Atheism And Moral Progress

[Electric Skeptic]

I think Jackson Pollock's No. 5 is horrible, others think it is a great work of art.

Which completely misses the point.

[seer]

Which completely misses the point.

Which was? Speak slowly so I can understand...

[seer]

I'm not a fan of much modern art past the impressionist phase.

I do find Pollock's Lavender Mist strangely haunting.

[Electric Skeptic]

Which was? Speak slowly so I can understand...

That their being subjective doesn't make them nonexistent or worthless.

[seer]

That their being subjective doesn't make them nonexistent or worthless.

But how does that relate to "nothing is beautiful and nothing is ugly?"

[Electric Skeptic]

But how does that relate to "nothing is beautiful and nothing is ugly?"

Seriously? Are you just trying to troll me?

[seer]

Seriously? Are you just trying to troll me?

No, I really don't understand how those two things relate - seriously... What does "that their being subjective doesn't make them nonexistent or worthless" have to do with "nothing is beautiful or ugly."

[Electric Skeptic]

No, I really don't understand how those two things relate - seriously... What does "that their being subjective doesn't make them nonexistent or worthless" have to do with "nothing is beautiful or ugly."

Never mind. I'm sick of this dance with you. Well done. Your tactics 'won'.

[seer]

Never mind. I'm sick of this dance with you. Well done. Your tactics 'won'.

It is not a tactic - I just don't get the connection.

[JimL]

Because we want to be with God...

Malarky. What you want is to be happy.

And did the he Khmer Rouge want a better safer society? Perhaps, after they killed all the dissidents.

The Khmer Rouge is not a person. Are you suggesting that the people wouldn't want a better and safer society? You'll argue until the cows come home seer because you are trying to defend a related belief, i.e. your belief in god, rather than the nature of morality or the efficacy of subjective morals..

[seer]

Malarky. What you want is to be happy.

No I want God, which of course would make me happy.

The Khmer Rouge is not a person. Are you suggesting that the people wouldn't want a better and safer society? You'll argue until the cows come home seer because you are trying to defend a related belief, i.e. your belief in god, rather than the nature of morality or the efficacy of subjective morals..

No Jim the Khmer Rouge were people. Which proves the point that we have different moral goals.

[JimL]

No I want God, which of course would make me happy.

So, you wouldn't settle for just eternal happiness, eh?

No Jim the Khmer Rouge were people. Which proves the point that we have different moral goals.

Egad. I give up.

[seer]

So, you wouldn't settle for just eternal happiness, eh?

God is first, happiness second.

Egad. I give up.

That is what happens when you don't have an argument!

[Tassman]

Nonsense Tass, some Christians may have, but not all. I don't follow society, and most of the Bible Believing Christians I know don't.

“Most of the Bible Believing Christians” you know do not necessarily equate to your claim of Christian universal moral standards throughout history.

For example, most Bible Believing Christians in the Deep South supported slavery for centuries and justified it with scripture passages such as: Colossians 3:22 “Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord”.

And, “Most Bible Believing Christians” forced the abdication of Queen Elizabeth’s uncle, Edward VIII, for wanting to marry a divorced woman and hence (according to Jesus) committing adultery. Whereas, merely 80 years later, a twice divorced adulterer Donald Trump was put into power by “Most Bible Believing Christians” just like you.

In short, Christianity has a long history of reinforcing what the society of the day believes at any one time in human history – including YOU and most of the “Bible Believing Christians” you know

[seer]

“Most of the Bible Believing Christians” you know do not necessarily equate to your claim of Christian universal moral standards throughout history.

For example, most Bible Believing Christians in the Deep South supported slavery for centuries and justified it with scripture passages such as: Colossians 3:22 “Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord”.

And, “Most Bible Believing Christians” forced the abdication of Queen Elizabeth’s uncle, Edward VIII, for wanting to marry a divorced woman and hence (according to Jesus) committing adultery. Whereas, merely 80 years later, a twice divorced adulterer Donald Trump was put into power by “Most Bible Believing Christians” just like you.

In short, Christianity has a long history of reinforcing what the society of the day believes at any one time in human history – including YOU and most of the “Bible Believing Christians” you know

That is nonsense, you can't broad brush. Most Christians I know would be in step morally with New Testament principles and the Early Church Fathers. And we don't support much of what this culture supports and you know that.