Texas church shooter was a militant atheist

[Browning Slayer]

Your point?

That all of these mass murderers lack one thing. And it's the same thing Atheists run from.

 

[atlashunter]

That all of these mass murderers lack one thing. And it's the same thing Atheists run from.

Funny you should post this right after posting on the thread about us being separated out of the Christian forum so they could have their safe space. And the religious are over represented in prisons. Whatever it is they aren't lacking didn't seem to make any difference.

 

[kmckinnie]

The movie “ Lonesome Dove” is aperfect example of how we use to weed out this.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

Thanks for the acknowledgment. We can always depend on you to deliver insightful comments.

Thanks for the spellcheck. I corrected it.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

There are no precepts of atheism. Atheism is amoral. Christianity is immoral.

If you take the meaning of "precepts" to mean a moral code you would be absolutely correct. There is absolutely nothing in atheism that addresses morality nor would form values to deter an individual from mowing down innocent people.


If however you take a broader definition to include logical suppositions that must be drawn from the conclusion of "No God", then each atheist abides by certain precepts depending on their individual beliefs to answer the big questions in life like "Where did life come from?", Is there a such thing as morals and if so what are they and how do I live my life accordingly?, etc. Humanism has it's precepts, Buddhism has it's, Nihilism has it's and Secularism has it's own also. Everybody has to answer the questions and it's false to say that if one is an atheist that they don't have precepts. Atheism DOES have it's own precepts, to say it doesn't is just a cheap answer akin to saying Atheism isn't a religion. It IS a world view like any other and if you believe in it then it's your religion.

Christianity is immoral

Not many sane, intellectually honest people would agree with you regardless of their belief, but again I expect no less and it's sad.

 

[atlashunter]

Thanks for the spellcheck. I corrected it.

Freudian slip

 

[oldfella1962]

If you take the meaning of "precepts" to mean a moral code you would be absolutely correct. There is absolutely nothing in atheism that addresses morality nor would form values to deter an individual from mowing down innocent people.


If however you take a broader definition to include logical suppositions that must be drawn from the conclusion of "No God", then each atheist abides by certain precepts depending on their individual beliefs to answer the big questions in life like "Where did life come from?", Is there a such thing as morals and if so what are they and how do I live my life accordingly?, etc. Humanism has it's precepts, Buddhism has it's, Nihilism has it's and Secularism has it's own also. Everybody has to answer the questions and it's false to say that if one is an atheist that they don't have precepts. Atheism DOES have it's own precepts, to say it doesn't is just a cheap answer akin to saying Atheism isn't a religion. It IS a world view like any other and if you believe in it then it's your religion.



Not many sane, intellectually honest people would agree with you regardless of their belief, but again I expect no less and it's sad.

This begs the question: with the "moral code" of Christianity in their brains is the average person more likely, less likely, or no statistical difference when it comes to committing a mass killing?

 

[WaltL1]

Self identified "Christians" who commit murder do so in direct contradiction to the tenets of Christ and Christianity and are not Christians. That's non-debatable. So, it's only hypocrisy if one accepts your notably false straw man presupposition that they are.(intellectually dishonesty ring a bell here.
)
The same cannot be said of Atheism nor those who hold to it's precepts. Again, non-debatable.
Wrong again. Beliefs shape values(or lack thereof) and values dictates actions. And again, non debatable.

Christianity holds that ALL life, because we are ALL created in the image of a Holy God, has infinite sanctity and infinite value. People that actually HOLD to that belief don't commit these atrocities.

Atheism on the other hand ......

Self identified "Christians" who commit murder do so in direct contradiction to the tenets of Christ and Christianity and are not Christians. That's non-debatable.

2 questions -
1. You haven't given this an ounce of thought have you?
2. Which of the tenets of Christ and Christianity can you break and still be a Christian?
I mean if you are a man you are going to sin right? Sinning is breaking a tenet of Christ and Christianity.
So which are the ones that make you "not a Christian" and which are the ones you can repent and be forgiven for and remain a Christian?
You already said murder is non negotiable.
Is there a chart that shows the tenets that are the really important ones like murder and the ones that are not so important?

 

[atlashunter]

If you take the meaning of "precepts" to mean a moral code you would be absolutely correct. There is absolutely nothing in atheism that addresses morality nor would form values to deter an individual from mowing down innocent people.


If however you take a broader definition to include logical suppositions that must be drawn from the conclusion of "No God", then each atheist abides by certain precepts depending on their individual beliefs to answer the big questions in life like "Where did life come from?", Is there a such thing as morals and if so what are they and how do I live my life accordingly?, etc. Humanism has it's precepts, Buddhism has it's, Nihilism has it's and Secularism has it's own also. Everybody has to answer the questions and it's false to say that if one is an atheist that they don't have precepts. Atheism DOES have it's own precepts, to say it doesn't is just a cheap answer akin to saying Atheism isn't a religion. It IS a world view like any other and if you believe in it then it's your religion.

I use the dictionary definition of precept. I don't attempt to make words mean things they do not to suit my purpose. That would be intellectually dishonest and as you well know we can't have that.

precept (prēˈsĕptˌ)►
n. A rule or principle prescribing a particular course of action or conduct.
n. Law An authorized direction or order; a writ.

The absence of a parent figure in the sky does not create any precepts whatsoever. Rather it leaves a blank slate. All of those questions you posit are not addressed by atheism just as they are not addressed by the lack of a belief in fairies. It's neither moral or immoral. Except perhaps that it has the moral edge of not engaging in wishful thinking and baseless assertions.

 

[atlashunter]

2 questions -
1. You haven't given this an ounce of thought have you?
2. Which of the tenets of Christ and Christianity can you break and still be a Christian?
I mean if you are a man you are going to sin right? Sinning is breaking a tenet of Christ and Christianity.
So which are the ones that make you "not a Christian" and which are the ones you can repent and be forgiven for and remain a Christian?
You already said murder is non negotiable.
Is there a chart that shows the tenets that are the really important ones like murder and the ones that are not so important?

Logic.

 

[WaltL1]

Logic.

Or in SFD's case, when it comes to this stuff, a complete lack there of
He's actually trampling all over the fundamental component of Christianity's belief in God's choice of who, how and what to forgive.
No sir, its non negotiable. SFD must be a pretty important guy, making those kind of decisions for his god.
Squeeler was impressed though -

Schooled!

Yeah, I'm not sure which school but ok....

 

[atlashunter]

Or in SFD's case, when it comes to this stuff, a complete lack there of
He's actually trampling all over the fundamental component of Christianity's belief in God's choice of who, how and what to forgive.
No sir, its non negotiable. SFD must be a pretty important guy, making those kind of decisions for his god.
Squeeler was impressed though -

Yeah, I'm not sure which school but ok....

Never mind that the bible is replete with commands to kill people.

 

[Artfuldodger]

I learn more about the religious side of Christianity on this forum more than the Christianity forum. I can see the Sadducee and Pharisee types down here and compare that with the "salvation by grace" types on the other forum.

The Sadducees and Pharisees (Christians in name only)

 

[Israel]

2 questions -
1. You haven't given this an ounce of thought have you?
2. Which of the tenets of Christ and Christianity can you break and still be a Christian?
I mean if you are a man you are going to sin right? Sinning is breaking a tenet of Christ and Christianity.
So which are the ones that make you "not a Christian" and which are the ones you can repent and be forgiven for and remain a Christian?
You already said murder is non negotiable.
Is there a chart that shows the tenets that are the really important ones like murder and the ones that are not so important?

Jesus has told us where murder begins.
Jesus has shown us where life is, and has always been.
Something is either unseated in a man to make room for life or he must continue in blindness.
A man will see it. Or not.

Miracles seen "out there" will not do it, great works and prophesies do not secure it. There is nothing a man can offer of himself to assure himself.

All is either gift and being done for him, or he yet spins his wheels. He can tell himself, or others, in as many ways a thing can be spoken (by practice, by word, by ritual or observance) "I am a christian" and still find a something eating at him, and through him, chewing up others. I know this thing. I know that place.

A man cannot forgive himself. But, if he is given to see, he knows it is the one thing totally and irrevocably beyond his own grasp, that he must have. There is no room for any other desire or knowing there, all else is gone, like ashes. He is, and has been wrong about everything else he may have built his house upon. No matter how seemingly fine, noble, or well accepted those things may have seemed. He knows only one thing there. He deserves all the terrors of interminable isolation, "where the worm dieth not". This, and only this, he has earned. But, even being made able to see this, is gift.

You would say "prove to me someone reaches out there, in that place, show me His face, this face of rescue, prove He is real". But, I cannot make you go to that place of such needed rescue, no man can. But a man may not lie against the truth if he has been there, he might have a testimony of life out from the dead, and even learn it is both fitting and needful for him that his testimony not be believed. He has seen the carnage of what he has laid waste previously by all the sleight of hand and word he had worked when he sought so to "make himself" believable to a gain from others. The trades he made to "get" for himself. His skill. His trade. His work. His getting.

No, no man goes there willingly. No man can volunteer himself to it, no man is equipped to unearth himself. No man, despite all his word of craft, really wants to know himself. No man wants that rock turned over. None.

It is good one allowed himself. Completely turned over. To man. He alone is able to bear all examination.

 

[Miguel Cervantes]

I learn more about the religious side of Christianity on this forum more than the Christianity forum. I can see the Sadducee and Pharisee types down here and compare that with the "salvation by grace" types on the other forum.

The Sadducees and Pharisees (Christians in name only)

CINO's. I love it!!!
You are 100% correct sir.

 

[bullethead]

https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/18/good-minus-god/

 

[hummerpoo]

https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/18/good-minus-god/

I have yet to figure out how the article ties in to the thread; but what I find most agreeable is

The most reliable allies in any moral struggle will be those who respond to the ethically significant aspects of life, whether or not they conceive these things in religious terms. You do not lose morality by giving up God;

the next clause, however, seems to point to what troubles me about the thrust of the article

neither do you necessarily find it by finding Him.

I find myself inadequate to the task of expressing the thought succinctly, but it hinges on "finding Him".

His general revelation of "Himself" (the Bible) starts out by saying "In the beginning God"; from which can be drawn that what God commands are a revelation of Himself. The portion of the article that deals with God's commands (as either the source of morals or statements of morals without (outside of) God) deals with God as though He were some sort of Superman; perhaps a man of another realm; rather than that which is reflective of "In the beginning God". That same conception of God could be said to underlie the whole of the article.

If you find God, you find the beginning, does that not necessarily include morality.

Waite, the tie-in is atheist's morals ... please excuse my denseness.

 

[bullethead]

I have yet to figure out how the article ties in to the thread; but what I find most agreeable is


the next clause, however, seems to point to what troubles me about the thrust of the article


I find myself inadequate to the task of expressing the thought succinctly, but it hinges on "finding Him".

His general revelation of "Himself" (the Bible) starts out by saying "In the beginning God"; from which can be drawn that what God commands are a revelation of Himself. The portion of the article that deals with God's commands (as either the source of morals or statements of morals without (outside of) God) deals with God as though He were some sort of Superman; perhaps a man of another realm; rather than that which is reflective of "In the beginning God". That same conception of God could be said to underlie the whole of the article.

If you find God, you find the beginning, does that not necessarily include morality.

Waite, the tie-in is atheist morals ... please excuse my denseness.

Post #25

 

[hummerpoo]

Post #25

Certainly could be dense again, but .

 

[hummerpoo]

Post #25

Is this it?
"atheist morals" vs "atheist's morals"
if so, it was unintentional and I fixed it,
and Thanks.