"If I hold to a moral position that it is bad, wrong, undesirable to murder?"
Please understand that "bad, wrong, undesirable" do not exist in any objective sense in the world of the atheist. They are merely ice cream flavors. There is no objective difference between Mother Teresa and Hitler on atheism - in fact arguments can be made using evolution that Mother Teresa was "better" than Hitler.
18 comments
"Please understand that "bad, wrong, undesirable" do not exist in any objective sense in the world of the atheist. They are merely ice cream flavors."
That's what it looks like to someone like WorldGoneCrazy, since they belive that morality is all about obedience to authority. Especially the ultimate authority, God.
'If you *don't* believe in God, you don't believe you're under His authority, so what reason would you have to be moral?' they think.
And does WGC have any problem with ice cream?
Um...ok?
According to the bible, it's also bad, wrong, and undesirable to eat lobster and wear poly-cotton t-shirts.
image
God: 2,038,344
Satan (and only on God's authorisation ): 10
Anon-e-moose: 0
The objective proof - your own God's true 'Word' - is impossible to dispute; certainly for you . Thank you for admitting that even Satan is morally superior to your 'God'. Therefore we appreciate the perfect advertisement for Satanism/Luciferism. And it's all YOUR fault.
We Atheists can refuse to do bad things - via our superiority to your 'God', as proved above - because we can . Or, more appropriately, not . [/Wiccan Rede]
Objectively argue that , you stupid person. [/Confusion] >:D
"There is no objective difference between Mother Teresa and Hitler on atheism"
There's the fact that Hitler at least had a hand in the murder of six million Jews and countless others. There's a reason idiots looking for a quick and easy "I Win" button in arguments try to discredit the other idiots they're arguing with by comparing them to Hitler and not to Mother Teresa.
Also, and correct me if I'm wrong, atheists aren't the only ones trying to win arguments over tiny, trivial details by claiming their opponent is just like Hitler.
The same argument, repeated at nauseam, does not suddenly become right the millionth time it is made.
And as others have pointed out, something being subjective and something being trivial are two different things.
Further, people that DO believe as the OP does, and therefore have an 'objective' sense of right and wrong still do things that their morality says are wrong . And when called on it, it gets rationalized away by the more extreme ones.
So, which is 'objectively' worse: someone that does not believe in objective morality, or someone that does and CHOOSES to be immoral?
I do have to ask, though: why is it that idiots like this seem to think that anyone not following their particular version of a religion is therefore an atheist that doesn't follow a religion (or a Satanist, but that's a different kind of idiocy)?
It takes very little effort to site Biblical verses that demand bad, wrong and undesirable acts, edicts and commands.
There is very little good that can be linked exclusively to Christianity but a shitload of bad. If you claim you know your Bible and there's nothing wrong in it your either a liar or it's you that can't discern the difference.
The courts in America and the internet blogs from America are loaded with testimonies of those who believe the just laws of democracy and state are superseded by primitive bullshit myth that justifies the most heinous acts.
Mother Teresa was a dishonest fundraiser and suffering advocate because of that fucking Bible, Hitlers hatred of Jews is directly from Catholic dogma of the time.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
