Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

The Turner Argument

Crescendo
Posts: 470
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 1:45:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The Turner Argument:
Invented by C.E. Turner (AKA "Crescendo")

This is not an argument about the validity of religion or the existence/nonexistence of God. This is an argument about religion in society and religious people.

Atheists do not believe in God, for that is the definition of atheism. That means they do not believe it is a sin to do anything, though they may believe something to be morally wrong.
Therefore, if somebody held an atheist and gunpoint and told him that he had to say a prayer to Jesus, would it actually go against his beliefs to do so?

I mean, consider it. If a Christian were to be threatened with death if he did not renounce his religion, what would it mean to him to comply and renounce Christianity? Well, to him it'd mean that he'd be letting God down, and possibly that he'd go to Hell. The same would apply for a Muslim, or a Jew, or a Buddhist or (insert religion here).

But if an atheist does not believe. If he believes that Christianity or any religion is wrong, that doesn't truly mean anything, because that's just his opinion. It's not a matter of eternity for him, for he doesn't believe in an afterlife.
Therefore, if an Atheist were to be forced to read a Bible and pray to Jesus, he might feel silly or stupid doing so, but it doesn't really affect him. It's just something that he would do to avoid some fate, and it wouldn't truly cost him anything to outwardly convert to another religion to save his skin.
Therefore, atheists should not impose their will on religious people, and it wouldn't even hurt them to tolerate religion or even acting religious, because it doesn't really mean anything to do so.

I'm sorry if I don't make sense, but I'm trying to explain this the best I can. Does anybody understand what I'm saying?
If so, please discuss.
My View of the World:
http://www.debate.org...

My Greatest Debate (As of so far):
http://www.debate.org...
Brendan21
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 1:53:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/16/2014 1:45:24 PM, Crescendo wrote:
The Turner Argument:
Invented by C.E. Turner (AKA "Crescendo")

This is not an argument about the validity of religion or the existence/nonexistence of God. This is an argument about religion in society and religious people.

Atheists do not believe in God, for that is the definition of atheism. That means they do not believe it is a sin to do anything, though they may believe something to be morally wrong.
Therefore, if somebody held an atheist and gunpoint and told him that he had to say a prayer to Jesus, would it actually go against his beliefs to do so?

I mean, consider it. If a Christian were to be threatened with death if he did not renounce his religion, what would it mean to him to comply and renounce Christianity? Well, to him it'd mean that he'd be letting God down, and possibly that he'd go to Hell. The same would apply for a Muslim, or a Jew, or a Buddhist or (insert religion here).

But if an atheist does not believe. If he believes that Christianity or any religion is wrong, that doesn't truly mean anything, because that's just his opinion. It's not a matter of eternity for him, for he doesn't believe in an afterlife.
Therefore, if an Atheist were to be forced to read a Bible and pray to Jesus, he might feel silly or stupid doing so, but it doesn't really affect him. It's just something that he would do to avoid some fate, and it wouldn't truly cost him anything to outwardly convert to another religion to save his skin.
Therefore, atheists should not impose their will on religious people, and it wouldn't even hurt them to tolerate religion or even acting religious, because it doesn't really mean anything to do so.

I'm sorry if I don't make sense, but I'm trying to explain this the best I can. Does anybody understand what I'm saying?
If so, please discuss.

The problem doesn't come from the fact that atheists or others are just intolerant of religion, (few atheists are outside of this website) but when you have people trying to use their religion as the basis for something that applies to everyone (IE abortion, gay marriage, and tons of others that have some how got mixed in) it becomes a problem not with atheists being intolerant but vice versa. Religious people often fail to realize that their personal beliefs on religious matters don't matter AT ALL in the realm of politics and laws (even though that's not even the case anymore because of special interest groups and the like). Just because your God says it is immoral to abort a baby or commit gay acts does not mean that it should apply to everyone, ESPECIALLY when they don't believe the same sh*t.
Crescendo
Posts: 470
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 2:02:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/16/2014 1:53:11 PM, Brendan21 wrote:
At 5/16/2014 1:45:24 PM, Crescendo wrote:
The Turner Argument:
Invented by C.E. Turner (AKA "Crescendo")

This is not an argument about the validity of religion or the existence/nonexistence of God. This is an argument about religion in society and religious people.

Atheists do not believe in God, for that is the definition of atheism. That means they do not believe it is a sin to do anything, though they may believe something to be morally wrong.
Therefore, if somebody held an atheist and gunpoint and told him that he had to say a prayer to Jesus, would it actually go against his beliefs to do so?

I mean, consider it. If a Christian were to be threatened with death if he did not renounce his religion, what would it mean to him to comply and renounce Christianity? Well, to him it'd mean that he'd be letting God down, and possibly that he'd go to Hell. The same would apply for a Muslim, or a Jew, or a Buddhist or (insert religion here).

But if an atheist does not believe. If he believes that Christianity or any religion is wrong, that doesn't truly mean anything, because that's just his opinion. It's not a matter of eternity for him, for he doesn't believe in an afterlife.
Therefore, if an Atheist were to be forced to read a Bible and pray to Jesus, he might feel silly or stupid doing so, but it doesn't really affect him. It's just something that he would do to avoid some fate, and it wouldn't truly cost him anything to outwardly convert to another religion to save his skin.
Therefore, atheists should not impose their will on religious people, and it wouldn't even hurt them to tolerate religion or even acting religious, because it doesn't really mean anything to do so.

I'm sorry if I don't make sense, but I'm trying to explain this the best I can. Does anybody understand what I'm saying?
If so, please discuss.

The problem doesn't come from the fact that atheists or others are just intolerant of religion, (few atheists are outside of this website) but when you have people trying to use their religion as the basis for something that applies to everyone (IE abortion, gay marriage, and tons of others that have some how got mixed in) it becomes a problem not with atheists being intolerant but vice versa. Religious people often fail to realize that their personal beliefs on religious matters don't matter AT ALL in the realm of politics and laws (even though that's not even the case anymore because of special interest groups and the like). Just because your God says it is immoral to abort a baby or commit gay acts does not mean that it should apply to everyone, ESPECIALLY when they don't believe the same sh*t.

First of all, abortion could be considered wrong under the same set of morals used to defined slavery as wrong. So is abolitionism just Christians imposing their morals upon others? (And do not bring up that crud about the Bible condoning slavery.)
Also, homosexuality could be justified outside of religion by saying that it's evolutionarily (I know that's not a word) maleficent.
Besides not being able to breed, homosexual intercourse is unhealthy, and is much more dangerous than heterosexual intercourse. Here's some proof:
http://www.catholiceducation.org...
My View of the World:
http://www.debate.org...

My Greatest Debate (As of so far):
http://www.debate.org...
Brendan21
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 2:10:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/16/2014 2:02:06 PM, Crescendo wrote:
At 5/16/2014 1:53:11 PM, Brendan21 wrote:
At 5/16/2014 1:45:24 PM, Crescendo wrote:
The Turner Argument:
Invented by C.E. Turner (AKA "Crescendo")

This is not an argument about the validity of religion or the existence/nonexistence of God. This is an argument about religion in society and religious people.

Atheists do not believe in God, for that is the definition of atheism. That means they do not believe it is a sin to do anything, though they may believe something to be morally wrong.
Therefore, if somebody held an atheist and gunpoint and told him that he had to say a prayer to Jesus, would it actually go against his beliefs to do so?

I mean, consider it. If a Christian were to be threatened with death if he did not renounce his religion, what would it mean to him to comply and renounce Christianity? Well, to him it'd mean that he'd be letting God down, and possibly that he'd go to Hell. The same would apply for a Muslim, or a Jew, or a Buddhist or (insert religion here).

But if an atheist does not believe. If he believes that Christianity or any religion is wrong, that doesn't truly mean anything, because that's just his opinion. It's not a matter of eternity for him, for he doesn't believe in an afterlife.
Therefore, if an Atheist were to be forced to read a Bible and pray to Jesus, he might feel silly or stupid doing so, but it doesn't really affect him. It's just something that he would do to avoid some fate, and it wouldn't truly cost him anything to outwardly convert to another religion to save his skin.
Therefore, atheists should not impose their will on religious people, and it wouldn't even hurt them to tolerate religion or even acting religious, because it doesn't really mean anything to do so.

I'm sorry if I don't make sense, but I'm trying to explain this the best I can. Does anybody understand what I'm saying?
If so, please discuss.

The problem doesn't come from the fact that atheists or others are just intolerant of religion, (few atheists are outside of this website) but when you have people trying to use their religion as the basis for something that applies to everyone (IE abortion, gay marriage, and tons of others that have some how got mixed in) it becomes a problem not with atheists being intolerant but vice versa. Religious people often fail to realize that their personal beliefs on religious matters don't matter AT ALL in the realm of politics and laws (even though that's not even the case anymore because of special interest groups and the like). Just because your God says it is immoral to abort a baby or commit gay acts does not mean that it should apply to everyone, ESPECIALLY when they don't believe the same sh*t.

First of all, abortion could be considered wrong under the same set of morals used to defined slavery as wrong. So is abolitionism just Christians imposing their morals upon others? (And do not bring up that crud about the Bible condoning slavery.)
Also, homosexuality could be justified outside of religion by saying that it's evolutionarily (I know that's not a word) maleficent.
Besides not being able to breed, homosexual intercourse is unhealthy, and is much more dangerous than heterosexual intercourse. Here's some proof:
http://www.catholiceducation.org...

First off ROFL link a catholic site for a source doesn't count for sh*t, but I'll still accept all of your reasons regardless and add who the hell cares? It is none of mine, yours, or anyone else's to tell people who they love or how. Abortion can certainly be viewed as a type of murder, I'll admit, which is a step further than you were willing to go, but still I say that AT LEAST under certain circumstances it is for the best of everyone involved (rape, incest). Yet still none of this matters when you look at if from a societies standpoint. We have the constitution, which blatantly states we have certain rights which are currently unavailable (gay marriage, drug legalization, etc) and my point is, the religious reasoning and logical does not exist to some people, and therefore, along with the guidelines of the constitution, have no place in developing laws and politics.
Your God is unconstitutional and the constitution should trump God in a land of freedom of religion.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 2:50:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/16/2014 2:10:26 PM, Brendan21 wrote:

First off ROFL link a catholic site for a source doesn't count for sh*t, but I'll still accept all of your reasons regardless and add who the hell cares? It is none of mine, yours, or anyone else's to tell people who they love or how. Abortion can certainly be viewed as a type of murder, I'll admit, which is a step further than you were willing to go, but still I say that AT LEAST under certain circumstances it is for the best of everyone involved (rape, incest). Yet still none of this matters when you look at if from a societies standpoint. We have the constitution, which blatantly states we have certain rights which are currently unavailable (gay marriage, drug legalization, etc) and my point is, the religious reasoning and logical does not exist to some people, and therefore, along with the guidelines of the constitution, have no place in developing laws and politics.
Your God is unconstitutional and the constitution should trump God in a land of freedom of religion.

Legalism at its finest.
Brendan21
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 3:00:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/16/2014 2:50:26 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/16/2014 2:10:26 PM, Brendan21 wrote:

First off ROFL link a catholic site for a source doesn't count for sh*t, but I'll still accept all of your reasons regardless and add who the hell cares? It is none of mine, yours, or anyone else's to tell people who they love or how. Abortion can certainly be viewed as a type of murder, I'll admit, which is a step further than you were willing to go, but still I say that AT LEAST under certain circumstances it is for the best of everyone involved (rape, incest). Yet still none of this matters when you look at if from a societies standpoint. We have the constitution, which blatantly states we have certain rights which are currently unavailable (gay marriage, drug legalization, etc) and my point is, the religious reasoning and logical does not exist to some people, and therefore, along with the guidelines of the constitution, have no place in developing laws and politics.
Your God is unconstitutional and the constitution should trump God in a land of freedom of religion.

Legalism at its finest.

Not really, unless you are using the theological definition of legalism, which again is just as arbitrary to me as all these laws that people want to make that match their faith, regardless of everyone else's beliefs.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 3:20:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/16/2014 3:00:10 PM, Brendan21 wrote:
At 5/16/2014 2:50:26 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/16/2014 2:10:26 PM, Brendan21 wrote:

First off ROFL link a catholic site for a source doesn't count for sh*t, but I'll still accept all of your reasons regardless and add who the hell cares? It is none of mine, yours, or anyone else's to tell people who they love or how. Abortion can certainly be viewed as a type of murder, I'll admit, which is a step further than you were willing to go, but still I say that AT LEAST under certain circumstances it is for the best of everyone involved (rape, incest). Yet still none of this matters when you look at if from a societies standpoint. We have the constitution, which blatantly states we have certain rights which are currently unavailable (gay marriage, drug legalization, etc) and my point is, the religious reasoning and logical does not exist to some people, and therefore, along with the guidelines of the constitution, have no place in developing laws and politics.
Your God is unconstitutional and the constitution should trump God in a land of freedom of religion.

Legalism at its finest.

Not really, unless you are using the theological definition of legalism, which again is just as arbitrary to me as all these laws that people want to make that match their faith, regardless of everyone else's beliefs.

You've justified yourself as being right because it is law.
Brendan21
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 3:50:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/16/2014 3:20:49 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/16/2014 3:00:10 PM, Brendan21 wrote:
At 5/16/2014 2:50:26 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/16/2014 2:10:26 PM, Brendan21 wrote:

First off ROFL link a catholic site for a source doesn't count for sh*t, but I'll still accept all of your reasons regardless and add who the hell cares? It is none of mine, yours, or anyone else's to tell people who they love or how. Abortion can certainly be viewed as a type of murder, I'll admit, which is a step further than you were willing to go, but still I say that AT LEAST under certain circumstances it is for the best of everyone involved (rape, incest). Yet still none of this matters when you look at if from a societies standpoint. We have the constitution, which blatantly states we have certain rights which are currently unavailable (gay marriage, drug legalization, etc) and my point is, the religious reasoning and logical does not exist to some people, and therefore, along with the guidelines of the constitution, have no place in developing laws and politics.
Your God is unconstitutional and the constitution should trump God in a land of freedom of religion.

Legalism at its finest.

Not really, unless you are using the theological definition of legalism, which again is just as arbitrary to me as all these laws that people want to make that match their faith, regardless of everyone else's beliefs.

You've justified yourself as being right because it is law.

In over-simplified terms, yes. However many people argue that the constitution or at least the bill of rights are God given rights, the same people who would take the very rights away from gays etc. As a society we have to select which trumps the other, our rights defined by what our nation is founded on and what its justice system entails, or do we want to go by the Bible and its teachings, because you can't have it both ways.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 3:56:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/16/2014 3:50:17 PM, Brendan21 wrote:
At 5/16/2014 3:20:49 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/16/2014 3:00:10 PM, Brendan21 wrote:
At 5/16/2014 2:50:26 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/16/2014 2:10:26 PM, Brendan21 wrote:

First off ROFL link a catholic site for a source doesn't count for sh*t, but I'll still accept all of your reasons regardless and add who the hell cares? It is none of mine, yours, or anyone else's to tell people who they love or how. Abortion can certainly be viewed as a type of murder, I'll admit, which is a step further than you were willing to go, but still I say that AT LEAST under certain circumstances it is for the best of everyone involved (rape, incest). Yet still none of this matters when you look at if from a societies standpoint. We have the constitution, which blatantly states we have certain rights which are currently unavailable (gay marriage, drug legalization, etc) and my point is, the religious reasoning and logical does not exist to some people, and therefore, along with the guidelines of the constitution, have no place in developing laws and politics.
Your God is unconstitutional and the constitution should trump God in a land of freedom of religion.

Legalism at its finest.

Not really, unless you are using the theological definition of legalism, which again is just as arbitrary to me as all these laws that people want to make that match their faith, regardless of everyone else's beliefs.

You've justified yourself as being right because it is law.

In over-simplified terms, yes. However many people argue that the constitution or at least the bill of rights are God given rights, the same people who would take the very rights away from gays etc. As a society we have to select which trumps the other, our rights defined by what our nation is founded on and what its justice system entails, or do we want to go by the Bible and its teachings, because you can't have it both ways.

The philosophical statement that your nation is founded on is the declaration of independence. As you move away from that you will find that you end up in a quagmire of relativism.
Brendan21
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 4:03:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/16/2014 3:56:27 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/16/2014 3:50:17 PM, Brendan21 wrote:
At 5/16/2014 3:20:49 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/16/2014 3:00:10 PM, Brendan21 wrote:
At 5/16/2014 2:50:26 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/16/2014 2:10:26 PM, Brendan21 wrote:

First off ROFL link a catholic site for a source doesn't count for sh*t, but I'll still accept all of your reasons regardless and add who the hell cares? It is none of mine, yours, or anyone else's to tell people who they love or how. Abortion can certainly be viewed as a type of murder, I'll admit, which is a step further than you were willing to go, but still I say that AT LEAST under certain circumstances it is for the best of everyone involved (rape, incest). Yet still none of this matters when you look at if from a societies standpoint. We have the constitution, which blatantly states we have certain rights which are currently unavailable (gay marriage, drug legalization, etc) and my point is, the religious reasoning and logical does not exist to some people, and therefore, along with the guidelines of the constitution, have no place in developing laws and politics.
Your God is unconstitutional and the constitution should trump God in a land of freedom of religion.

Legalism at its finest.

Not really, unless you are using the theological definition of legalism, which again is just as arbitrary to me as all these laws that people want to make that match their faith, regardless of everyone else's beliefs.

You've justified yourself as being right because it is law.

In over-simplified terms, yes. However many people argue that the constitution or at least the bill of rights are God given rights, the same people who would take the very rights away from gays etc. As a society we have to select which trumps the other, our rights defined by what our nation is founded on and what its justice system entails, or do we want to go by the Bible and its teachings, because you can't have it both ways.

The philosophical statement that your nation is founded on is the declaration of independence. As you move away from that you will find that you end up in a quagmire of relativism.

Don't go down that road with me, I'm a moral skeptic. I affirm the morals of our society etc but I see that they are actually very arbitrary. Tell me you logic instead of knick picking what I say because my points are still unanswered. Religious people can sit there with smugness knowing that a gay couple can't get married and ever have the financial security they have rights to, or a raped teen girl wanting to abort a baby of her attacker, "knowing" quote on quote there, that they are right because God says so. I say to you, what kind of person are you, that can sit by and know that on top of apparently being damned in God's eyes, you also have to screw them over while they ask simply for what your allowed to.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 4:05:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/16/2014 1:45:24 PM, Crescendo wrote:
The Turner Argument:
Invented by C.E. Turner (AKA "Crescendo")

This is not an argument about the validity of religion or the existence/nonexistence of God. This is an argument about religion in society and religious people.

Atheists do not believe in God, for that is the definition of atheism. That means they do not believe it is a sin to do anything, though they may believe something to be morally wrong.
Therefore, if somebody held an atheist and gunpoint and told him that he had to say a prayer to Jesus, would it actually go against his beliefs to do so?

I mean, consider it. If a Christian were to be threatened with death if he did not renounce his religion, what would it mean to him to comply and renounce Christianity? Well, to him it'd mean that he'd be letting God down, and possibly that he'd go to Hell. The same would apply for a Muslim, or a Jew, or a Buddhist or (insert religion here).

But if an atheist does not believe. If he believes that Christianity or any religion is wrong, that doesn't truly mean anything, because that's just his opinion. It's not a matter of eternity for him, for he doesn't believe in an afterlife.
Therefore, if an Atheist were to be forced to read a Bible and pray to Jesus, he might feel silly or stupid doing so, but it doesn't really affect him. It's just something that he would do to avoid some fate, and it wouldn't truly cost him anything to outwardly convert to another religion to save his skin.

Agreed, pretty much.

Therefore, atheists should not impose their will on religious people, and it wouldn't even hurt them to tolerate religion or even acting religious, because it doesn't really mean anything to do so.

This does not follow at all from that you have said, yes it is obvious that religious people are going to experience much more of an emotional impact, since their beliefs are important to them. But just because their beliefs are important to them doesn't mean other's should be tolerant of those beliefs if they impact society, and others that live within it.

Beliefs don't occur in a vacuum, you are free to believe whatever crap you want, but it's for sensitivity reasons like this why I do not really discuss religion much amongst my family and close friends.

I'm sorry if I don't make sense, but I'm trying to explain this the best I can. Does anybody understand what I'm saying?
If so, please discuss.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 4:07:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/16/2014 4:03:55 PM, Brendan21 wrote:
At 5/16/2014 3:56:27 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/16/2014 3:50:17 PM, Brendan21 wrote:
At 5/16/2014 3:20:49 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/16/2014 3:00:10 PM, Brendan21 wrote:
At 5/16/2014 2:50:26 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/16/2014 2:10:26 PM, Brendan21 wrote:

First off ROFL link a catholic site for a source doesn't count for sh*t, but I'll still accept all of your reasons regardless and add who the hell cares? It is none of mine, yours, or anyone else's to tell people who they love or how. Abortion can certainly be viewed as a type of murder, I'll admit, which is a step further than you were willing to go, but still I say that AT LEAST under certain circumstances it is for the best of everyone involved (rape, incest). Yet still none of this matters when you look at if from a societies standpoint. We have the constitution, which blatantly states we have certain rights which are currently unavailable (gay marriage, drug legalization, etc) and my point is, the religious reasoning and logical does not exist to some people, and therefore, along with the guidelines of the constitution, have no place in developing laws and politics.
Your God is unconstitutional and the constitution should trump God in a land of freedom of religion.

Legalism at its finest.

Not really, unless you are using the theological definition of legalism, which again is just as arbitrary to me as all these laws that people want to make that match their faith, regardless of everyone else's beliefs.

You've justified yourself as being right because it is law.

In over-simplified terms, yes. However many people argue that the constitution or at least the bill of rights are God given rights, the same people who would take the very rights away from gays etc. As a society we have to select which trumps the other, our rights defined by what our nation is founded on and what its justice system entails, or do we want to go by the Bible and its teachings, because you can't have it both ways.

The philosophical statement that your nation is founded on is the declaration of independence. As you move away from that you will find that you end up in a quagmire of relativism.

Don't go down that road with me, I'm a moral skeptic. I affirm the morals of our society etc but I see that they are actually very arbitrary. Tell me you logic instead of knick picking what I say because my points are still unanswered. Religious people can sit there with smugness knowing that a gay couple can't get married and ever have the financial security they have rights to, or a raped teen girl wanting to abort a baby of her attacker, "knowing" quote on quote there, that they are right because God says so. I say to you, what kind of person are you, that can sit by and know that on top of apparently being damned in God's eyes, you also have to screw them over while they ask simply for what your allowed to.

Which just shows that you have no understanding of the moral arguments. People who argue public moral rights by quoting the bible do no service to anyone. I don't have time to answer right now, but the basis is natural law. I'll try to get back to you later tonight.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 8:36:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/16/2014 1:45:24 PM, Crescendo wrote:
The Turner Argument:
Invented by C.E. Turner (AKA "Crescendo")

This is not an argument about the validity of religion or the existence/nonexistence of God. This is an argument about religion in society and religious people.

Atheists do not believe in God, for that is the definition of atheism. That means they do not believe it is a sin to do anything, though they may believe something to be morally wrong.
Therefore, if somebody held an atheist and gunpoint and told him that he had to say a prayer to Jesus, would it actually go against his beliefs to do so?

I mean, consider it. If a Christian were to be threatened with death if he did not renounce his religion, what would it mean to him to comply and renounce Christianity? Well, to him it'd mean that he'd be letting God down, and possibly that he'd go to Hell. The same would apply for a Muslim, or a Jew, or a Buddhist or (insert religion here).

But if an atheist does not believe. If he believes that Christianity or any religion is wrong, that doesn't truly mean anything, because that's just his opinion. It's not a matter of eternity for him, for he doesn't believe in an afterlife.
Therefore, if an Atheist were to be forced to read a Bible and pray to Jesus, he might feel silly or stupid doing so, but it doesn't really affect him. It's just something that he would do to avoid some fate, and it wouldn't truly cost him anything to outwardly convert to another religion to save his skin.
Therefore, atheists should not impose their will on religious people, and it wouldn't even hurt them to tolerate religion or even acting religious, because it doesn't really mean anything to do so.

I'm sorry if I don't make sense, but I'm trying to explain this the best I can. Does anybody understand what I'm saying?
If so, please discuss.

Agree why militant atheist are moving to have "in god we trust" taken of the dollar, which is actually a masonic slogan for mammon and not the christian god. Or removing One nation under god from the anthem that is unpatriotic and the phrase "one nation under god" was added in 1954, the pledge is a masonic oath of obedience to a master other than god. Or to remove cross shaped items from memorials, like road side deaths, or Vietnam memorials. Which are really masonic idols and offerings to ancestors.

But if 90% of the country believes or worships in some god than atheist should stop crying. Because this nation is for the people, BY the people. Yeah nations should be ran BY the people. people as in majority. Masons run the world it is only natural America being a world power should be so entrenched in masonic rituals and oaths.

If atheist new this stuff was satanic and masonic in nature they would not have a problem.. But they immediately jump to thinking it is God of the bible. And rightly so they should hate a God like that. Because he is going to send them to suffer for all eternity for their selfish ways. Atheist are psychopaths. And like Autism and other diseases Psychosis is rising.

-yes this post was 50% sarcasm
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 8:52:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/16/2014 4:03:55 PM, Brendan21 wrote:
At 5/16/2014 3:56:27 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/16/2014 3:50:17 PM, Brendan21 wrote:
At 5/16/2014 3:20:49 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/16/2014 3:00:10 PM, Brendan21 wrote:
At 5/16/2014 2:50:26 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/16/2014 2:10:26 PM, Brendan21 wrote:

First off ROFL link a catholic site for a source doesn't count for sh*t, but I'll still accept all of your reasons regardless and add who the hell cares? It is none of mine, yours, or anyone else's to tell people who they love or how. Abortion can certainly be viewed as a type of murder, I'll admit, which is a step further than you were willing to go, but still I say that AT LEAST under certain circumstances it is for the best of everyone involved (rape, incest). Yet still none of this matters when you look at if from a societies standpoint. We have the constitution, which blatantly states we have certain rights which are currently unavailable (gay marriage, drug legalization, etc) and my point is, the religious reasoning and logical does not exist to some people, and therefore, along with the guidelines of the constitution, have no place in developing laws and politics.
Your God is unconstitutional and the constitution should trump God in a land of freedom of religion.

Legalism at its finest.

Not really, unless you are using the theological definition of legalism, which again is just as arbitrary to me as all these laws that people want to make that match their faith, regardless of everyone else's beliefs.

You've justified yourself as being right because it is law.

In over-simplified terms, yes. However many people argue that the constitution or at least the bill of rights are God given rights, the same people who would take the very rights away from gays etc. As a society we have to select which trumps the other, our rights defined by what our nation is founded on and what its justice system entails, or do we want to go by the Bible and its teachings, because you can't have it both ways.

The philosophical statement that your nation is founded on is the declaration of independence. As you move away from that you will find that you end up in a quagmire of relativism.

Don't go down that road with me, I'm a moral skeptic. I affirm the morals of our society etc but I see that they are actually very arbitrary. Tell me you logic instead of knick picking what I say because my points are still unanswered. Religious people can sit there with smugness knowing that a gay couple can't get married and ever have the financial security they have rights to, or a raped teen girl wanting to abort a baby of her attacker, "knowing" quote on quote there, that they are right because God says so. I say to you, what kind of person are you, that can sit by and know that on top of apparently being damned in God's eyes, you also have to screw them over while they ask simply for what your allowed to.

This was chock for of ignorance. I don't know how is it that gay couples get more financial security from marriage. Hell if they get divorced which should be in 50% of the cases they will be financially hurting. There is no smugness involved.

I don't even think government should hand out marriages the license was invented from master wanting to bury his slave. And it is in the law that it is a license to marry outside one's social class or race?! A marriage license is bigotry.

Teenage girls who got raped account for how many abortions? less than 1% that is like 70 people in the entire US. Again your taking a few small cases that could be case by case and trying to use it as an appeal for general allowance.

I can distinguish between morals derived from scripture and the ethics applied to social order. I can do this by understanding that mankind is not going to get government right. In fact I think it is one of the most corrupt things.

It's this moral relativism that is letting a drunk rich teen (19) get off of THREE counts of vehicular homicide, because he was a product of his wealthy upbringing. And having the tax payers pay for his drug rehab. You obviously want a world where no one is accountable for their choices and actions. But I bet if someone was stealing from you or stabbing you in the face, You would want revenge. Not justice, because justice implies objective morals. No you would want revenge.