Why atheists, Satanists, heathens, etc can't be Americans or Westerners

MarcusA said:
The Common Law in the US is based off of "religious" morality and values.

For example, not only rape, murder and things of that nature "sins" in Christianty and world religions, but are also "crimes" under "secular" law; with "secular law" having developed or evolved out of older religious and legal systems, such as Roman, Exodus, and so on.

An atheist, for example, can't have any objection to murder, rape and things of that nature except on faith, or on stealing and appropriating those moral values and axioms from world religions (much as degenerate heathen "religions" and cults such as "Satanism" have no morality to speak of which is compatible with that that of law, society and so forth).

So yes, I'd argue based on these facts, state and federal can and should, indeed favor Christianity (and monotheistic, world religion with compatible values) both in public and private over inferior and socially unacceptable trash such as atheism, Satanism and so forth, rather than pretending that such filth and worthlessness is in anyway "equal" to them, when it is decidedly inferior, and has no right to exist it all.
Click to expand...

I am sure you thought this was clever as you typed it.
.i can assure you it is not. it is completely retarded.
 
Cypress said:
First, the premise of the OP and the trollish denigration of atheists is utterly retarded.

Next, Western civilization did not reach a consensus that slavery was wrong until the 19th century - and that was largely a result of the activism of abolitionist liberal Christians. 18th and 19th century atheists had almost no influence or effect on the abolitionist movements.
Click to expand...

The liberal Christians who fought against slavery were going against Christianity due to being influenced by Enlightenment philosophers. Just because someone is Christian, doesn't mean they're always fighting for Christianity. There are also Christians who fought for women's rights and LGBT rights. Humans are complicated. They hold on to religions they don't fully believe in and take action that goes against those religions.

The claim that Christianity is a religion of slavery is anachronistic. It is bad form to apply your 21st century morals to humans of the 1st century AD. All humans accepted slavery then.
Click to expand...

It's not that it's a religion of slavery. It's that it's a religion that permits slavery.

But by the standards of the 1st century, Christianity was more palatable to slaves themselves. Greek and Roman sources report that they considered Christianity to be a religion of women and slaves. By the standards of antiquity, Christianity's message of salvation and spiritual equality for everyone obviously resonated with slaves and women. And I maintain that Christianity's promise of spritual and moral equality is the seed that really brought slavery down in the end. It certainly was not the work of 18th century atheists which brought slavery down.
Click to expand...

I agree with that much. Christianity was very popular among slaves for a bunch of reasons. My only point is that Christianity permits slavery. It was only during the Enlightenment that we started having widespread debate over the morality of slavery and there was a push to end it.

And as for the role of Atheists, that's actually hard to say. Back then, especially in America, Atheists were ostracized from society. So we don't really know how many Christian Abolitionists were secretly Atheist. It would be like saying there were no gay people fighting against slavery. If I had to guess, I'd say there were, we just don't know who they were.
 
MarcusA said:
The point is that atheists than those with no morality to speak of beyond that of a beast or dog can't be trusted to govern or regulate themselves without the aid of a comparatively enlightened individual, so to indoctrinate them in to the right and moral superior way and path is the duty of the god-fearing and enlightened, much akin to a shepherd hearing a flock of sheep, who would otherwise be lost if left to their own devices.
Click to expand...

It's sad that you need to be brought to heel by your God who doesn't exist. My decency comes from me, not from some fear of a bogus afterlife in hell. Fetch boy!!
 
StoneByStone said:
The liberal Christians who fought against slavery were going against Christianity due to being influenced by Enlightenment philosophers. Just because someone is Christian, doesn't mean they're always fighting for Christianity. There are also Christians who fought for women's rights and LGBT rights. Humans are complicated. They hold on to religions they don't fully believe in and take action that goes against those religions.



It's not that it's a religion of slavery. It's that it's a religion that permits slavery.



I agree with that much. Christianity was very popular among slaves for a bunch of reasons. My only point is that Christianity permits slavery. It was only during the Enlightenment that we started having widespread debate over the morality of slavery and there was a push to end it.

And as for the role of Atheists, that's actually hard to say. Back then, especially in America, Atheists were ostracized from society. So we don't really know how many Christian Abolitionists were secretly Atheist. It would be like saying there were no gay people fighting against slavery. If I had to guess, I'd say there were, we just don't know who they were.
Click to expand...

Christian theology did not stop developing when the ink was dry on the Gospel of John. Christian thinkers spent the next two thousand years interpreting the scripture, which is highly ambiguous and even contradictory. Which is what you would expect from a voluminous cannon that was written over the course of a thousand years by multiple authors. The liberal Christian tradition considered slavery a violation of natural law by the 1700's.

There were almost no aetheists among the enlightenment thinkers, they were mostly deists who believed in a natural creator of the universe.

I never put intellectual history into teams - devout, agnostic, deist - each occupying their own silo and operating independently of other groups.

Human ethical and intellectual advancement is a product of the collective experiences of all kinds of human groupings.

Christian scholasticism lead to the creation of universities and pursuit of the intellectual life. Christian scholasticism led to the age of science and the experimental method. Issac Newton, Francis Bacon, and John Locke were Christians. The age of science blossomed into the enlightenment. Voltaire, Montesque, Jefferson, et al were deists.

None if it happened in a vacuum or independently of each other.
 
Cypress said:
Christian theology did not stop developing when the ink was dry on the Gospel of John. Christian thinkers spent the next two thousand years interpreting the scripture, which is highly ambiguous and even contradictory. Which is what you would expect from a voluminous cannon that was written over the course of a thousand years by multiple authors.

There were almost no aetheists among the enlightenment thinkers, they were mostly deists who believed in a natural creator of the universe.

I never put intellectual history into teams - devout, agnostic, deist - each occupying their own silo and operating independently of other groups.

Human ethical and intellectual advancement is a product of the collective experiences of all kinds of human groupings.

Christian scholasticism lead to the creation of universities and pursuit of the intellectual life. Christian scholasticism led to the age of science and the experimental method. Issac Newton, Francis Bacon, and John Locke were Christians. The age of science blossomed into the enlightenment. Voltaire, Montesque, Jefferson, et al were deists.

None if it happened in a vacuum or independently of each other.
Click to expand...


Deism is really atheism by current standards.
 
MarcusA said:
The Common Law in the US is based off of "religious" morality and values.

For example, not only rape, murder and things of that nature "sins" in Christianty and world religions, but are also "crimes" under "secular" law; with "secular law" having developed or evolved out of older religious and legal systems, such as Roman, Exodus, and so on.

An atheist, for example, can't have any objection to murder, rape and things of that nature except on faith, or on stealing and appropriating those moral values and axioms from world religions (much as degenerate heathen "religions" and cults such as "Satanism" have no morality to speak of which is compatible with that that of law, society and so forth).

So yes, I'd argue based on these facts, state and federal can and should, indeed favor Christianity (and monotheistic, world religion with compatible values) both in public and private over inferior and socially unacceptable trash such as atheism, Satanism and so forth, rather than pretending that such filth and worthlessness is in anyway "equal" to them, when it is decidedly inferior, and has no right to exist it all.
Click to expand...

"The Code of Hammurabi is a well-preserved Babylonian code of law of ancient Mesopotamia, dated to about 1754 BC. It is one of the oldest deciphered writings of significant length in the world. The sixth Babylonian king, Hammurabi, enacted the code. A partial copy exists on a 2.25-metre-tall stone stele.Wikipedia"
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=code+of+hammurabi&atb=v212-1&ia=web

It's where the phrase 'Eye for an Eye, Tooth for a Tooth' comes from.
 
jacksonsprat22 said:
Deism is really atheism by current standards.
Click to expand...

The reason they are two different words is because they are two different things.

I do not understand why posters get emotionally invested on being on teams - the atheist team or the Christian team.

I am on record sticking up for both groups.

Western civilization and knowlege is the product of the cumulative efforts of various traditions - the Christian thinkers, Enlightenment thinkers, Romantic era thinkers, the devout, the irreligious, and the agnostic
 
Cypress said:
The reason they are two different words is because they are two different things.

I do not understand why posters get emotionally invested on being on teams - the atheist team or the Christian team.

I am on record sticking up for both groups.

Western civilization and knowlege is the product of the cumulative efforts of various traditions - the Christian thinkers, Enlightenment thinkers, Romantic era thinkers, the devout, the irreligious, and the agnostic
Click to expand...

so when the atheists start beheading christians, where you gonna stand?
 
Cypress said:
The reason they are two different words is because they are two different things.

I do not understand why posters get emotionally invested on being on teams - the atheist team or the Christian team.

I am on record sticking up for both groups.

Western civilization and knowlege is the product of the cumulative efforts of various traditions - the Christian thinkers, Enlightenment thinkers, Romantic era thinkers, the devout, the irreligious, and the agnostic
Click to expand...

Really can't follow your argument. Do you even know the meaning of "deism?"
 
Jack said:
"The Code of Hammurabi is a well-preserved Babylonian code of law of ancient Mesopotamia, dated to about 1754 BC. It is one of the oldest deciphered writings of significant length in the world. The sixth Babylonian king, Hammurabi, enacted the code. A partial copy exists on a 2.25-metre-tall stone stele.Wikipedia"
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=code+of+hammurabi&atb=v212-1&ia=web

It's where the phrase 'Eye for an Eye, Tooth for a Tooth' comes from.
Click to expand...

does it assert moral relativism?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top