[Speaks for itself]
Your rejection of religion has nothing to do with the fact that you won't kill people. You don't try to kill people because you don't have the power to, at least, not without losing your own life in the process. Therefore, you cannot assert your version of morality over them. If your version of morality states that people should not murder others, then I am afraid you hold a moral that was influenced by Biblical law. Moreover, if someone has the power to kill you, then your idea of morality becomes incorrect. How you like that?
33 comments
Ok, I have the power to kill you because I'm going to jail, here, in Indonesia or in Japan. In Antartica, which is not definitely a Christian country. Why?, something call RATIONALITY.
Innumerable people have the power to kill me, so I guess my idea of morality is incorrect.
Hey, any number of people could kill Believe(sh)It!, I guess their morality is incorrect too.
Gosh now I come to think of it, at the height of the cold war, everyone in the world was at the mercy of someone with the power to kill them (it was called mutually assured destruction, I believe). So that means everyone's idea of morality is incorrect.
Gee, it's almost as if there were no moral absolutes.
Oldest books of the Hebrew Bible may date all the way back to 1400 BCE. However, much of it was written between 900 and 400 BCE.
Hammurabi's code, however, dates back to 1760 BCE. Who was influenced by what now? Granted the Hebrews passed their beliefs down for some time before they wrote it down, but so too did the rest of the world. Finding it wrong to murder others was an idea introduced by the bible and it's not an idea that was introduced at all as you would know if you hadn't been brainwashed to think Humanity is bad without the word of god to guide it.
As for the rest of your bullshit, what have you been smoking?
So, let me get this straight: I am capable of killing you, so even though I go to jail, that makes you incorrect.
Babydoll, you're just asking for someone to open up a can of genocide on your ass.
Sorry, to make 3 posts, but just to follow up on my original comment:
"The earlier code of Ur-Nammu, of the Ur-III dynasty (21st century BC), the Hittite code of laws (ca. 1300 BC), and Mosaic Law (traditionally ca. 1400 BC under Moses), all contain statutes that bear at least passing resemblance to those in the Code of Hammurabi and other codices from the same geographic area."
Frankly, Osiris, I'm not going to believe anything Believe It! says about anything.
If he told me the sky was blue, I'd be sure to get validation from a team of colour experts and meteorologists before agreeing.
So if people have tried to kill me, and failed, does that mean my morality is infallible?
Sweet!
I declare homosexuality to be as moral as any other kind of sexuality, and I also declare willfull ignorance a sin.
I was thinking of doing a response where i said that he's right, then specified he was only right about one thing, and the rest was horribly wrong.
Thing is, in that whole paragraph there isn't a single thing that's correct.
"ug no kill tribe person. tribe person help sometime. ug kill other tribe person that hurt ug by stealing meat. meat good. taking meat that ug's bad. ug be bad to bad meat-taking person"
seriously, I'd give an example from other social animals like wolves but then they wouldn't understand a word of it.
Not fucking up your own people is a basic, BASIC factor evolved in social animals. Because even without the later-added socioeconomic and legal factors, you're reducing your own chance of survival.
Bats that don't share some of their catch with young or wounded that couldn't go out or didn't catch much, for example, are quickly left behind and ignored when THEY have trouble. And we're just talking BATS here.
Drakeal: As a sometimes Naruto fan, thanks ^_-
...I can't understand this guy. So... it's good to kill people because then your version of morality is the correct version? Even when your version of morality says it's bad to kill people? Teh heck?
So now we're the ones who are only good because we're controlled by threats? I'm afraid you have it backwards. We get morality from common sense and empathy; you're the one who needs eternal punishment to keep you in line.
Besides, the Bible was by no means the first documentation of people saying killing is wrong. Steele of Hammurabi FTW!
BelieveIt is one of those right-wing clowns of the Rush Dimbulb, Babble O'really, Ann Closyermouth, Mike Salivage school of debators. Never debate the issue, resort to personal attacks, come out with some irrelevant or untrue factoid, then declare victory hoping to fool stupid people (the right-wing sheep that make up their audience) into believing you won. He regularly appears to get his ass handed to him even on that forum.
Sorry, I'm new here. Why do the forums for Naruto and Star Wars seem to be fertile hunting grounds for fundie quotes?
[EDIT: I guess I'm not the only one asking.]
(P.S. I checked the box to say I'm human, although since I'm a born-again atheist I'm not a real human being. Please don't harvest my organs, at least until I'm done with this project at work; my boss will be upset.)
"If your version of morality states that people should not murder others, then I am afraid you hold a moral that was influenced by Biblical law. "
Yeah, but the biblical law actually lists several groups of people that it's okay to kill.
'You don't try to kill people because you don't have the power to, at least, not without losing your own life in the process.'
How do you think you even know this, you pretentious asswipe?
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.