767
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 464:
Line 464: + + Line 470:
Line 472: − + + + + + + + + + + + + + + − +
Debate:Is religion morally wrong? (view source)
Revision as of 21:14, April 25, 2007
, 21:14, April 25, 2007→The Theist answers=
:::# Reason, as I have stated serves as a guide. It then becomes automatic.
:::# Reason, as I have stated serves as a guide. It then becomes automatic.
:::# What you describe are the acts of a person that is unreasonable. I have addressed that. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:11, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
:::# What you describe are the acts of a person that is unreasonable. I have addressed that. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:11, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
==The Theist answers===
==The Theist answers===
==The Theist answers===
The theistic-denier states:
The theistic-denier states:
::I would not kill a child because doing so can only ''harm'' society. What in that describes to you a failure to communicate? Must one have a "god-figure" to stop them from killing children? If there were no god, would you kill children? Is a strong faith then a barrier to crime? And if so, why would a god allow that in a world/universe they control?
::I would not kill a child because doing so can only ''harm'' society. What in that describes to you a failure to communicate? Must one have a "god-figure" to stop them from killing children? If there were no god, would you kill children?
I can think of many incidents of killing children which would benefit society. Our society could harvest children from poverty-stricken regions where resources are depleted and food-shortages are chronic. This is good for the environment and greatly reduces the chance that their children will suffer from famine. Then we could use those children to reseach cancer, AIDs and other diseases. Rather than working on cadavers, young doctors could practice their trade on these children. Then we could pulverize the remains and feed them to hogs. This would provide more food for other people. If you are opposed to killing (because of some fear of the mythic god) you could just enslave the children instead. We have plenty of jobs they can do which will help society more than some miserable existence in a barren wasteland.
Working strictly from a framework of reason and rationalization, why not kill children to better serve society? Furthermore, of course, this rational begs the question: why is the society of any importance at all? Why is "society" any bigger than the individual?
Additionally, the "agnostic" asks:
::Is a strong faith then a barrier to crime? And if so, why would a god allow that in a world/universe they control?
Please understand that at this point, I'm not trying to prove to you my point of view. I'm trying to understand your point of view. So, while I believe that faith is the strongest barrier to crime that I know of, I won't bother to explain why I think this to you because you are clearly more enlightened than I. You've advance beyond the need for some silly god-figure.
What I would like to know is; what is your barrier to crime in the atheistic framework? It appears (based on my example above) that it is something other than reasoning, because I've proven how killing children can be good for society.
I can think of many incidents of killing children which would benefit society. Our society could harvest children from poverty-stricken regions where resources are depleted and food-shortages are chronic. This is good for the environment and greatly reduces the chance that their children will suffer from famine. Then we could use those children to reseach cancer, AIDs and other diseases. Rather than working on cadavers, young doctors could practice their trade on these children. Then we could pulverize the remains and feed them to hogs. This would provide more food for other people. If you are opposed to killing (because of some fear of the mythic god) you could just enslave the children instead.
I'd be more than happy to answer why God allows suffering in the universe, but the answer to that question is pointless if we don't agree that God exists. Let's not waste time. Hypothetically, I'm agreeing with your argument that the fact that there is suffering in the universe is evidence that there is no god. Let's proceed along your path and see where it leads. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:14, 25 April 2007 (EDT)