doesnt address morality. People can be atheist and humanist or atheist and buddhists

As shown above, atheism addresses morality big time it is not as neutral as you are trying to make it out to be unless you want to tell me that atheism rejects God but does not reject an absolute moral law giver for all mankind. Then not only will you have to define your absolute moral law giver, you will also have to explain this your special type of atheism.

Anony follows the fallacy that atheism has no moral codes because of God. No. It has no moral code bacuse it is only a simple stance not a body of philosophy or religion.

Lol, All you are doing is making a statement then contradicting it with a rephrased statement. Immediately you expand what is meant by that "simple stance" you run into trouble.

Here we go basically this is what you are saying:

Statement 1. atheism has no moral codes because of God. No. (It is not because of God that Atheism has no moral code)

Statement 2. It has no moral code bacuse it is only a simple stance (Atheism has no moral code because of it's stance on God)

Blatant Contradiction.


If only you can see how much you amuse me sometimes. You are really a confused boy.

A stance is not a moral framework. Theism has no moral codes just like atheism. Atheism has no moral codes because it is only a stance.


Simple short and effective answer to Anony's silliness.


S.tupid claims by Anony;


a) Secular humanism has no moral principles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_ethics#Humanist_ethics


b) Atheism is not neutral to morality because christians like Anony dont see it as neutral

Mr_Anony:

You see this reply would have made sense if veganism was in any way connected to government or morality.

But then atheism is not neutral in the same way as veganism is. Theists hold God as the basis for morality. God by definition is the absolute moral law giver for all creation. Therefore atheism becomes the stance that the absolute moral law giver does not exist.

Satanists are also theists. They dont believe in an absolute moral authority.
Some bhuddists are also theists. they dont believe in an absolute moral authority. Many paths to morality

This is what happens when you take your theology as fact. Your christian definition of god is not binding and it is not the only definition.


c) Atheism rejects an ultimate moral law giver

Mr_Anony:
Let us look at your definition again:

"Atheism (the rejection of an ultimate moral law giver for all humanity) has no moral code = those who reject an absolute moral law-giver for all mankind have no moral principles." makes perfect sense.

Atheism is rejection of belief in gods. Your definition of god is for you only and not fact. Unitarian christians do not define God like you.

Furthermore, there are atheist that believe in an absolute moral giver. They are called communists and they believe in the state as final authority.

d) Atheism addresses morality.

Mr_Anony:
Veganism (the rejection of meat) has no moral code = ? What has rejecting meat got to with morality??

As shown above, atheism addresses morality big time it is not as neutral as you are trying to make it out to be unless you want to tell me that atheism rejects God but does not reject an absolute moral law giver for all mankind. Then not only will you have to define your absolute moral law giver, you will also have to explain this your special type of atheism.

What has rejecting god got to do with morality?

Ethnic cleansing i say, from the very start. Yep, a slaughter. From the moment that statement was made "atheism has no moral codes."

rhowly: Ethnic cleansing i say, from the very start. Yep, a slaughter. From the moment that statement was made "atheism has no moral codes."

The peeps that did major ethnic cleansing were religious.

Logicboy03:


The peeps that did major ethnic cleansing were religious.

I guess they are at it again. You have something else to bludgeon christians with now? No

Logicboy03:

A stance is not a moral framework. Theism has no moral codes just like atheism. Atheism has no moral codes because it is only a stance.

That's a lie.
There are Christian theists - their morality stems from their belief in God (theism), there are muslim theists - Their morality stems from their theism (belief in Allah), Igbo traditionalist theists whose moral codes stem from their theism (belief in their many gods).

There is no one whose moral codes come from their atheism.

Simple short and effective answer to Anony's silliness.


S.tupid claims by Anony;


a) Secular humanism has no moral principles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_ethics#Humanist_ethics

As long as secular humanism is atheistic, it cannot logically have any moral codes. You have to show how atheism has no moral codes but an atheistic ideology magically managed to spring up one

b) Atheism is not neutral to morality because christians like Anony dont see it as neutral

Nonsense. It was you who said atheism has no moral codes

Satanists are also theists. They dont believe in an absolute moral authority.

Satanists are not theists they do not worship God and they don't worship Satan either. According to them Satan is the misunderstood rebel who all he wanted was to show them how to be free. They have no moral code as well, and so they claim that there is no such thing as good and evil and every man should do what he/she wills. (consult your satanist friend advocate666 on this.....Why do you think he keps insisting that all atheists are really satanists?)

Some bhuddists are also theists. they dont believe in an absolute moral authority. Many paths to morality

Lolz, so Buddhism is now both theistic and atheistic to help you out abi? I can almost bet that you don't know what Buddhism is if you were asked to define it. Besides if it is true as you claim that Buddhism has many paths to morality, then I can comfortably say that Buddhism has no moral code. In the same way that I would say that the Nigerian army has no code of conduct if the Nigerian Army didn't have a specific code of conduct but are allowed to conduct themselves in any way they saw fit.

This is what happens when you take your theology as fact. Your christian definition of god is not binding and it is not the only definition.

Lololol, this is what happens when you try to eat your cake and have it.

c) Atheism rejects an ultimate moral law giver

Therefore atheism has no moral code

Atheism is rejection of belief in gods. Your definition of god is for you only and not fact. Unitarian christians do not define God like you.

Furthermore, there are atheist that believe in an absolute moral giver. They are called communists and they believe in the state as final authority.

d) Atheism addresses morality.

Perhaps you'll have to define for us the definition of God you are opposed to.

What has rejecting god got to do with morality?

Everything

Mr_Anony: Satanists are not theists they do notworship God and they don't worship Satan either. According to them Satan is the misunderstood rebel who all he wanted was to show them how to be free. They have no moral code as well, and so they claim that there is no such thing as good and evil and every man should do what he/she wills. (consult your satanist friend advocate666 on this.....Why do you think he keps insisting that all atheists are really satanists?)

wow this thread has potential for educating me on types of atheist. Wow

[/quote] Enigma:

- No monarchical "bishop" or clergy; instead if we must say they had "bishops" in the true biblical sense of overseers, then again their pattern conforms with biblical expectation and that line from The Didache: "appoint for yourselves bishops".

- I think this description is comparable to (what I understand of) the China house church movement in the face of persecution.

- Should any of us meet with members of such groups, are we going to say they are not members of the true Church of Christ because they do not belong to a particular denomination or because they do not submit to the "authority" of the head of a particular denomination.

- Should members of those groups attend a service in our "denomination", are we going to refuse them Holy Communion? ****


**** Anecdote (based on true events).

Currently, a TV series is running in the UK focusing on the work of the leading Anglican church i.e. Westminster Abbey. In one episode, they mentioned and showed pictures from when the Roman Catholic pope visited the UK. The Anglicans are of course easy going generally and have no qualms about allowing visiting Roman Catholics to participate in Holy Communion in an Anglican service. A subsequent episode showed the return visit to Rome (the Vatican) by senior clergy of the Abbey and its Choir. The Choir of the Abbey and of the Vatican (St Peter's Basilica) sang together. However, both the Choir of the Abbey and even the most senior clergy of the Abbey were unable to participate in "Holy Communion" in the Roman Catholic service. Nuff said! [quote]

I shudder to think about how a once respecter forunmite like you have degenerated to such levels of bigotry and hatred.The poster makes no attempt to praise any denomination but rather the courage,dedication and resoluteness of these japanese matyrs.Can't you for once let go of your sectarian tantrums.


You are really pathetic and a far cry from the enigma of yesteryears.

@ chukwudi44

First of all Happy Christmas. To be honest, I am answering your post above because I repented when I remembered that today is Christmas; my initial reaction was either to ignore the post or to say "go and call police".

So, an explanation: when I started commenting on the claims that the Roman Catholic Church "gave us the Bible" etc etc etc, I did not criticise or insult the RCC or its members. My intention was to correct misinformaton and help people have a better perspective of things.

My own commitment is not to any denomination but to the Christian Church, to the Church of Christ, to the catholic i.e. universal Church.

Unfortunately, you and some other Roman Catholics (and some other people with an axe to grind) decided to turn it all into a fight throwing all kinds of insult at me even just as you have done with my post above; well, I am not going to pretend to be the most patient person here but yet I actually did give you people quite some leeway before I too started coming hard at you lot and at the RCC

Take a pause for a minute: my post that you have responded to above: look at it again ----- carefully.

1. Tell me what is untrue in it.
2. Tell me what insults the Roman Catholic Church in it
3. In addressing issue 2, consider whether criticism automatically means insult.
4. Consider whether criticism could be intended to make the criticised person/institution repent, reconsider and improve to become a better person/institution.
5. Will the Nigerian Anglican archbishop today or say Desmond Tutu or say Rowan Williams be allowed Holy Communion in the lowliest Roman Catholic Church in Nigeria or anywhere else today? Is that a good thing ---- even despite different views on transubstantiation?

As far as I'm concerned, I am ready to discuss with anyone in an atmosphere of respect; and if you people had shown respect, I would have maintained respect to you people.

Joy to the world the Lord is king.

Mr_Anony:
That's a lie.
There are Christian theists - their morality stems from their belief in God (theism), there are muslim theists - Their morality stems from their theism (belief in Allah), Igbo traditionalist theists whose moral codes stem from their theism (belief in their many gods).

There is no one whose moral codes come from their atheism.

Theism is a stance on the belief in god. Theism just like atheism are only stances. A stance is not a moral framework.

Religion has a moral framework not theism. That is why yo had to put a religion before "theism" in your reply. You know you have lost the argument here.


So, let take theists who believe that God is just a force or just energy in all of us. Does that create a moral framework?

Belief in god does not equate to a moral framework. There are many gods


You have clearly lost the argument.


How can theism be a moral framework or a moral code? Theism is only a stance on the existence of God. A stance is not a moral framework. The God that one believes in might be a non-interventionist God.


A stance is not a moral framework. Easy and simple.

Mr_Anony:
As long as secular humanism is atheistic, it cannot logically have any moral codes. You have to show how atheism has no moral codes but an atheistic ideology magically managed to spring up one

[size=18pt]
Secular humanism has moral principles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_ethics#Humanist_ethics
[/size]

You choose to be ignorant of facts. So what then is left to argue


A theistic ideology would be greater than theism. The same way an atheistic ideology would be greater than atheism. This is why your comment is fallacious when you reason that since atheism has no moral principles, an atheistic ideology has no moral principles.


For instance Veganism is simply a stance on eating vegetables (eating only vegetables)

A Veganist ideology like environmental vegetarianism has principles on the environment.

The ideology is greater than the stance.

Mr_Anony:
Nonsense. It was you who said atheism has no moral codes

And rightly so.

Mr_Anony:
Satanists are not theists they do not worship God and they don't worship Satan either. According to them Satan is the misunderstood rebel who all he wanted was to show them how to be free. They have no moral code as well, and so they claim that there is no such thing as good and evil and every man should do what he/she wills. (consult your satanist friend advocate666 on this.....Why do you think he keps insisting that all atheists are really satanists?)

Satanists are not theists? Satanism has different versions. Just because you were a Satanist, it doesnt mean that your Satanism is the only one.


Anony arguing with facts agains;

Theistic Satanism (also known as Traditional Satanism, Spiritual Satanism or Devil Worship) is a form of Satanism with the primary belief that Satan is an actual deity or force to revere or worship.[

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanism#Theistic_Satanism

Mr_Anony:
Lolz, so Buddhism is now both theistic and atheistic to help you out abi? I can almost bet that you don't know what Buddhism is if you were asked to define it. Besides if it is true as you claim that Buddhism has many paths to morality, then I can comfortably say that Buddhism has no moral code. In the same way that I would say that the Nigerian army has no code of conduct if the Nigerian Army didn't have a specific code of conduct but are allowed to conduct themselves in any way they saw fit.

Buddhism is both theistic and athestic. That is a fact. Depends on your version of Buddhism.

Why do you argue against facts? You have clearly lost the argument.


Buddhism has moral princples. It depends on your version of Buddhism. Some follow a strict code. Some follow a a morality of many paths.

[size=18pt]You choose to define everything from a christian worldview and you have become an intolerant and ignorant bigot. First you show your ignorance on Satanism, claiming that there is no theist version of it and now claiming that there arent both theist and atheistic versions of buddhism.

It doesnt even stop there, you go on to claim that secular humanism has no moral principles.

[/size]

Mr_Anony:
Therefore atheism has no moral code



Perhaps you'll have to define for us the definition of God you are opposed to.

God has various meanings. You choose a christian version of it. God could be a force or a pink unicorn. Or even Yaweh, a blood thirsty liar according to some versions of satanism

Wow, Anony destroyed again.

Lol. you are such a confused boy

Logicboy03:
Theism is a stance on the belief in god. Theism just like atheism are only stances. A stance is not a moral framework.

Nonsense. One clearly leads to a moral framework while the other does not.
This is just like having a stance that laws exists while another person holds that there are no such things as laws.

What you are trying to claim here is that somehow the anti-law guy has a legal framework he adheres to and his stance that no laws exist is just a stance and has nothing to do with his legality. What law the can he logically claim he is abiding by? Please stop being silly

Religion has a moral framework not theism. That is why yo had to put a religion before "theism" in your reply. You know you have lost the argument here.

The bolded is just as stupid as saying the "judiciary punishes criminals not the law"

So, let take theists who believe that God is just a force or just energy in all of us. Does that create a moral framework?

Belief in god does not equate to a moral framework. There are many gods

perhaps you should go look up the meaning of deity then come back and tell us how "a force" fits that description

You have clearly lost the argument.

lol, first you need to actually make an argument, then perhaps we'll talk about winning or losing

How can theism be a moral framework or a moral code? Theism is only a stance on the existence of God. A stance is not a moral framework. The God that one believes in might be a non-interventionist God.


A stance is not a moral framework. Easy and simple.

Interesting......I did't know we had now switched the argument from "atheism has no moral code" to "atheism is not a moral code".

Secondly, what exactly is a "non-intervetionist God"? At least we can tell God exists by what He does. How can you tell God exists if God does nothing at all?

[size=18pt]
Secular humanism has moral principles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_ethics#Humanist_ethics
[/size]

You choose to be ignorant of facts. So what then is left to argue


A theistic ideology would be greater than theism. The same way an atheistic ideology would be greater than atheism. This is why your comment is fallacious when you reason that since atheism has no moral principles, an atheistic ideology has no moral principles.

Nonsense as usual. There is no way you can deny the existence of a law-giver and yet magically manufacture laws that ought to be obeyed. This is how stupid it looks

atheist humanist: " there is no law-giver but here are some laws you ought to keep"
layman: "who made the laws you are giving me?"
atheist humanist: "no one"
layman:right

For instance Veganism is simply a stance on eating vegetables (eating only vegetables)

A Veganist ideology like environmental vegetarianism has principles on the environment.

The ideology is greater than the stance.

Wrong. First of all, veganism is a full-blown ideology but more to the point you are trying to make: There is a visible logical connection between "I will not consume animal products" and "I will not consume animal products so that I can save the environment"

I see no logical connection between: "There is no absolute moral law-giver to tell us how we ought to live" and "this is how you ought to live . . .and this way of living is better than that other way of living"

How come? what kind of logical high jump took you from no law-giver to laws that ought to be obeyed?

And rightly so.

Exactly! Atheism has no moral code

Satanists are not theists? Satanism has different versions. Just because you were a Satanist, it doesnt mean that your Satanism is the only one.


Anony arguing with facts agains;


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanism#Theistic_Satanism

Buddhism is both theistic and athestic. That is a fact. Depends on your version of Buddhism.

Why do you argue against facts? You have clearly lost the argument.

Lol...Still changes nothing. Once a person actually worships satan, satan's laws become his/her moral code same applies for theistic buddhism. Once you define the practice as atheistic, you have removed the moral law-givers and as a result, you are immediately left with no moral laws.
You need to actually make a point first before declaring "victory". Please stop claiming premature victories, they only make you look silly.

Buddhism has moral princples. It depends on your version of Buddhism.

Lol, which version has moral principles and which version doesn't? My bet is it'll correspond to whether it is theistic or atheistic.

Some follow a strict code. Some follow a a morality of many paths.

Imagine London didn't have strict traffic code but was a city of "legality of many paths" where everyone chose for themselves what laws they wanted to keep and which laws they wanted to ignore i.e. park anywhere you like, drive at any speed you like, disobey the traffic lights you don't like and obey the ones you like all in the name "many paths to legal enlightenment". I think it'll be fair to say London would be a lawless city like some third world cities you and I know of. Wouldn't you agree?

[size=18pt]You choose to define everything from a christian worldview and you have become an intolerant and ignorant bigot. First you show your ignorance on Satanism, claiming that there is no theist version of it and now claiming that there arent both theist and atheistic versions of buddhism.

Oh shut up already, increasing the font and calling me a bigot does not excuse you from the nonsense argument you are making.
Isn't it interesting how whenever you define any of the above practices as atheistic, it immediately loses any moral codes we can identify.
Perhaps you can tell us exactly what moral principles atheistic buddhism/atheistic satanism has.

It doesnt even stop there, you go on to claim that secular humanism has no moral principles.

The question before you is: How exactly does your secular humanism define any moral principles while denying a moral law giver?
Maybe you should concentrate on showing us how that works instead of calling people names

God has various meanings. You choose a christian version of it. God could be a force or a pink unicorn. Or even Yaweh, a blood thirsty liar according to some versions of satanism

Lol, if your God has various meanings, it makes your atheism difficult to define. So which version of atheism is yours because I also don't believe in a blood thirsty lying god neither do I believe in a "force god" or pink unicorn god but I don't consider myself a atheist. I wonder how you can seriously call yourself a person who rejects God when you cannot even properly define the concept of God that you claim to reject. You make me laugh.

Mr_Anony: Lol. you are such a confused boy

Yes, how ironic from Mr. No name-calling

Mr_Anony:
Nonsense. One clearly leads to a moral framework while the other does not.
This is just like having a stance that laws exists while another person holds that there are no such things as laws.

Theism leads to a moral framework? (Theism is simply defined as belief in at least one god). Note that even if you are right, you have admitted that theism doesnt have any moral codes or framework, it only leads to one.

You are wrong;
-belief in God does not lead to a moral framework eg a deist does not believe in a God that gives us morality.


Contradiction of the day;
"Atheism leads to Satanism." Anony

Isnt Satan a god?

Mr_Anony:

What you are trying to claim here is that somehow the anti-law guy has a legal framework he adheres to and his stance that no laws exist is just a stance and has nothing to do with his legality. What law the can he logically claim he is abiding by? Please stop being silly

The bolded is just as stupid as saying the "judiciary punishes criminals not the law"

"Anti-law" guy? Is this another foolish attempt to label atheists as "anti-moral" or "immoral" people?

No one denies that there is morality or morals. Atheists will tell you that there is morality, just not from "God" or an absolute autheroity.

Mr_Anony:
perhaps you should go look up the meaning of deity then come back and tell us how "a force" fits that description

Fallacy of equivocation.

God is not always = Deity

All deities are gods but not all gods are deities.

Mr_Anony:
lol, first you need to actually make an argument, then perhaps we'll talk about winning or losing

Yawn. So what have you been responding to? Were you responding to foolish talk from me? Wouldnt that make you a bigger fool?

Mr_Anony:
Interesting......I did't know we had now switched the argument from "atheism has no moral code" to "atheism is not a moral code".

Even if I switched anything, how different are the two statements in quote? If you have nothing to say just keep quiet

Mr_Anony:
Secondly, what exactly is a "non-intervetionist God"? At least we can tell God exists by what He does. How can you tell God exists if God does nothing at all?

Another fallacious argument from Anony


non-interventionist = nothing.

a) Some people believe that a god created the world and then just f4cked off
b) Some people think that god is the force/energy around us.
c) Some peopleblieve that god is in everything.

Mr_Anony:
Nonsense as usual. There is no way you can deny the existence of a law-giver and yet magically manufacture laws that ought to be obeyed. This is how stupid it looks

atheist humanist: " there is no law-giver but here are some laws you ought to keep"
layman: "who made the laws you are giving me?"
atheist humanist: "no one"
layman:right

Fails
-ignores the human law giver
-Secular humanists give ethics from the point that human life can be improved and that actions should be to the benefit of human kind. They stress on principles that are based on sound logic and reasoning.

Mr_Anony:
Wrong. First of all, veganism is a full-blown ideology but more to the point you are trying to make: There is a visible logical connection between "I will not consume animal products" and "I will not consume animal products so that I can save the environment"


I see no logical connection between: "There is no absolute moral law-giver to tell us how we ought to live" and "this is how you ought to live . . .and this way of living is better than that other way of living"

-Veganism is not a full blown ideology. A vegan is someone who abstains from eating animal products. Maybe you are talking about ethical veganism.
-My cousin is a vegan for the sole reason of bowel problems when he eats meat and diary products.

There is no absolute moral law giver.
-The above statement doesnt mean that there isnt a moral law giver, it is just that there is no absolute one.
-Not everyone defines their god as an absolute law giver (stop pushing your christian theology as fact)

Mr_Anony:
How come? what kind of logical high jump took you from no law-giver to laws that ought to be obeyed?

How foolish. There is no absolute law giver. Absolute being the keyword.

Mr_Anony:
Lol...Still changes nothing. Once a person actually worships satan, satan's laws become his/her moral code same applies for theistic buddhism. Once you define the practice as atheistic, you have removed the moral law-givers and as a result, you are immediately left with no moral laws.
You need to actually make a point first before declaring "victory". Please stop claiming premature victories, they only make you look silly.

The theistic Satanism I have read about puts morality at the feet of the individual. The individual needs to be enlightened by himself. Personal freedom and liberty is stressed.

Furthermore, it is great that you have conceded in your flop in morality

Were you really a satanist or was it witchcraft that you were into?

Mr_Anony:
Lol, which version has moral principles and which version doesn't? My bet is it'll correspond to whether it is theistic or atheistic.

Why bet? Why not sure? There are many atheistic buddhists who derive their morality from their ability to reason and understand societal culture.

Mr_Anony:
Imagine London didn't have strict traffic code but was a city of "legality of many paths" where everyone chose for themselves what laws they wanted to keep and which laws they wanted to ignore i.e. park anywhere you like, drive at any speed you like, disobey the traffic lights you don't like and obey the ones you like all in the name "many paths to legal enlightenment". I think it'll be fair to say London would be a lawless city like some third world cities you and I know of. Wouldn't you agree?

-You just made a point against your absolute moral giver. Society is one of the basis for morality. How did we agree that traffic lights are okay? Nothing like that is in the bible.

The trafiic code is different in some countries. Many paths. Japan doesnt have roundabouts.

Mr_Anony:
Oh shut up already, increasing the font and calling me a bigot does not excuse you from the nonsense argument you are making.
Isn't it interesting how whenever you define any of the above practices as atheistic, it immediately loses any moral codes we can identify.
Perhaps you can tell us exactly what moral principles atheistic buddhism/atheistic satanism has.

Yu have said secular humanists have no morality or at least are morally confused.
You claimed that there is no theistic version of buddhism

Calling you a bigot is justified

Mr_Anony:
The question before you is: How exactly does your secular humanism define any moral principles while denying a moral law giver?
Maybe you should concentrate on showing us how that works instead of calling people names

Yawn. Morality comes from humans in humanism. So, keep repeating this failed lie that humanists deby a moral law giver.

An absiolute law giver is different from just a law giver

Mr_Anony:
Lol, if your God has various meanings, it makes your atheism difficult to define. So which version of atheism is yours because I also don't believe in a blood thirsty lying god neither do I believe in a "force god" or pink unicorn god but I don't consider myself a atheist. I wonder how you can seriously call yourself a person who rejects God when you cannot even properly define the concept of God that you claim to reject. You make me laugh.

Atheists dont make the claim. Theists do. Why are you ignirant of the burden of proof?


I dont need to definine your god. You have to. And so far, no one has brought a god that meets the evidence.

@Anony,

who do you think deserve more respect.

A man who is morally good because his religious codes mandate him to be morally good and expecting reward for being good while avoiding punishment.

or

A man who is morally good because he really choose to be morally good. He is not expecting reward or trying to avoid punishment.

Logicboy03:
Yes, how ironic from Mr. No name-calling

Lol, pointing out your confusion is not name-calling. Confused you are.

Theism leads to a moral framework? (Theism is simply defined as belief in at least one god). Note that even if you are right, you have admitted that theism doesnt have any moral codes or framework, it only leads to one.

I have made no such admission. I have clearly shown you that an inalienable property of belief in God is a moral framework

You are wrong;
-belief in God does not lead to a moral framework eg a deist does not believe in a God that gives us morality.

I am sure our resident deist: DeepSight will disagree with you.

Contradiction of the day;
"Atheism leads to Satanism." Anony

red herring

Isnt Satan a god?

No he isn't

"Anti-law" guy? Is this another foolish attempt to label atheists as "anti-moral" or "immoral" people?

Learn to understand analogies

No one denies that there is morality or morals. Atheists will tell you that there is morality, just not from "God" or an absolute autheroity.

If there is no absolute authority, why live by them? Why not simply flout them?

Fallacy of equivocation.

God is not always = Deity

All deities are gods but not all gods are deities.

Lol really? who taught you that? All the same, to make it clearer for you; A theist is one who believes in deity.

Yawn. So what have you been responding to? Were you responding to foolish talk from me? Wouldnt that make you a bigger fool?

Actually now I think about it you are quite right. I really do bring myself low when I respond to you. . . . The things I do for the sake of friendship. Lol

Even if I switched anything, how different are the two statements in quote? If you have nothing to say just keep quiet

Seriously you can't see it? I really can't help you.

Another fallacious argument from Anony
non-interventionist = nothing.
a) Some people believe that a god created the world and then just f4cked off
b) Some people think that god is the force/energy around us.
c) Some peopleblieve that god is in everything.

They are all wrong and cannot be classified as theists.
a) God has ceased to exist = God does not exist
b) God cannot be perceived in any way whatsoever, has no definite characteristics and does nothing = God doesn't exist
c) God is everything therefore indistinct from anything else. God is nothing in particular = God doesn't exist

Fails
-ignores the human law giver
-Secular humanists give ethics from the point that human life can be improved and that actions should be to the benefit of human kind. They stress on principles that are based on sound logic and reasoning.

The question you have not yet answered is: Why should these ethics be binding on all or any humans?

-Veganism is not a full blown ideology. A vegan is someone who abstains from eating animal products. Maybe you are talking about ethical veganism.
-My cousin is a vegan for the sole reason of bowel problems when he eats meat and diary products.

You were the one who brought up veganism. I suggest you look up the meaning of the term. Your cousin has a medical condition. It does not make him a vegan. There is much more to veganism than just not eating meat. That would be like defining a Jew as someone who doesn't eat bacon in which case those with bacon allergies would all be Jews. It doesn't follow.

There is no absolute moral law giver.
-The above statement doesnt mean that there isnt a moral law giver, it is just that there is no absolute one.
-Not everyone defines their god as an absolute law giver (stop pushing your christian theology as fact)
How foolish. There is no absolute law giver. Absolute being the keyword.

Then you are burdened with the question: If there is no absolute moral law giver, why should any moral laws be binding on all humans?

The theistic Satanism I have read about puts morality at the feet of the individual. The individual needs to be enlightened by himself. Personal freedom and liberty is stressed.

How does this differ from what I said earlier?

Mr_Anony:
Satanists are not theists they do not worship God and they don't worship Satan either. According to them Satan is the misunderstood rebel who all he wanted was to show them how to be free. They have no moral code as well, and so they claim that there is no such thing as good and evil and every man should do what he/she wills. (consult your satanist friend advocate666 on this.....Why do you think he keps insisting that all atheists are really satanists?)

You are just arguing in circles. You can't just throw in the words "atheistic" and "theistic" as you deem fit. You are using the wrong terms. It doesn't matter if you switch the brands on two bottles, the contents remain the same.

Furthermore, it is great that you have conceded in your flop in morality
Were you really a satanist or was it witchcraft that you were into?

Lol, this is not even worth a response.

Why bet? Why not sure? There are many atheistic buddhists who derive their morality from their ability to reason and understand societal culture.

What part of "I would bet" don't you understand? You are yet to show me moral codes that define an "atheistic buddhist" whatever that even means.

-You just made a point against your absolute moral giver. Society is one of the basis for morality. How did we agree that traffic lights are okay? Nothing like that is in the bible.

The trafiic code is different in some countries. Many paths. Japan doesnt have roundabouts.

As usual, analogies are lost on you.
The point you failed to see is this: As far as London traffic is concerned, TFL/The UK government is the absolute law giver. What gives them the right to dictate how people should use the roads? Well, for starters, they created the roads in the first place.
In the same way, as far as this universe is concerned, God is the absolute moral law giver. What gives Him the right? Well, for starters He created the whole Universe. You need to learn what an analogy is and how it is used in speech.

Yu have said secular humanists have no morality or at least are morally confused.

Yes I have more or less. As long as you deny the existence of an absolute moral law giver, you have essentially denied the existence of an absolute moral law. This means you cannot tell anyone that any form of ethics is right and that he/she ought to live by it. It is really funny how anyone can say that he/she has developed ethics from logic and reason when at the core of it - at a very basic level - it defies the very same logic and reason it claims to uphold.

You claimed that there is no theistic version of buddhism

Never made such a claim.

Calling you a bigot is justified

Lol, how bigotted of you.

Yawn. Morality comes from humans in humanism. So, keep repeating this failed lie that humanists deby a moral law giver.

An absiolute law giver is different from just a law giver

Lol, how is this different from saying everyone is free to do whatever seems right in their own eyes with no absolute good and evil?

Atheists dont make the claim. Theists do. Why are you ignirant of the burden of proof?
I dont need to definine your god. You have to. And so far, no one has brought a god that meets the evidence.

The question here is not a question of proof but that of definition, You cannot claim to reject something if you cannot even properly define it.


So far my friend you have danced around and not provided any logical argument. You said atheism has no moral codes. I agreed with you totally on that. You are now trying to magically spring an argument somehow atheists have this moral codes which you have consistently failed to define or provide a basis upon which these "moral laws" would be binding for anyone.

I will not drag this further than it needs to go, it gets boring if it is stretched for long enough. All I need from you is to provide for me the moral codes that an atheist must live by and tell me why such a moral code should be binding on any atheist. Failure to do this and we can conclude that Atheists do not have a moral code. (Yes I said atheists)

cyrexx: @Anony,

who do you think deserve more respect.

A man who is morally good because his religious codes mandate him to be morally good and expecting reward for being good while avoiding punishment.

or

A man who is morally good because he really choose to be morally good. He is not expecting reward or trying to avoid punishment.

The problem with your question is this:

For it to even be good for one to do good without expecting a reward, there must have been a reward in the first place which the person would feel morally righteous to reject. If as atheists claim, there is really no reward for good and punishment for evil at all, why then is it good or evil?

Let me give you a small analogy: Nigeria has laws: criminals will be punished and heroes will be celebrated. If a hero says don't celebrate me, he will be applauded for being modest. He wouldn't be modest if there wasn't going to be any celebration in the first place. His heroism would only be something he just did. There would be no deserved applause to even reject in the first place. Do you see what I mean?

@ Anony

lolz....I am not even going to bother to reply you. You have lost the argument time and time again.




Summary of Anony's fails
-No theism in Satanism
-Theism leads to a moral code/framework (lol...Jihadists)
-Ignorance that there are both theistic and atheistic versions of Buddhism
-Atheism denies a moral law giver (wrong, it denies god)
-Contradiction; Atheism leads to Satanism (Satan is a god) but atheism has no moral code while theism has a moral framework
-The UK/TFL is the absolute law giver for transport. Erm, the govt can change and the TFL renamed or dissolved. They arent absolute.
-Satan is not a god. Ehem, theistic satanism, anyone?
-Someone who eats only vegetables and not animal products is not a vegan.........



This and many other fails

^^^Smh. . . It is really pitiful how you reason. What is even sadder is that you cannot see how poorly you reason.

Mr_Anony:
The problem with your question is this:

For it to even be good for one to do good without expecting a reward, there must have been a reward in the first place which the person would feel morally righteous to reject. If as atheists claim, there is really no reward for good and punishment for evil at all, why then is it good or evil?

Let me give you a small analogy: Nigeria has laws: criminals will be punished and heroes will be celebrated. If a hero says don't celebrate me, he will be applauded for being modest. He wouldn't be modest if there wasn't going to be any celebration in the first place. His heroism would only be something he just did. There would be no deserved applause to even reject in the first place. Do you see what I mean?

Let's continue the discussion here

thanks

Enigma: @ chukwudi44

First of all Happy Christmas. To be honest, I am answering your post above because I repented when I remembered that today is Christmas; my initial reaction was either to ignore the post or to say "go and call police".

So, an explanation: when I started commenting on the claims that the Roman Catholic Church "gave us the Bible" etc etc etc, I did not criticise or insult the RCC or its members. My intention was to correct misinformaton and help people have a better perspective of things.

My own commitment is not to any denomination but to the Christian Church, to the Church of Christ, to the catholic i.e. universal Church.

Unfortunately, you and some other Roman Catholics (and some other people with an axe to grind) decided to turn it all into a fight throwing all kinds of insult at me even just as you have done with my post above; well, I am not going to pretend to be the most patient person here but yet I actually did give you people quite some leeway before I too started coming hard at you lot and at the RCC

Take a pause for a minute: my post that you have responded to above: look at it again ----- carefully.

1. Tell me what is untrue in it.
2. Tell me what insults the Roman Catholic Church in it
3. In addressing issue 2, consider whether criticism automatically means insult.
4. Consider whether criticism could be intended to make the criticised person/institution repent, reconsider and improve to become a better person/institution.
5. Will the Nigerian Anglican archbishop today or say Desmond Tutu or say Rowan Williams be allowed Holy Communion in the lowliest Roman Catholic Church in Nigeria or anywhere else today? Is that a good thing ---- even despite different views on transubstantiation?

As far as I'm concerned, I am ready to discuss with anyone in an atmosphere of respect; and if you people had shown respect, I would have maintained respect to you people.

Joy to the world the Lord is king.

You are a pathetic m.o.r.o.n.what has all these got to do with topic being discussed? Did the op mention holy communion or anything like that in his opening post? Your bigotry infested head would make you type otherwise just because the catholic church was mentioned

chukwudi44:

You are a pathetic m.o.r.o.n.what has all these got to do with topic being discussed? Did the op mention holy communion or anything like that in his opening post? Your bigotry infested head would make you type otherwise just because the catholic church was mentioned

You see yourself. In your post, you abused me; I tried to be friendly and even wished you well; you come back at me with even more abuse. When I hit you now you will start crying and whining. Anyway, I will try and be understanding one more time because I recognise say na so de thing dey pain you reach.

Oh, by the way my posts have been very much in line with the message and intent of the opening post.

Will the Roman Catholic Church allow those Japanese Christians to take part in its "Holy Communion"?

This thread o sweet jare. Characters everywhere.

cyrexx:

Let's continue the discussion here

thanks

Respectfully, I would prefer we continued the discussion here on this thread. I don't see the benefit of continuing on a thread of which the title is phrased with the intention of mocking my person.

It has become part of logicboy's mode of operation to mock people he disagrees with when he can't make a good argument. He did the same thing with Joagbaje a while ago by chasing him all over forum calling him unfavourable names. Of recent he has been opening a slew of threads whose titles are already biased in the sense that they paint me in a bad light even before I comment on them.

I have obliged him enough in that regard and I no longer intend to help him along in his smear campaign. You can post your reply here if you want us to continue this discussion.