An atheist sent me a message over facebook offering to help me with my interview project. How kind! Well, until they tried accusing me of cannibalism…? What?
Either myself or anyone listed as one of my friends would be happy to answer any questions you wish to ask.
BTW: Judging by the morality commonly displayed by the religious, you’d be the first to kill and eat the other on the deserted isle, the difference is that you’d do a magic prayer ritual first.
Your later comment has no warrant, nor is it logical. You do not find a strain of cannibalism, not would I do such a thing. It’s logical in the sense that the quicker I starve, the quicker I’ll participate in the full fellowship of my maker in heaven.
The atheist has ever motivation, given no real objective moral absolutes regarding human life, whereas myself would have the twin understanding of objective moral realities and the understanding of an afterlife.
Again, your btw has no grounds besides trying to belittle someone with a comment regarding ‘magic prayer rituals’ (which is doubly dubious, given it relays a basic misunderstanding between prayer and incantations).
And if you wish to infer that by pointing to a religious observance of cannibalism (which is nonexistent within the Christian religion), then may I remind you secular humanism has directly lead to the atrocities and genocides of the 20th century, including the 100+ million killed under the atheistic communism.
Which, by the way, appears entirely worse then an obscure case of religious cannibalism…
You’re the biggest moral relativist of us.
Yes, you have commandments. But the commandments are relative: they are overridden by the direct will of God (see story of Abraham and Isaac). You will have to do any atrocity demanded from you by God.
And the will of God may be influenced by anything at all, for example a desire to test a faithful (see story of Job). His whim is not constrained by anything at all; there are no external rules or laws for God.
So, God is the ultimate moral relativist. And so, by association, are you as his faithful servant.
Quit lying. If you believed god ordered you to cannibalize, you would do it in a heartbeat. When one is deprived of food, they tend to hallucinate. How long do you think it would be before you started hallucinating god commanding you to eat the other?
Prayer, incantations, rain dances, spells; the only difference between them is the magical entity your using as a power source.
Sir, who in the world are you? You have the audacity to message me with an offer for an interview, and then go about making some bizarre underhanded remark associating myself and my faith as potentially cannibalistic? I can understand your rejection for objective moral norms, as well as any justification for being polite, however you would be better to learn to practice such. You do win more flies with honey then vinegar.
In addition, what a terribly subjective argument. God solidifies within scripture certain moral absolutes. Having poured over certain passages that underscore the sanctity of life, any emotional experience to try and argue against scripture could be checked by it. I can say I believe God is telling me to rape the queen of England, however anyone with a basic ability to read could open the Bible, God’s Word, and show me how such a vision is false. The Word itself provides such moral realities that can be checked by the very thing you’re arguing.
We could have some fantasy discussions, yet it would be as valuable as me asking you to prove you are not some brain in a vat being experimented on to have all these various ‘life’ experiences (which you could not). Or to prove the world was not made 5 minutes ago with the appearance of having a history. However if we wish to discuss, intellectually at a basic level, something such as what you mentioned above, then we would work with what the Christian does in fact have as objective norms; in this case, the Word.
And within it is a sanctity of life and a promise in a future heaven. Your silly belittling attitude absolutely begs the question, and is arguing on a non-existent reality.
I, on the other hand, observed a reality: namely the atheist arguing that his self preservation was the primary ethic (which proposes an objective norm). Oddly enough, such a survival of the fittest propelled the mentality of 20th century dictatorships and governmental genocides. You can very much ‘justify’ continuing your survival by murdering and eating someone else if you have no understanding that murdering innocent life is wrong, that there is no eternal punishment, and that your best interest is to prolong your life as much as possible given your morality. Again I reference the grand atheistic communist experience, which seems entirely worse than ‘incantation’, let alone humble prayer that simple brings praise to the Creator (not manipulates some “power source”).
The Christian on the other hand has a radically different scenario. He believes human life to be sacred, he believes in a moral absolute to not murder, he believes in eternal punishment, he believes in eternal communion with God, and he believes that in such a situation you are to give yourself for others, given you have the example of Christ who gave himself for you. It would logically be in my best interest to give us myself, witness of God’s love, and die to be with Him for all eternity.
So no, Sir. Your proposed begging-the-question comments are absolutely misplaced. Any basic honesty to approach such a scenario without begging the question in favor of nonexistant scenarios would produce so much. You’re simply being intellectually dishonest, and I do not waste my time with such individuals. Many an atheist have I had discussions with, but you appear quite fruitless and rude.
There would really appear to be no desire for intellectual communication, but simply an opportunity to offend someone you have not even met.