Hitch On Atheist Morality

Submitted by: LordJim 4 weeks ago in Lifestyle Misc


Intelligent, civilised disagreement. (But he did not suffer fools gladly.)
There are 363 comments:
Male 9,197
=====================================================
NOTICE

I have just spent the past hour and a half deleting personal attacks from this board. The majority of the attacks have been coming from the four individuals who are using the BuckeyeJoe account. Last night, one of these individuals posted a photo of a dead body directed at another user.

This is a Warning to the BuckeyeJoe account. Your account is on the verge of being shut down. In addition, your IP address and other information is being forwarded to authorities for investigation of a possible terroristic threat.

This board was intended to be a place for "intelligent, civilized disagreement," per the description of the video. Instead, it has become a cesspool of ugly behavior. If the abusive comments continue, I will be turning the board's comments off.

Thanks.
=====================================================
3
Reply
Male 762
Morals have nothing to do with religion, how many MS13 gang members have a "Jesus" tattoo? You learn morals and empathy from your parents.
3
Reply
Male 886
Shelworth I've seen and talked to people who did learn their morals from Jesus, before he'd just punch you.

I know somebody on his way, and before, he'd drive like a reckless i*. Now you can mostly sit in his car without fear.

It's not sitting on a bench and listening to sermons that would make you be a Christ, nor a tattoo nor high words and wearing your holy robe on your hands for show.
1
Reply
Male 6,238
wow great job Richard Pouch
2
Reply
Male 1,372
Can someone please explain how this post suddenly went to -117 points this quickly? It was close to 0 an hour ago. 
Can anyone explain voting/points? - I suspect foul play! 
3
Reply
Male 21,778
boredhuman As someone who knows a little something about Sunny's architecture in regards to IAB, there's no hacking his points system. It's literally one account = one point. 
1
Reply
Male 18,342
fancylad can we do away with votes , or just make all points positive? 
3
Reply
Male 845
boredhuman That is a good question. Seeing as only a couple dozen people ever engage in discussions, how are more than a hundred downvoting?
2
Reply
Male 1,372
profworm There were several previous instances of massive down-votes - just look at monkwarrior's post history!
This post with -870 points is the worst on IAB, I believe. 
A possible explanation is that down-votes on comments count towards the overall post point count. However, down-votes on comments alone cannot account for -117. There must have been about a hundred down-votes from IAB users that exclude the comments. 
Can moderators confirm when these votes took place? I suspect some automation, but of course it could be real users disliking this content, too... 
4
Reply
Male 4,422
boredhuman and profworm

The way the posts get into the negatives is that the overall post's score is accumulative of every up/downvote in the comments + every up/downvote of the post itself.

Edit: At the time of this edit, the post is at -83, and I totaled up the negative comments at 104.

Double Edit: Considering monk usually gets downvoted at least twice no matter what he comments, and you said earlier he had 64 comments, that's pretty much on-point.
4
Reply
Male 1,372
DuckBoy87 Thanks for the count. 
I suppose all it would take is 2 users going through the post and down-vote all of monk's comments to bring it down by over 100. 
This also means that just one user could up-vote all 165 comments right now to change the overall post score by 165... 

TIP: to search how many comments a user has, simply search for the comment number of the user. In my case it's "1,281" and i have 33 comments here so far :| 
4
Reply
Male 9,561
boredhuman It's Monks replies that drag threads down.  Posts will quickly dive negative the more Monk posts on them.  There are always 2-3 people that -1 him form I thinkm good reasons.  He doesn't add any value to the conversation.  Even reading his replies, they are standard issue non substantive. He's incapable of engaging in thoughtful conversation when it comes to proving god, or when talking about the bible he moves goalposts.  I don't know what Monk is,  I used to think he was merely a clever atheist/agnostic troll who had a lot of book knowledge of the Bible, and used the most ridiculous arguments to show what how idiotic the beliefs were. I can't imagine someone doing this for nearly a decade straight and maintaining it.  I think he's a true believer truly delusional and for me I  no longer engage him in religious discussions because he CAN'T answer questions.  When you point out the contradictions he simply responds with a "look it up yourself" "God has revealed himself all over the world", or other inane comments that don't prove anything other than Monk can't defend his position.
7
Reply
Male 13,153
normalfreak2 Wow, you really brought out the strawman, and beat him up really good.  FYI you don't engage in religious discussions with me because you can't handle the reasoning that exposes yours as flawed.  I've defend my points, but the reasoning gets to where you can't defend yours.
-2
Reply
Male 1,203
monkwarrior Well, I for one value you here, monkfuck.

The longer I can keep you engaged in stupid drivel and pointless repetitive back-and-forth, the longer I keep one more theist from actually contributing in a meaningful way to theistic thought.

That is worth it.

Also, I am really four different people, who alternate posting comments under BuckeyeJoe. One of them is an alcoholic, but she's funny as all get-out. So we can't get rid of her. One is actually a physicist, but I have to edit his drafted posts so that he sounds more like the rest of us. That fucking dude never gets laid.

There's also the blank-filler, who adds one-liners (or close to it) whenever the fuckfail (that's you) volleys over his one-to-two-syllable grunts. That's almost a full-time job. Joshua should really get more credit.

You know what's really fucked up? That's actually his first name. He's gonna be pissed when he reads this. He hates Joshua, wants Josh instead. Ha-ha, fuck you Joshua!

Then there's me: the atheist. I think you, mucklukfuck, hate me the most. I review all drafted comments and make sure they sound similar enough to be convincingly from one person. Sometimes I have the dork help me, since me-no-so-good-with-words at times, especially with the sciencey crap. You get that, right, engrish-man?

Anyway, we all live together in the same house-rental on campus.....and wanted to keep this charade up for as long as possible. But, over beers, brats, and some marijuana, we realized that it really doesn't matter if IAB knows we are four people. No one cares about that shit. And neither, anymore, do we.

The dork didn't smoke any of the satan's-cabbage (yes, the dork wrote this last part). 
1
Reply
Male 9,561
BuckeyeJoe I have to say this is some funny shit.
0
Reply
Male 13,153
squrlz4ever is this a breach of 4.7. Do not use more than one account on IAB and do not pretend to be more than one person?

Shouldn't it be one user/email per account?
0
Reply
Male 9,197
BuckeyeJoe Waitaminnit, WTF? Isn't Rick Sanchez in there? One of the personalities behind this account absolutely has to be... *belch*... Rick from Rick and Morty.

2
Reply
Male 1,203
squrlz4ever Not familiar with this shit. 

Present cultural references to anyone under 25 will prolly whiz by. Been around the block longer than that, but still a great pair of tits, since the cat's outta the bag, and all. 

Don't know what the fuck you mean by this cartoon. Wanna harden up and try again? You gots about 45 min before the gin takes me awayawayaway.
0
Reply
Male 1,203
melcervini A one fucking minute commitment! I don't got time for this shit, dude. TLDR version or GTFO.

Who made you a mod, anyway :)
2
Reply
Female 6,567
BuckeyeJoe We're the Mod Squad :D
1
Reply
Male 9,197
BuckeyeJoe Waitaminnit: The emails I've been exchanging with BuckeyeJoe? Was that you? Heck, I would've found the correspondence a lot more arousing if I knew there was a great pair of hooters involved.
3
Reply
Male 1,203
squrlz4ever Wasn't always the hooters responding. Keep sweet talking me, and maybe I'll send you a pic. I tend to go bra-less. 
1
Reply
Male 9,197
BuckeyeJoe Oh, sweet baby Jesus. I knew being a moderator would pay off someday. Release the sweater puppies!
2
Reply
Male 1,203
squrlz4ever LOL, tough shit now, she dun be sleeping. Now you got fat-ass smart-ass on the line. 

I'll send you dick picks, but they stumpy as fuck!
1
Reply
Male 9,197
BuckeyeJoe *fume* I hate my life.
1
Reply
Male 1,203
squrlz4ever Well don't squirrel-man. I've posted my tits on reddit. You've probably already seen them. You'll know when you do because they will be spectacular. 

Now, I have the day off so gingingin and vibraaaaator.
0
Reply
Male 13,153
BuckeyeJoe use more words bukfail. might want to tell your dr about your multiple personalities.  that's helpful information for a psychologist.
-3
Reply
Male 1,203
monkwarrior 

I mean, this is so easy. Please keep going, since I am presently preaching the Bible waaaay more than you are, using the verses I choose.
1
Reply
Male 13,153
BuckeyeJoe  it's like you're snapping! Use more words!    
-2
Reply
Male 1,203
monkwarrior 

K. What words shall I choose....hmmm...oh! I know! I'll use words that your supposed GOD wrote:

Leviticus 20:9


"
For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him."

You worship the thing that said this, by the way. 
1
Reply
Male 1,909
normalfreak2 I thought at first that monkwarrior was a bot. But there are some responses that actually seem to be thought out. Then I figured ways to have some responses that would come back only if there were the right number of the right words in the comment. Now I just don't know. He might not be a person. He might be more than one person. He might be another registered user. He is not what he claims to be, in any respect. Beyond that, I have no idea. I avoid interaction with him.
6
Reply
Male 5,573
semichisam01 I take that previous post back...I just came across this image, it better explains the situation we deal with here...

2
Reply
Male 5,573
semichisam01 I honestly can't put into words what Monk is...

...but I can produce an image that effectively shows how I define him...

2
Reply
Female 6,567
semichisam01 It takes 2 to tango.
2
Reply
Male 1,909
melcervini You haven't seen me tango.
4
Reply
Female 6,567
3
Reply
Male 249
Sorry to all who suffer thru my diatribe below its a pet peeve of mine when religious ppl say our society is based on "Judea-Christian" values, no it's based on pretty much universal HUMAN values. 
5
Reply
Female 8,513
geobas1 some animals also display proto-morality. No doubt its partly selected for and partly emergent. i know quite a few Christians ( not, of course, evangelicals as they are nasty) and Muslims, most people of course are atheists- and guess what? all have similar morals- and those who abide by a strong moral code are very often the most content and relaxed with their life. naturally i cannot say which came first, but morals must serve a purpose or we wouldn't have them.
5
Reply
Male 9,197
madduck You had me at "some animals." *rawr*
1
Reply
Male 706
madduck "but morals must serve a purpose or we wouldn't have them."

To me this is the issue with Hitchens argument. If "morals" naturally arise in nature then they must do so through some form of natural process. The only process to my mind that accounts for this is the process of natural selection embodied in evolution. The driving force for this process in nature is the passing of ones genes. Species that exhibit physical features and behaviors that increase the likelihood of their decedents living and passing on their genes thrive. In this sense "morals" that arise from nature can only be behaviors that increase "globally" the survival of a species.  If this is true then "morals" can not be absolute in the same sense that religion perceives them.  So my question is are we really talking about the same thing?  If the death of some members of a gene pool increases the survivability of those that remain and the likely hood that their genes are passed down would the murder of those members be moral?
1
Reply
Male 886
dang007 No, as you can see by the feathers of a peacock, it's the egoistic gene, too. But cultures where there is a good balance tend to work better than dictatorships or anarchy.
1
Reply
Male 706
7eggert "But cultures where there is a good balance tend to work better than dictatorships or anarchy." Work better how and for who.  Again if "morality" is something that arises naturally from the laws of the universe then there must be some driver for it.  The only one I can think of, natural selection, promotes traits which increase the survivability of ones genes. If there was a culture in which deaf children are killed but in which the members genes survive at a higher rate than neighboring cultures were deaf children are not killed eventually the killing the deaf culture would become predominant. Thus, killing the deaf would be "moral" if we are defining morality as something that arises in nature. This definition is fundamentally different than the one used by religions. Thus, the two people in the video above are arguing about two entirely different things.  It would be similar to the case were I use the word elephant for bird and then get into a long argument with you about whether or not an elephant can fly. Using my definition of a elephant and the fact that they can clearly fly I then try and convince you that your understanding of flight must be flawed in some way.
0
Reply
Male 886
dang007 "Kill the deaf" is a law, "Slay not he that cannot hear, be thankful ye that hath an ear" is another. What's the morale?

The morale is the reason why you do whatever you do. "Kill those unfit for survival", "Kill those who are a burden", "Kill those who aren't pure Arian", ...
0
Reply
Female 8,513
dang007 i don't think morals are absolute- is stealing wrong?- not always. Even in religion its largely reciprocity which is most prized, laws require one to swap virgins for asses on Tuesday, but for all religions that I can think of treating others as you would be treated stands high. Most are quite tribal in law ( all that stoning for believing in the wrong god, having the wrong haircut) which also makes sense selectively as the genetic distance would be greater in another group with another god. Making friends though increases survivability- youre more likely to get a shag, your children learn to share and share alike so get dibs on resources....
2
Reply
Male 886
madduck Obviously stealing or not stealing cannot be held to be an absolute law. So if you don't steal because it's forbidden, you are just doing it. If you don't steal because you honor property, but you do steal thee bandages because right now somebody is bleeding to death, that's a moral decision.

https://askaphilosopher.org/2011/07/22/kant-on-acting-from-duty-and-acting-in-accordance-with-duty/
0
Reply
Female 8,513
7eggert precisely- but actually Ive always argued for eudamonia when it comes to ethics- not just utility but human flourishing. But that stealing analogy stretches out into almost everything else ( including murder)- the only thing I would kinda stand firm on at is causing intentional suffering in a living creature. That has a few caveats because we are omnivorous, but even in that case- in order that we may eat it may be necessary to cause suffering but it should be avoided as far as possible, and should be a limited as possible. Hence why I will not eat meat reared in an industrial manner, i've no problem with game, or the pork I get reared nearby- but a slab of meat from the supermarket- no chance.
1
Reply
Male 706
madduck "Making friends though increases survivability- youre more likely to get a shag, your children learn to share and share alike so get dibs on resources..." I think you are making a big assumption here.  I doubt this is a universal truth. In the case of many species natural selection has resulted in violent interactions between individuals; a stallion protecting his mares, or male lions chasing away rivals. These behaviors even the murder of others might be considered "moral" when we define morality as something that arises from the natural laws of the universe. If the mechanism for this is natural selection which arises naturally from the other governing laws of the universe, then the only "moral" behavior is that which is selfish in nature. Selfish behavior being that with increases the chance of ones genes being passed down. Natural selection could have resulted in civilizations in which men are kept as household servants that are only useful when they are need for procreation. (A need which would certainly disappear as science advances.) Thus, one could argue that in these civilizations it would be perfectly "moral" to kill and male children with a defect that makes them less worthy breeding stock. This is fundamentally a different definition of morality than that which is used by religions. I am not arguing for or against the existence of God(s.) I am only trying to point out that the definition of morality being used by religions is not the same that is being used above by Hitchens. Thus, to me the whole argument between these two men is silly. They are talking about two entirely different things.
0
Reply
Female 8,513
dang007 nope- you're comparing an apex carnivore to a ultra social hominid-now look at chimps, bonobos and gorillas-  remember selective pressure make things fit a niche, so there are no 'universal truths. i'd link you to a fascinating BBC talk on just this but you're not in the UK. I've heard it argued as being emergent, and also purely selective so I just plump for middle ground. second;y you are sound as though you are arguing for moral absolutes, and I very much doubt there are any even in our culture at present. What is moral varies between religions, not just this one man and all religions. Hell, its all out on the table without religion- what are you- utilitarian? Kantian? Two vicars within the church of england will argue fiercely about morality- Richard Cole (ex of The communards) is a CofE vicar much beloved by Radio 4, openly gay- we have women Bishops who are still not universally accepted. i'm pretty sure many protestants find that immoral- and thats one branch of a tree fighting about morality within itself.
1
Reply
Male 706
madduck “nope- you're comparing an apex carnivore to a ultra social hominid-now look at chimps, bonobos and gorillas- remember selective pressure make things fit a niche, so there are no 'universal truths.” Exactly when one defines morality as something that arises in nature one must accept that there is no universal morality. Different evolutionary paths = different accepted (moral) behaviors. “I've heard it argued as being emergent, and also purely selective so I just plump for middle ground.” Makes no difference to what I am saying.

Yes there are always arguments about what is moral. Is euthanasia moral, is abortion, etc. But the argument being had above misses the fact that they do not agree on what morality is. I realize this is a fine point. 

“second;y you are sound as though you are arguing for moral absolutes,”  No I am not arguing for or against moral absolutes. I am pointing out that if you define morals as something that arises from nature you should accept that there are no moral absolutes, other than do what most likely improves the chances for your progeny to reproduce. All morals must by definition be personal, although a species may move toward a generally accepted behavior standard it is perfectly moral to violate these if it increases the chances your children will reproduce. This is fundamentally different than defining morals as something that comes from outside the Universe. In this case it is perfectly rational to claim that there are moral absolutes, even if you are not sure what they are. These are not mutually exclusive concepts if you understand that we are talking about two different meanings of “moral.” As such having an argument about whether morals arise from nature or are external to nature is meaningless.
0
Reply
Female 8,513
dang007 i think we actually agree- as far as I've ever been able to work out its just this, us- no god, no higher power or anything other than what happens as we slowly change to fit our niches.therefore, as you say, no absolutes at all ( i've always said i'm wary of some transplant surgeries but if my children needed a kidney i'd be turning up with bagfuls of fresh organs harvested from a bus queue) - in fact it may be that religion itself is a thing we tend to develop - it seems that belief in a 'thing' is inbuilt- perhaps religion serves a selective purpose? Religion itself is truly fascinating stuff- quite often its what grants us glimpses into the past- priests and tax collectors seem to be great recorders of people.
0
Reply
Male 249
I don't claim to be the authority on life or anything, but here's my 2¢ worth. I'm an atheist, I was raised religious and simply looked behind the curtain too many times to be able to suspend disbelief.  

That said I think Hitchens here at least gets one thing not quite right.  I don't think morality is innate to or exclusively human. Animals, especially social pack animals, show a sense of morality, and young mammals including baby humans are innately selfish and lack a moral understanding.  Morality is a LEARNED behavior.  It is innate to social (successful anyways) interactions as without it everything will end up a bar fight where the strongest and/or the most ruthless takes all. We (and to a lesser extent other social animals) developed it in order to be able to work together for mutual good. It was and still is selected for as those that exhibit decent morality (overall macro level) benefit both themselves and those around them. 

K from there how did/does religion get involved?  They were the record keepers and instructors.  Marriage isn't unique to any one religion or religion in general, but all religions are involved in marriage because those were the people that wrote stuff down in those respective societies.  The morality of religion (Judea-Christian or any other) wasn't developed by that religion it was DOCUMENTED by it. The morality of the time was written in the religious book of the time because they were writing shit down that they ALREADY BELIEVED.   

What proof do I  cite,  essentially all the parts we discard and "overlook" of the Bible.  According to the Bible slavery is aok. Eating shellfish is an abomination.  You can list hundreds of things in the Bible that our modern morality (and churches) no longer agree with. Both things ok then and not now and things ok now and not then.  If the text was holy scripture dictated to scribes from God how did he lack the insight to see that slavery was fucking repugnant?  I'm not going to make this post even longer citing the litany of shit this is true about. Read the book the evidence for this is it's very own text. 
8
Reply
Male 886
geobas1 Several moralities were documented in the bible. Offering children to the Moloch, making false claims at court, partaking in shitstorms and mobs, caring for the animal of your enemy, different laws for poor people, bribed judges, justice only for citizens, … It was written down because others did these things.

Leviticus 25

39 “‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves. 40 They are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you; they are to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 Then they and their children are to be released, and they will go back to their own clans and to the property of their ancestors. 42 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God.

That's the change from the old law.
1
Reply
Male 9,133
7eggert  justice only for citizens

 If any of your fellow Israelites ...

Not much change there.

0
Reply
Male 886
LordJim Let's praise ourselves for being advanced: Since last year, we have same-sex-marriage in Germany. Now we can condemn any morality from 2016 backwards as unjust!
1
Reply
Male 9,133
7eggert Slippery, eh? You claimed that biblical law changed such wrongs as justice only for citizens but then cited Leviticus (always a bold move) which did exactly that. Fellow Israelites got a fair shake on slavery for the time but everyone else could be bought, sold, raped, beaten and killed ( as long as they lingered for a while. How long did they have to linger? Remind me.).
0
Reply
Male 886
LordJim Deut. 27:19 “Cursed is anyone who withholds justice from the foreigner, the fatherless or the widow.”

Thus foreigners would be held to almost the same laws - I didn't read the part of the Talmud yet, I depend on others who did.
0
Reply
Male 1,909
Believe me, this is a serious question. I have read all the comments below. What reason would anyone have to get involved in a back-and-forth with monkwarrior?
4
Reply
Male 1,372
I've gotten in several back-and-forths with him: I've asked him directly about his goals in this post, and he refused to answer.

As of this writing, this post contains 133 comments, 64 (48%) of which were written by monkwarrior.

monkwarrior has quoted a total of 2 bible passages out of 64 comments. Here's one: Mark 16:15:  "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation."

It certainly does not appear that he's interested in preaching the Bible. Since you've read all the comments: why do you think monkwarrior feels the need to dominate this post?

I suspect monkwarrior likes to talk about himself and about his own beliefs. So do others. 
2
Reply
Male 886
boredhuman If you'd want to just read the bible, you'd google for it and find it.

If you ask for monk's personal relation to god, morality and other topics, don't expect bible quotes "And JHWH said, monkwarrior will …".

If you ask about "what does the bible say about …", then we can read it, quote it and discuss weather we should adhere to this or that. (Unfortunately this site does not behave correctly on my old PC, so I won't answer on many days.)
1
Reply
Female 6,567
7eggert *I* post more bible quotes than he, and I'm backsliding so badly, that I have friction burns.
3
Reply
Male 1,909
melcervini "I'm backsliding so badly, that I have friction burns."
I want you to know that I very seriously tried not to ask you where you have friction burns.
4
Reply
Male 6,238
boredhuman for some reason monk is a golden god.  he is IABs mascot 
3
Reply
Male 1,909
boredhuman "As of this writing this post contains 133 comments, 64 (48%) of which were written by monkwarrior."

But this is typical of his contributions to the discussion: "no i don't think you do troll"
That was the whole comment. Why would anyone want to be involved with this person? He doesn't "talk about his own beliefs". He just claims to have them. He doesn't respond directly to questions or requests for information. He just claims that he could, but doesn't need to.
Wherever you live, there is probably a brick wall nearby, against which you could bang your head all day. You may have a backyard, in which you could build a brick wall, gaining experience and physical exercise, and then bang your head against it whenever that odd urge strikes you. Why this one? 
4
Reply
Male 1,372
semichisam01 I like your brick wall analogy! 
Arguing with monk is mental exercise, not physical. You can always try your arguments on him, and he's guaranteed to respond. Like a brick wall that can't punch back, monkwarrior can never hurt you - you can only hurt yourself. 
4
Reply
Male 1,909
boredhuman "Like a brick wall that can't punch back, monkwarrior can never hurt you"

I'm willing to believe that I'm misunderstanding this, but I can't imagine being interested in a discussion with someone who can't hurt me.
3
Reply
Male 886
semichisam01 Unless you are discussing in order to hurt the other side, there discussion will gain from not hurting each other.

Unfortunately some times I do get angry.
1
Reply
Male 1,372
semichisam01 Well, look at physical exercise: hitting a brick wall hurts, exercise hurts, but there is no real danger. Many people are not interested in regular exercise either. 
2
Reply
Male 1,909
boredhuman I take your point.
2
Reply
Male 45,208




2
Reply
Male 13,153
Gerry1of1 Heavy on the atheist dogma here
-1
Reply
Male 1,116
monkwarrior Genuine question here, were your religious tenancies motivated by a personal trauma of some kind or have you always had them?
2
Reply
Male 13,153
mrteatime God showed me He was real.
-1
Reply
Male 1,116
monkwarrior Were you at a low point before he revealed himself to you?
0
Reply
Male 13,153
0
Reply
Male 1,116
monkwarrior Was it sudden, unexpected, like an epiphany?
-1
Reply
Male 13,153
mrteatime no, it was like  God showing me He was real. 
0
Reply
Male 1,116
monkwarrior Like a vision or a voice? I'm genuinely curious about the experience and not trying to take the mickey, just in case you think that's where I'm headed. 
0
Reply
Male 13,153
mrteatime It's a bit like how Morpheus explained the matrix to Neo in the movie The Matrix he said:

"Unfortunately, no one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself."

Likewise, no one can be told what meeting God is like. You have to experience it for yourself.
0
Reply
Male 45,208
monkwarrior Naturally I promote my own point of view. As you promote yours.

I like our discussions, I hope  you don't think I troll you. If I did troll I would ask stupid questions like why christians follow the pagan calendar and not the one set forth in the bible as the jews do..... etc. Don't answer that, I already know.  We are opposite sides but I hope not mean as some people have been to you.
3
Reply
Male 886
Gerry1of1 I wrote a long text (and learned something while researching), but the forum ate it. TL;DR, it's not pagan, but the Egypt civil calendar of Ptolemy III, adjusted by Pope Gregory.

The Hebrew calendar as used by the Jews is a mess with a lot of exceptions. We use the dates for some festivities from the according rules, but some festivities are historically wrong. It's a good way to remember having been a people of slaves in Egypt, though … unless you are not Hebrews having been slaves in Egypt.
2
Reply
Male 45,208
7eggert  I like the hebrew calendar. It just seems more fun to add a Leap Month {Adar II} instead of a leap day.  You get a whole new month!
1
Reply
Male 13,153
Gerry1of1 no i don't think you do troll
-1
Reply
Male 45,208
monkwarrior The thing is, Monk, I've been where you are. I've done my religious study and I've had faith. Deep faith that gives you a spiritual and emotional/physical high. But I looked too close behind the curtain. I found out basic truths.  So I don't doubt your sincerity, good luck if it comforts you. The worst thing that can happen is you are right and go to heaven. If you're wrong and I'm right after you die you will never know it because you won't exist.

That's a win-win for Monk

(^̮^)
3
Reply
Male 13,153
Gerry1of1 Trust me, you haven't been where i am.
-1
Reply
Male 6,238
monkwarrior you been in your dark hole of self worship masked as religion. but its ok do you want to know the community standards?
2
Reply
Male 13,153
rumham do you?
-1
Reply
Male 45,208
monkwarrior We all travel different paths, but that doesn't mean we don't have similar experiences. No one is truly alone.  At least, that has been my experience.
4
Reply
Male 13,153
Gerry1of1 That may be true, but you haven't been where i am.
-1
Reply
Female 6,567
Be excellent to each other.


7
Reply
Male 886
melcervini Just remember, gnostic atheism is a religion for practical purposes.
1
Reply
Male 5,573
5
Reply
Male 13,153
melcervini I find a lot of atheists like to say that, it's too bad they couldn't do as they say.

But Jesus said in Mark 16:15:  "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation."
-1
Reply
Male 1,203

Exodus 21: 7-8

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again.
2
Reply
Male 886
BuckeyeJoe 7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself,[b] he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.
1
Reply
Male 1,203
7eggert So you use another translation which also depicts selling one's daughter into sexual slavery. 

Okay. Thanks for the help!
1
Reply
Male 886
BuckeyeJoe So you think sex slaves have the rights of the daughters of their owners?

This law grants the servant the rights of a bride of either the lord of the house or one of their sons if they want to have intercourse.

In these times people were starving, would you condemn that daughter to death so she does not need to be a slave? Or would you keep the old law saying the lord of the house and his sons may intercourse with any servant including this daughter with nothing in return?

"If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money": You cannot make a binding contract for the rest of her life anymore.

Look at the laws we only changed recently for the better, do you condemn almost your whole book of laws because of having been in effect before last year, and the president, too, for having allowed these laws?
0
Reply
Male 13,153
BuckeyeJoe Oh more bukfail?  Got that from your favorite anti-theist site didn't ya?  Reply with lots of words bukpuppet.
-1
Reply
Male 1,203
monkwarrior Got it from your book!
3
Reply
Male 13,153
BuckeyeJoe yes i noticed it's among the verses most anti-theists use.  Use more words to reply bukpuppet.
-1
Reply
Male 1,203
monkwarrior Yeah, the evil verses in your book are pretty easy to spot.
1
Reply
Male 13,153
BuckeyeJoe But you've already demonstrated you don't understand how to reason on its level.  Use more words to reply next time bukpuppet.
-1
Reply
Male 1,203

Genesis 19:8


"
See now, I have two daughters who have not known a man; please, let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you wish; only do nothing to these men, since this is the reason they have come under the shadow of my roof."
1
Reply
Male 886
BuckeyeJoe Offering the lesser sin and keeping the commandment of hospitality.

But the angels averted this deed: 11 Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door. 12 The two men said to Lot, “Do you have anyone else here—sons-in-law, sons or daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get them out of here, 13 because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the Lord against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it.”
1
Reply
Male 1,203
7eggert "Offering the lesser sin?"

So lemme get this straight. Your infinite God is SOOO powerful that his angels have to strike people with blindness, and then destroy everything?

Like...fuck man, your God sucks.
0
Reply
Male 13,153
BuckeyeJoe  more verses you don't understand but get from your anti-theist sites to slander what you don't understand?  Use more words! 
-1
Reply
Male 1,203

1 Peter 2:18

"Servants, be submissive to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the harsh."
1
Reply
Male 13,153
BuckeyeJoe  more verses you don't understand but get from your anti-theist sites to slander what you don't understand?  Use more words!  
-1
Reply
Male 1,203

Luke 16:18

"Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery."

1
Reply
Male 886
BuckeyeJoe Is this not so? In this Jesus tells us what would be the sin, and how generous the law is that we may still do it. He tells us to be holy as god, knowing we will fail, and promises us forgiveness for the sins we'll inevitably commit.
1
Reply
Male 1,203
7eggert How do you deduce that from the passage?

He's saying that anyone on their second (or third, etc) marriage is committing adultery. Even if its their spouse who fits this category.

That ain't right, eggboy.
0
Reply
Male 886
BuckeyeJoe I actually googled that once. Before these words of Jesus, if your spouse committed adultery, you were allowed to set her free. Now you know it's still a sin.
0
Reply
Male 13,153
BuckeyeJoe  more verses!  Use more words!   
-1
Reply
Male 1,203
monkwarrior I gladly showcase the immorality of your God, as you cheer it on!

Rev 21: 8

"liars--their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."
1
Reply
Male 13,153
BuckeyeJoe  you're not doing what you think!  More verses!  Use more words!    
-1
Reply
Male 1,203
monkwarrior Okay. Now some evil shit Jesus said:

Matthew 5


5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. (he means the old testament, fuckfail, he comes to fulfill it -- but God cannot spell right, so....)

5:29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

5:30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

5:31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:

5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

5:33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
0
Reply
Male 13,153
BuckeyeJoe Keep using more verses!  it's so not doing what you think.
0
Reply
Male 1,372
BuckeyeJoe Stop bullying poor monkwarrior with bible verses! Can't you see he's getting emotionally upset?!

And you're using the wrong Bible translation. The King James Version might as well be heresy. Monk prefers the New International Version - that is the truth. 
-1
Reply
Male 13,153
boredhuman i never get upset FYI
0
Reply
Male 1,203
boredhuman

"that is the truth."

Provide evidence, or assume a position of nonsense.

Well sure I can see he is getting upset. That is a normal reaction when faced with upsetting stimuli. That is a good thing. It means he still has a conscience. 

Which is the whole point. The Bible is filled with upsetting moral statements. Is it my moral duty to illuminate immoral teachings. While it is unfortunate that it causes some pain (to those who have bet their entire moral life-savings on false-truths), that is not really my problem now, is it? 

Monk with either reach his apotheosis, and break free (as I did), or he will fall beneath the inevitable conclusion of his choices.

Most do not make it, they turn into savages. Morally speaking. 

In either case, he does not need a pseudo-parent helicoptering over him to protect him from his choices.

That is counter-productive.
0
Reply
Male 1,372
BuckeyeJoe My comment was meant to be sarcastic - saying that KJV translation is heresy should have given it away :P
Based on monk's few Bible quotes, he does indeed prefer citing NIV.
I find it amusing that monkwarrior, who quoted Mark 16:15, refuses to address bible passages. You cited much more of the Bible than monk has! 

I would prefer he made a feeble attempt to respond to your attacks: maybe quote some theologians or link some Prager University videos. 
Nah, it's monk we're talking about here!  I pity the fool. 
0
Reply
Male 1,203
boredhuman My apologies, the sarcasm went right over my head.

Yes, I would too prefer that monk actually engage. But I fear he recognizes that his position is grounded on faulty reasoning, and so is avoiding the conversation.

Denial is a powerful addiction.
0
Reply
Male 4,422
BuckeyeJoe Hey Buckeye, the mods have a serious question for you. Are you one person or are there really multiple individuals using this account? Please answer carefully and truthfully.

Thank you.
0
Reply
Male 1,203
DuckBoy87 Hi DuckBoy87,

There are four people who comment using this login, as described accurately by Mike. I happen to be Joshua, since my first name is out of the bag, I will go ahead and reveal it. Nice to meet you!

Does it violate community standards to do this? Because we thought this was okay. If it does, then well will talk about which one of us wants to continue under the user BuckEyeJoe. Let us know, but we all enjoy commenting. So we hope we can still.

If it is required that there is only one user per account, well, that is rather stupid for obvious reasons. But let us know. We will adhere.

Is monkfail putting you up to this? Because he would do just about anything to remove the inconvenient truth that the Buck brings him.

You can't stop the Buck. 
0
Reply
Male 1,372
BuckeyeJoe Ha! I wonder who I have been arguing with :P
... And who got jealous and started deleting comments!

Although there isn't a specific rule prohibiting deleting own comments (that i know of), the mods are aware of this trick.
If monk deleted his 3 day old comment to melcervini, this entire chain including this comment, would disappear. 

I hope you can sort out your account. 
0
Reply
Male 9,197
boredhuman BH, please see the notice I've placed at the top of this board. The "BuckeyeJoe" account has been permabanned.

If you have any questions about this action, feel free to send an email using the Contact link at the bottom of every IAB page. Select the "Bugs and Other Site Feedback" topic.

Thanks.
0
Reply
Male 4,422
BuckeyeJoe Hey Buckeye, thanks for responding.

The moderation team is currently discussing the situation. We'll be in touch as soon as we deliberate.

Thank you.
0
Reply
Male 868
monkwarrior preach the gospel to all creation?  So... we're supposed to preach to flowers, and clouds, and plankton?  I mean, they're all part of creation too.  How, exactly, are we supposed to do that?  I think good-ol' Marky-Mark misquoted his bro there.
2
Reply
Male 13,153
skeeter01 Mockers would have a difficult time understanding.
-1
Reply
Female 6,567
monkwarrior He also said in John 13:34 "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another."

Treating each other with love is the most excellent thing you can do.
3
Reply
Male 13,153
melcervini Yes, and teaching of it is quite excellent.
-1
Reply
Female 6,567
monkwarrior It is indeed and you're responsible to share the good news, but not responsible for others' response to it.

    If your preaching is falling on deaf ears, let it go.   Matthew 10:14  "And if anyone will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet when you leave that house or town"

     Teaching instructs.  Not berates, insults or demeans.  Instructions shouldn't come with 'warnings'.

     The Word is about love, not 'fire insurance'.
2
Reply
Male 13,153
melcervini You don't know whose lurking.
-1
Reply
Male 1,372
monkwarrior You should quote the bible more and use your flawed logic less. You preach very little of the gospel. 
2
Reply
Male 6,238
boredhuman monk is writing a new gospel. the book of Derp
5
Reply
Male 13,153
boredhuman I use it quite often to help correct flawed logic.
-1
Reply
Male 1,372
monkwarrior You have 32 replies in this thread so far, and only 1 bible quote. 
1
Reply
Male 13,153
boredhuman i can easily use more
0
Reply
Male 1,372
38 replies, still just one bible quote. You're doing a poor job of preaching the gospel - i'm beginning to suspect that is not your goal at all, monk. 
2
Reply
Male 13,153
boredhuman try again
0
Reply
Male 1,372
monkwarrior It's impressive that this post has garnered 90 replies in 4 hours. 43 out of 90 comments are yours and you have 2 bible quotes now! Thank you for giving exposure to this post. 
1
Reply
Male 13,153
boredhuman Any time.
0
Reply
Male 1,203
monkwarrior Bring us moar gospel, infidel. 

Why is the atheist preaching more gospel than the theist lunatic? 

I am posting the evil that the Bible depicts. Any sane Christian would counter with either arguments or other passages.

I think that monk is a clever bot. And I want to meet the programmer, because it is just divine!
0
Reply
Male 13,153
BuckeyeJoe You're desperate again.  Also i'm a real person.
0
Reply
Male 5,573
1
Reply
Male 627
kalron that was awesome. Thanks for sharing. 
1
Reply
Male 13,153
-1
Reply
Male 6,238
richard taster
2
Reply
Male 13,153
rumham you might have issues
0
Reply
Male 7,120
5
Reply
Male 886
daegog One God, same God, one Rabbi.

So you have great power, what about your responsibility?
0
Reply
Male 13,153
daegog Difference there is that spiderman is written as fiction, declared as such by its authors.  Holy scriptures have been leading people to God for thousands of years. In thousands of years people will still not find spiderman since it is fiction.
-2
Reply
Male 665
monkwarrior Difference is that Spiderman is awesome!
4
Reply
Male 13,153
abetterworld God is way more awesome
0
Reply
Male 47
And in thousands of years, god still hasn't been found.  
3
Reply
Male 13,153
JoBlack He's been found in every generation for thousands of years.  Even in today's generation.  Ignoring the lessons to find him won't help you win any battles.
0
Reply
Male 47
And that's how your god and Spiderman are alike...they are both found in the same manner,  like any other character in a book.

The only lesson is to open your mind til your brain falls out...seeing isn't believing.  Believing is seeing.

There is no battle to win
1
Reply
Male 13,153
JoBlack there is no battle for you to win if atheism is your stance.  Atheism loses.
0
Reply
Male 13,153
JoBlack Unfortunately God is real, and scripture can lead people to find Him, as people have and do today.  No matter how much people study spiderman comic books, they're still not going to find spiderman, because as the author mentioned, it's fiction.
-2
Reply
Male 47
And we don't know who the authors of your book to know if they were writing fiction or not...or even to know if they were actually there, or even if it actually occurred.
The definition of "real" is actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact.  Your religion is faith, not fact, and to exist, one must have an objective reality.  Considering your god's reality is subjective and not based in fact, it is not real.
0
Reply
Male 13,153
JoBlack God authored it over thousands of years.  We know God is the author because the lessons contained within scripture has led people to find Him and discover He was the author.

Don't worry, you will find out God is a fact, and quite real, in due time.
-1
Reply
Male 47
Ah!  Now with the circular reasoning...god wrote the bible because the bible tells us god wrote the bible.  You definitely have a thought process disability.

Once again,  if it takes someone to die to know if god's existence is a fact, then we know for a fact that you have no clue in what you are talking about because you never died to know if it is indeed a fact.

0
Reply
Male 1,203
monkwarrior Well, Spiderman has caused less harm than your scripture.

The scripture has lead people to murder and torture also. In fact, your particular religion has led to the creation of the most "effective" torture methods ever devised.

Of course, they are all eclipsed by the most effective torture method everdevised: reading your vapid comments.

So, Spiderman seems actually safer to believe in than your God. 
0
Reply
Male 13,153
BuckeyeJoe Sounds like you're pulling atheist dogmatic assumptions out of your behind again.
0
Reply
Male 7,120
monkwarrior Spiderman has been found by every generation since his inception.  He is probably more popular than jesus.

I can walk into any country in a spiderman suit and be instantly recognized, Jesus can't do that.  If Jesus showed up in downtown Jerusalem right now, he would just be another Palestinian without a passport.
2
Reply
Male 886
daegog And he would be put to a cross if we still did that. Maybe he'd be shot instead.
0
Reply
Male 13,153
daegog Unfortunately no one can know Spiderman since he is fiction played by actors or fans, but people can know Christ because he is real.
-1
Reply
Male 7,120
monkwarrior Christ is played by actors and fans too

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_actors_who_have_played_Jesus

That doesn't mean spiderman isn't real just cause jesus had more actors playing him.
1
Reply
Male 13,153
daegog Nice try, but no.
-1
Reply
Male 7,120
monkwarrior The spiderman believes in you all the same, in time you will know the truth.
1
Reply
Male 13,153
daegog i already do, in time you will though :D
-1
Reply
Male 45,208
There is no such thing as "atheist morality".  There is christian morality, it's written in their magic book about where to kill disrespectful teenagers and that rape victims should marry their rapists who pay damages to her father.

There is no Atheist Bible that dictates atheist morality. We have to think for ourselves.
Atheists make individual choices of what is and is not moral. Some think eating meat is immoral, I do not I love it. I just think we must be as humane as possible when slaughtering the animal.


2
Reply
Male 886
Gerry1of1 Rape is when Romeo meets Juliet without the consent of their fathers. The old law was to kill them both instead.

Atheists have to think for themselves. One managed to do that, others struggle to understand him.
0
Reply
Male 13,153
Gerry1of1 so in short atheist morality is subjective.
-2
Reply
Male 45,208
monkwarrior Nice try. You keep wanting to force the word "subjective" on me.

In fact, it is.  If I kill a man it is morally wrong.  If I kill a man who was trying to kill my children it is not. ..... S u b j e c t i v e 

Even your own God forbids killing, then orders the slaughter of entire towns based on His subjective morality. He didn't like what they did to Israel so it was okay to kill them...women, children, cattle, camels everyting. 
Reference the extermination/genocide of the Canaanites 1st Samuel 15:2-3
1
Reply
Male 13,153
Gerry1of1 It's still subjective morality.  Subjective morals change, can become contradictory, and might differ from person to person.  This is the best that atheism has to offer us as a worldview. Think about it, in atheism, there is no moral right and wrong.  There is no moral "should and shouldn't”.  Why?  Because when you remove God, you remove the standard by which objective moral truth is established.  In atheism, morality is up for grabs.
-1
Reply
Male 1,203
monkwarrior "This is the best that atheism has to offer us as a worldview."

Atheism is not a worldview, mockfuckfail.

"In atheism, morality is up for grabs."

Nope, it actually exists for atheists. When you obey an authority on what morality is, then you are not acting as a moral agent. You are an amoral drone. A computer.

In religion there is no right and wrong. God simply decides by whatever whim he feels that day. It could change at any moment. It is up for grabs.

Atheists actually care about morality. 
1
Reply
Male 13,153
BuckeyeJoe Keep whining and lying.  Reply with lots of words bukfail.
-1
Reply
Male 45,208
monkwarrior "It's still subjective" okay so we both agree God has subjective morality.

Finally we agree on something.
1
Reply
Male 13,153
Gerry1of1 God's definition of right and wrong is already well known.  And no, unlike your twist, it's not subjective.
-1
Reply
Male 1,203
monkwarrior Sure it is! It changes based on who is the Pope. How individual mockfails like you interpret the Bible. It changes when secular morality makes progress and religions must adapt or else lose their membership and hence their precious tithes. 

Your twist is to just spin in circles. My marionette on a string.
1
Reply
Male 13,153
BuckeyeJoe God is the same yesterday and today. Keep dancing bukpuppet.
-1
Reply
Male 45,208
monkwarrior   Okay ... 
so I kill a guy it's bad, but if I do it in defense it's okay .... subjective
God's commandmant do not kill.... but if you piss Him off He'll order genocide-okay ... subjective

Please enlighten us all what the difference is?  
1
Reply
Male 13,153
Gerry1of1 God's definition of right and wrong is unchanging.  That's the difference.
-1
Reply
Male 1,372
monkwarrior "God's definition of right and wrong is already well known." Please remind us of the definition with a gospel quote.
"God's definition of right and wrong is unchanging." Please post gospel quotes to support your statement!

Preach the gospel, monk!

Next time you mention your 4 simple words, please make sure to remind us:
Submission to Governing Authorities
Romans 13:2 "Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."
2
Reply
Male 13,153
boredhuman I'm under authority of God.
-1
Reply
Male 1,372
monkwarrior Still no gospel quotes to demonstrate your claims. You're not interested in teaching others about the gospel, are you? 
3
Reply
Male 13,153
boredhuman don't worry, it's all there for you to learn in the very verse you mentioned.  But the issue is you'll have to dig deep.  And you'd be better off not bothering because you know nothing of me.
-2
Reply
Male 1,372
monkwarrior I do not understand how Romans 13:2 explains "God's definition of right and wrong is unchanging". Teach me how to dig deep, wise monk. 

Indeed I know little of you. I see you quote Mark 16:15: "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation", yet you don't preach the gospel here. It bothers me that as a monk you appear not follow the gospel. 

So I ask you again: You're not interested in teaching others about the gospel, are you? 
2
Reply
Male 13,153
boredhuman I teach plenty here
-3
Reply
Male 6,238
monkwarrior and what is learned? that you are a vacuum of sadness
4
Reply
Male 13,153
rumham who knows, people learn different things
-1
Reply
Male 1,372
Yet you don't preach the gospel here. It bothers me that as a monk you appear not follow the gospel.
4
Reply
Male 18,342
boredhuman He's not a Christian. He's a straw man atheist. You should know that by now.
5
Reply
Male 1,372
Draculya What do you mean? Is monkwarrior a straw man scientist, too? - he understands the ridiculousness of flat earth and moon-hoax yet insists he believes them. 
3
Reply
Male 13,153
boredhuman Don't let it bother you, since you're assuming things that aren't so.
-1
Reply
Male 1,372
monkwarrior I directly asked you to quote the gospel, and teach me how to interpret it. I don't see you do any of it. When I ask you directly, you refuse to answer. 
I must conclude that you're not interested to preach the gospel. 

And you'd be better off not talking about my assumptions, because you know nothing of me. 
2
Reply
Male 13,153
boredhuman You can easily learn, plus i use it quite a few times on iab.
-1
Reply
Male 6,238
monkwarrior you're a very busy person with many friends and tasks thats keep you busy. right?
1
Reply
Male 13,153
rumham im a fast typer and quick thinker
-1
Reply
Male 1,203
Cheers to LordJim, for posting what would clearly provide a shit-ton of opportunity for monk and I to spar. You have clearly discovered that we cannot resist such bait.

Post moar.
6
Reply
Male 7,120
Hitchen's was a genius.  God probably killed him so he could have someone to talk to lol.
5
Reply
Male 13,153
daegog But clearly here he was not.
-6
Reply
Male 13,153
His argument was quite defensive and misguided right from the start.  In his opening statements he makes it quite clear he has little understanding of faith in God, and that he's going to dive shamelessly into using fallacious arguments.  Then tries to shame others into his arrogant judgements of how he would view others. 

When asked what he derives his morals from - oh look more fallacious arguments, he's also squirming quite a bit, and ultimately denied answering the question.

When asked for clarification, he moves on to a story to mock and ridicule a taxi driver's faith, saying it's degrading his feeling?

He's insulted at this all, well here i am 5 minutes into this video and insulted it's the same old fallacious, victimized, and deflective agreements i see in atheists online.  Just another atheist squirming in the question.

I'll keep watching it for a few minutes though.

Presenter "why should a hitchens reading be taking with anything more than what a chimp can pound out on a keyboard"  good one.  More insults and fallacies by hitchkens!  Just answer the question already quit defecting everything already

Then he tries to explain away the state atheism that caused the death of millions in the 20th century? Oh this guy is really bad at this, i have seen no sound reasoning or rhyme to anything he's said.

It's 1/3 the way in and he STILL hasn't answered what the atheist morality is

Guy is looking at him, and the camera like "hmm is he ever going to answer?"  And he's getting upset that hitchens, in his arrogance, is trying to lie and blame stalin's deaths on Christianity to defend his atheism.

Ok i'm 19m and enough of this garbage, this guy is joke and a bore, still not going to give us the low-down of the atheist 'morality', still beating around the bush with fallacies.  He's so blinded by hate of faith and religion he's not seeing nor thinking clearly.  Something i've noticed in almost every atheist i've corresponded with online.

Here I'll answer it for you: atheist morality is subjective, meaning what atheist 1 says is good may be bad to atheist 2.   What atheist 3 said 300 years ago could be bad to both atheist 1 and 2, but what both atheist 1 and 2 find to be good could be considered bad by atheist 4 500 years from today.  That's how irrational and unstable atheist morality is: "any way the wind blows, doesn't really matter to me".

-2
Reply
Male 6,238
monkwarrior your idiot moral dilemma you've posted a few times, you're running out of material.. go back to your 9/11 fetish
2
Reply
Male 13,153
rumham there there, take a nap
-1
Reply
Male 45,208
monkwarrior   
1. I assert morality is a choice.  
2. Yes he did wrong.
3. No one is isolated from societal norms, laws, regulations. Call them morality or just socially accepted behavior, whatever you want. Yes, he did wrong.
4. I determined this with a rational, thinking mind.
1
Reply
Male 13,153
Gerry1of1 So then you can't say he was right or wrong in the grand scheme of things, but in your own opinion, based on atheist morality which is subjective.
-1
Reply
Male 45,208
monkwarrior   
At no point did I claim to say he was right or wrong.
I can also make judgements based on societal views of permissible behavior. At that point "morality" is not a useful concept. It comes down to behavior that is allowed vs behavior that is not.

It doesn't have to be "The grand scheme of things". It can be more local.
0
Reply
Male 13,153
Gerry1of1 society thinks its 'moral' to kill growing humans for convenience.  But it's not moral at all.
-1
Reply
Male 1,372
monkwarrior "When asked what he derives his morals from" 
You missed the answer, silly monk.  
Hitchens: "our knowledge of right and wrong is innate in us." 2:58. 
3
Reply
Male 13,153
boredhuman That's just his cop out.  He is too afraid to say it's God who put them there.
-2
Reply
Male 1,372
monkwarrior That's just a cop out. You're too afraid to say you missed the answer, silly monk.  
2
Reply
Male 13,153
boredhuman Sorry, it was a non-answer.
-2
Reply
Male 1,372
monkwarrior It's OK, I'm used to you refusing to answer questions. Don't worry about it! 
1
Reply
Male 2,352
monkwarrior now that's what I call a tantrum.
3
Reply
Male 13,153
lockner01 The video says 'on atheist morality'  the post says 'on atheist morality'  but what was said on 'atheist morality'?  Nothing but deflections. I watched the whole thing, sans the last 2 minutes and was responding to it point by point.
-2
Reply
Male 1,372
monkwarrior Go re-watch 2:55. Clearly you missed that part, or you believe knowledge of right and wrong has nothing to do with morality. To most viewers, including the interviewer, the source of Hitchen's morality was made very clear. 
3
Reply
Male 13,153
boredhuman as previously mentioned, that's just his cop out.  He is too afraid to say it's God who put them there. 
-2
Reply
Male 1,372
monkwarrior Seriously? That's your serious reply? 
Hitchens continues: "religion gets its morality from humans." 
So Hitchen lies about what he believes... Instead we ought to believe what YOU think Hitchens believes. Did i get it right? 
2
Reply
Male 13,153
boredhuman The video is supposed to explain the morals of atheists, and he did nothing but cop-out.  God defines what's right and wrong.
-2
Reply
Male 1,372
monkwarrior Sorry, I have no idea what any of what you say has to do with my questions. You're too afraid to say you missed the answer, silly monk. 
1
Reply
Male 13,153
boredhuman Sorry i got the answer but it was a non-answer.  the question he was asked was "What do you derive your morals from?"  to which his answer was a cop-out.
-2
Reply
Male 1,372
Question: "What do you derive your morals from?"
Answer: "our knowledge of right and wrong is innate in us."
1
Reply
Male 13,153
boredhuman innate = inborn; natural.

Not where it comes from.  God has written them in us though.  Hitchen's answer doesn't go deep enough.
-2
Reply
Male 1,372
Here, this might help:
def. innate
"2. (philosophy) Originating in, or derived from, the constitution of the intellect, as opposed to acquired from experience"

Hitchens continues: "... religion gets its morality from humans."
1
Reply
Male 13,153
boredhuman Another misguided quote, humans get morality from God, who defines what is right and wrong.
-1
Reply
Male 1,372
"humans get morality from God, who defines what is right and wrong."
Is this a statement of your belief or statement of fact? 

If you intend to state a fact, you're begging the question
1
Reply
Male 13,153
boredhuman God has made this quite clear to humankind.
-1
Reply
Male 1,372
Keep begging the question
Try using the bible to help correct your flawed logic! 
0
Reply
Male 13,153
boredhuman Don't worry God has made it quite clear:

Romans 1:20 
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
0
Reply
Male 1,372
monkwarrior Ah, you're using the translation from the New International Version first published in 1978. Sorry to disappoint, but these words were not written by God. 
1
Reply
Male 13,153
boredhuman Don't worry, God has made Himself known.
-1
Reply
Male 6,238
monkwarrior clog. 
2
Reply
Male 13,153
rumham you just clogged.
0
Reply
Male 1,372
You've testified that God made Himself know to you - I don't worry that you believe God exists. I worry that you appear utterly uninterested in preaching the gospel and instead keep talking about yourself and your personal beliefs. 
1
Reply
Male 13,153
boredhuman Don't worry, i know how to wield scripture.
-1
Reply
Male 1,372
monkwarrior Yet you don't preach the gospel here. Instead, you keep talking about yourself and your personal beliefs. 
1
Reply
Male 13,153
boredhuman You're getting nowhere.
-1
Reply
Male 2,352
monkwarrior Actually the video say "The Morals of an Atheist". It also says "God is not Great" -- a statement I agree with. People pray to your god all the time for immoral things.  I'm not deflecting anything.
2
Reply
Male 13,153
lockner01 Ah i see you're beginning the clogging, which will likely lead to your tantrum (9/10 chance).
-2
Reply
Male 2,352
monkwarrior This is your latest cut and paste response.  You're caught in a corner so now you're accusing me of clogging.  However you make statements that you can't defend like:

 "Someone will be inclined to think it's the right thing to do to force a woman they impregnated to have an abortion because they don't want to get stuck with problems down the road"

Can you provide with some evidence of this? Or is this just something you've made up?
1
Reply
Male 13,153
lockner01 these are things you can find on your own if you chose to search rather than clog.  for example
-2
Reply
Male 86
monkwarrior - not only wasted my time in reading this, you also wasted space making claims of an un-provable substance.
1
Reply
Male 13,153
bil128 You just wasted time!
-1
Reply
Male 2,352
monkwarrior The burden isn't on me to look up evidence to support your claims.  The story you linked to doesn't support your claim. A drug user who suffered from smoke inhalation, that believed in Jesus, had an abortion.  It was recommended by a medical doctor -- she wasn't forced into it. She wasn't tied to the bed.  Look up Steve Tyler's side of the story -- it's different than her take. The blog was written 40 years after she had the abortion.  Are you saying that abortion is absolutely immoral?  Are you saying there is absolutely no reason to ever get an abortion?
2
Reply
Male 86
lockner01 - go argue with a rock, it wont BS around like monk
3
Reply
Male 13,153
lockner01 of course you would think it doesn't support a claim, you're in tantrum mode.
-2
Reply
Male 2,352
monkwarrior Again you don't know what the word "tantrum" means.  Ok how does is support your claim? Use quotes, form a solid argument.
1
Reply
Male 13,153
lockner01 since in clogging tantrum mode you often get too lazy to read, and extremely ignorant:

 He said Steven had spoken to him about the possibility of my having an abortion, since I was so young and recovering from smoke inhalation.  I was surprised and I asked him if the baby was OK.  He smiled and reassured me that the heartbeat sounded good and the baby seemed fine. 

 The doctor left the room and Steven came in.  He told me that I needed to have an abortion because of the smoke damage to my lungs and the oxygen deprivation I had suffered.  I said “No,” I wanted the baby.  I was five-months pregnant.  I could not believe he was even asking me to have an abortion at this stage.  He spent over an hour pressing me to go ahead and have the abortion.  He said that I was too young to have a baby and it would have brain damage because I had been in the fire and taken drugs.  I became very quiet and repeated the answer “No” more than once.  I said I should not be asked to make that decision while still in the hospital. He said I had to have the abortion now.  He said I was too far along to wait because it would be illegal for me to get an abortion in another week.

 I was traumatized by the experience.  My baby had one defender in life; me, and I caved in to pressure because of fear of rejection and the unknown future.  I wish I could go back and be given that chance again, to say no to the abortion one last time.  I wish with all my heart I could have watched that baby live his life and grow to be a man. 

let me guess you don't like it and will find a petty way to remain ignorant ('peer pressure isn't forcing'), to further clog and throw tantrums?
-2
Reply
Male 2,352
monkwarrior So it's all hearsay.  But the Doctor and the father knew that the baby was going to have severe brain damage because of cocaine use and smoke inhalation.  Where does it say that she was forced?

And when you lead off with insults you lose all credibility from the start.
3
Reply
Male 13,153
lockner01 ahh 'hearsay'  is how you brand it.  Keep clogging while throwing tantrums.
-2
Reply
Male 2,352
monkwarrior hearsay "information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor."

Yes that's exactly what it is. "He said Steven had spoken to him about the possibility of my having an abortion"

I think you need a dictionary. And you didn't answer my question about abortion.
1
Reply
Male 13,153
lockner01 If that's how you want to ignore the lady's story.  Let me guess you love steven tyler and think he can do no wrong, right?  Makes it easier for you to ignore things you don't like, and to keep clogging, hmm?
-2
Reply
Male 2,352
monkwarrior and what evidence do you have this time?
1
Reply
Male 13,153
lockner01 The woman's testimony of the time.  What you call hearsay due to your bias.
-1
Reply
Male 2,352
monkwarrior Her testimony is over 40 years after the fact.  No doctor would perform an abortion with consent of the patient unless that patient was in a life threatening situation.  Either way her story is not the full truth.  Don't you have another example to try to support you stance?
0
Reply
Male 13,153
lockner01 It's not the truth because you don't want it to be, and so you declare it's not true even though she said it was, all because you glorify stephen tyler, don't you?
-1
Reply
Male 2,352
monkwarrior You tend to talk in absolutes.  Did I say it wasn't the truth? No. Did I say I didn't believe it wasn't the full truth? Yes.  
There is no evidence to back up her testimony.

But you've taken this track way off of the rails.

Why not answer my question about abortion -- which would be closer to the original post than what you continuing to do here?
0
Reply
Male 13,153
lockner01 You've taken it way off the rails because you glorify stephen tyler don't you?
-1
Reply
Male 2,352
monkwarrior No I actually don't like Steven Tyler. You have no basis to make that claim.

You have demonstrated that you are unable to answer a question though.  I thought a monk would be able to answer a simple question of morality.
0
Reply
Male 13,153
lockner01 So then you're just clogging threads because you don't like that something shows you're wrong.  Gotcha.
-1
Reply
Male 2,352
monkwarrior No -- in every response I have either new information, I've replied to something you've accused me of, I've asked a question etc.  In over half of your comments you've accused me of clogging. Or in other words just the same response over and over -- just a new way to start the derp vortex.  That's the only tool you've ever had when you've been back into a corner and are a hairs width to losing a debate.  You know you're 2 moves from checkmate so you start your derp vortex thinking that if you continue on long enough people will just call it a stalemate.  It's a loser move that you've been playing for years.

If that's not you move please answer my question.
-1
Reply
Male 13,153
lockner01 so you're back to clogging threads because you don't like that something shows you're wrong.  Gotcha. 
0
Reply
Male 2,352
monkwarrior So if you don't want to answer my question and you don't want me to respond to you why do you respond to me?
0
Reply
Male 13,153
lockner01 because you're back to clogging threads because you don't like that something shows you're wrong, as predicted. 
0
Reply
Male 2,352
monkwarrior So I'm clogging threads -- your new term for trolling -- by asking you questions? I'll answer your questions and try to have a discussion but you revert to your old habits of cutting and pasting replies and that's not clogging threads.

isn't that what you got banned for a few months back?
0
Reply
Male 13,153
lockner01 You're clogging because you were given an example and desperately tried to dismiss it, there's plenty more out there you can find once you get over your desperation and denial of facts.  I can't be bothered to help you out of that when you're an adult already.
0
Reply
Male 1,203
monkwarrior Atheists believe morality is subjective? Do you know what the definition of an atheist is? It has nothing to do with morality...

Atheism HAS no morality. It is not a world-view. What is the morality of people with mustaches? You are one dense-boy.

I am an atheist, and I do not believe in moral relativism. 

The correct cartoon you should have posted is two religionists pointing guns at each other. Their different Gods have told each of them to kill the other. 

Which solution is moral? How do you determine your answer?

Well, if you're monk, then you ignore the question and say instead: 

"Stop clogging up these threads with your statements regarding things before we had paper with no evidence that makes me feel good cause I'll cry myself to sleep because my beliefs are so fragile and I can't address reality and you have no evidence and that's all I can think of to say and I need to stop sucking my thumb but it's my favorite blankie and I like holding it when sucking my thumb and no it's you who is throwing a tantrum and I don't want to grow up Waaaaaaaaaa."

Or something.
2
Reply
Male 1,372
BuckeyeJoe "Well, if you're monk, then you ignore the question and say instead: '... no it's you who is throwing a tantrum...' "
Wise Joe, thou have foretold the future! 
1
Reply
Male 13,153
boredhuman notice it wasn't said, but it was advised they get help for their tantrum.
-2
Reply
Male 1,372
Ah, you wrote "tanturm" and not "tantrum"! My mistake. I must have misread. What's a tanturm? 
0
Reply
Male 13,153
boredhuman fixed it
0
Reply
Male 13,153
BuckeyeJoe That's why atheism really has no future, it has no grounding in right and wrong, so this is why it's dangerous to have atheists lead, but we already knew that from the 20th century (and now 21st century China).

Get some help for your tantrums please, and thanks.
-2
Reply
Male 7,120
monkwarrior No one should answer a single question that monk ever asks because he will refuse to answer any question you put to him.

For months I have asked a single question of this fellow:

Where is PROOF of Baluum's Talking Donkey. 

He assures me such proof exist, but he will never share it. To that end, I'm asking IABers to refuse answering a single question posited by monk because he feels he is above answering questions that others put to him.

Plus, be honest, are his questions ever even interesting?
2
Reply
Male 2,352
daegog It's not because he doesn't want to answer questions, it's that he can't answer them without contradicting himself or lying.
2
Reply
Male 13,153
lockner01 it's actually as you ignored and i posted below to daegog starting with "Oh good one,.."
-2
Reply
Male 2,352
monkwarrior I followed the link you provided and it took me to a thread where you weren't answering anyones questions including mine.
2
Reply
Male 13,153
lockner01 as i said, you ignored.
-2
Reply
Male 13,153
daegog Oh good one, i see you're back to defending the atheist point of view, employing the same old misdirection's and fallacies and insults like hitchie.  You were already answered months ago  that you fail because you fail to understand the meat of scripture.  Again, it's not about balaam's donkey at all, but that you can find salvation and not perish. And in good ol' hitchy anti-theist form, lying too.  

Be honest you know you're being desperate.
-2
Reply
Male 7,120
monkwarrior I have zero interest in atheists, salvation, fallacies or any other BS you are spewing.

I simply want the proof that you claim exists.  You link all other kind of nonsense, why can't you give me one little link that you SAID exists.
2
Reply
Male 13,153
daegog again, you have the evidence of testimony in scripture which can lead you to salvation.  Since you don't care about it it's clear why you continue to ignore the answer you've been given and won't ever accept it.
-2
Reply
Male 13,134
daegog I stopped responding to him a couple months ago and my IAB experience has been markedly improved. 
11
Reply
Male 13,153
holygod good for you.  I have to admit you surprised me, and i suspected you would come back with a sock puppet account.  Maybe you did maybe you didn't, but i'm mildly surprised you have appeared to hold to your word, good job.
-5
Reply
Male 13,134
People who do the right thing because it is the right thing to do are moral.

People who do the right thing simply because they fear punishment for doing the wrong thing are not moral.
4
Reply
Male 13,153
holygod The issue is how do you determine what is right or wrong.  That's the crux of what morality is  https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/morality

Someone will be inclined to think it's the right thing to do to force a woman they impregnated to have an abortion because they don't want to get stuck with problems down the road.  As you can see killing is wrong, and according to the 'atheist way' right and wrong, aka morality, is subjective.  Therein lies the problem.
-2
Reply
Male 1,203
monkwarrior The actual problem is that thinking moral agents build a moral structure based on evolving wisdom, but you do not.

Your view is to believe something is moral because a God said so. That is not making a moral judgement, that is technically amoral behavior.

If God told you to kill a baby, would you? According to your morality...yes! You'd have to.

Well, real moral agents wouldn't do that, and most theists wouldn't do that. They are just confused about why they wouldn't.

If killing is wrong, then why did God kill off everything on the planet (expect for the living beings on the Ark?).

- oh no. deflect. run away. talk about clogging threads. do ANYTHING except acknowledge this obvious contradiction.
4
Reply
Male 13,153
BuckeyeJoe The actual problem is that humankind needs a standard of morality moving forward.  We can't have a computer working on 1's and 0's for on and off to arbitrarily change them every so often so off is on and on is off.  That just leads to confusion.

Atheism doesn't provide that, but God does.
-3
Reply
Male 1,203
monkwarrior Well of course atheism doesn't provide that standard. 

Google what atheism IS!

Secular morality is what most everyone uses anyway. It is what works. 

You simply cannot morally answer the question of what to do if your God tells you to kill a baby. That is a hint that your shit is whack.

"We can't have a computer working on 1's and 0's for on and off to arbitrarily change them every so often so off is on and on is off.  That just leads to confusion."

Well, reading this sure brings confusion. But only because it does not make one damn bit of sense.

(do you programmers out there see what I just did? Fuck yeah you did. Awesome go me).
3
Reply
Male 13,153
BuckeyeJoe secular morality is the same... subjective.  That's no basis for a stable society, since it changes from year to year, decade to decade. The computer example makes sense.  We expect it to understand gateways in a specific way.  If we create one to arbitrarily swap what those gateways mean, things stop working. Same for society.
-2
Reply