Atheist Bus Billboards

[lexagon]

The problem with any type of moral codes is that they're either subjective (utilitarianism, ethic of reciprocity) and are a fraction away from moral relativism in any case or "all encompassing" (religious morals/categorical imperatives etc.) which state that in any situation whatsoever, something is wrong. The Bible says that "Thou shalt not kill", which is a categorical imperative, meaning that under no circumstances are you allowed to kill, even for self-defence. How does that sound then?

[PowerVine]

Actually the Bible doesn't say thou shalt not kill. The more accurate translation of the Hebrew verb ratsach is murder as you will find if you read something other than the 1611 King James Version. (Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17) I am sure you know that self-defense is permitted and capital punishment is actually commanded in the Bible.

[lexagon]

The Bible has at least 2 different moral codes which are logically mutually exclusive (ethic of reciprocity/Mosaic law). The point is that even if there were a god that had some opinion about morality, it would be subjective as long as there was a single person that disagreed since there is no objective way of determining which position would be correct. The only argument would be that "if you don't do as I think is best I'll chuck you in hell" which is not a rational argument, it's a threat.

[PowerVine]

As I am sure you know the Old Testament contains ceremonial rules (laws) for the Jews to prepare a people for the coming of Christ. The ceremonial rules were done away with when Christ came. However, the moral code of the OT was carried over into the New Testament established by Christ. God's moral code does not change. His commands are always for our own good. God does not threaten us with hell, he offers redemption from the consequence of our own actions.

[excalibur9]

I enjoyed your video! thank you for sharing your insightful views.

Also, i was wondering about your comparison between atheists and theists.. why didja automatically equate the existence of God with Jesus (or "Judeo-Christian-Islamic " traditions in general)?

Regarding the Bible in particular, it is riddled with inconsistent and irrational moral guidance throughout.  (The scripture of Abraham being ordered by God to slaughter his child as a sacrificial burnt offering comes to mind)

[PowerVine]

Thanks for the compliment. In answer to your question, because I am a Christian. The Bible is not inconsistent and irrational in regard to moral guidance when taken in context. I know that atheists enjoy pulling passages (especially Old Testament) out of context to make a point. Abraham did sacrifice his son to God, but he didn't kill him. God wanted Abraham to demonstrate his faith in a way that has inspired many. It was God alone who actually sacrificed His only Son to death for our sins.

[justbekindtooall]

So if my friend, you were to find out in the morning that 100% it has been proven there is no God, will you start killing? Raping Children, stealing?

As I said I personaly find it sad people believe they must be told not to cause harm and suffering to others.

[PowerVine]

First, it will never be 100% proven that there is no God and it will never be 100% proven that there is a God. Secondly, I would not do those things because God gave me a conscience and a sense of right and wrong. That is just one indication that there is a God. I can point out evidence for God and I am sure you can point out evidence against God. Since there is not 100% proof either way, that is where faith comes in. You have faith that there is no God, I have faith that there is.

[justbekindtooall]

Hello again my friend it was a simple hypothetical question I am not sure why people can not answer this in an honest way.

It is simple and hypothetical So if my friend, you were to find out in the morning that 100% it has been proven there is no God, will you start killing? Raping Children, stealing?

1-You can not know what will or will NEVER be known or done and it is not relevant to a hypothetical question.

[justbekindtooall]

2-You believe your God gave you a conscience and a sense of right and wrong simply a belief not a fact unless proven.

3-A conscience and a sense of right and wrong is in no way indication there is a God yours or any. It is proof of conscience and a sense of right and wrong and nothing more.

4-You can not point to evidence for God, you can point to things and say you believe it is evidence for God.

[justbekindtooall]

5-I do not have faith there are no Gods, I see no evidence for any God, there may be and if it was proven I would believe it.

[PowerVine]

You ARE acting on faith and you are betting your eternal existence on it. If I could give you scientific proof of God's existence (and no-one can) I doubt that you would believe it.

[yared94]

I'd believe his existence but I wouldn't convert to Christianity. I refuse to follow someone so barbaric as him.

[justbekindtooall]

Is it a faith of yours that we were not seeded here by life on Mars?

You are betting your eternal existence on Believing in your God and not one of the many others. Should you not believe in them just incase?

You would be wrong in assuming what you have, I will believe anything that is proven to be true I will not believe in all things people wish to believe in just because they do.

[PowerVine]

What are the possible consequences of my not believing that we were seeded here by life on Mars?

[justbekindtooall]

My friend still you can not answer simple questions, you must be honest and ask yourself why?

I never said there would be a consequence for not believing life was seeded from mars ( as if being honest you would know as I did not say there would be) but there will be if Allah is or one of the other gods. You are betting all eternity on one God, by your own logic this would be a great risk.

[PowerVine]

The Christian sees evidence of God in creation and the way God has worked in his own life and has faith to believe in God's existence. The atheist sees no evidence for God in creation and sees evidence against God in the pain and suffering in this world and has faith that there is no God. Neither option can be proven scientifically and neither can be proven subjectively to everyone's satisfaction. We all act on faith to reach our conclusion about God. Your hypothetical is impossible.

[justbekindtooall]

People of all beliefs and Gods have what they call faith and personal experiences this is also the case with people believing in Big Foot, UFOs ghost many things. Why are they all wrong their personal experiences a lie and only the ones like yours real and true?

No my hypothetical is not impossible and there is no hypothetical question that can not be answered for an honest person.

[PowerVine]

You cannot 100% prove or disprove scientifically that which is beyond our ability to measure or test scientifically. It is like those scientists who advance multi-dimensional or multi-universe explanations for our existence. Those theories can never be proven or falsified because they advocate existence of parallel universes in other dimensions.. You will never be able to prove or disprove the existence of God scientifically because He exists outside of our time and space dimensions.

[justbekindtooall]

It is most telling you can not answer the most simple questions in a honest way. Please take the time to look deeply into your inability ot be honest when it comes to this. I do believe in most other things you are an honest and good man, it is clear you have shown as to your faith you can not be.

Be well my friend

[PowerVine]

If God did not exist, I would not be here (and neither would you) so the answer to your hypothetical question is no.

[justbekindtooall]

You write "He exists outside of our time and space dimensions. "

I respect you believe that, if you are saying this is a fact I do look forward to you proving this.

[PowerVine]

I believe that God created space/time and matter/energy (as the Bible says). Therefore, God must exist outside of our space/time dimensions. He has no beginning or end and is not confined to any one location as we are.

[danillum]

There can't be objective right and wrong with your God. Do you still stone children for being disobedient? Can you stone your wife if you hate her enough?

Don't tell me you have an objective morality when you don't follow those commands of God anymore.

[PowerVine]

There is no command in the Bible to stone your wife if you hate her. There is a passage in Deuteronomy 21:18-21 about bringing a rebellious son to the elders for stoning as a last resort. I suspect that passage put the fear of the Lord in many rebellious sons before they reached that point. As verse 21 says, All Israel will hear of it and be afraid. For an objective look at morality, turn to the New Testament instead of picking verses from the Old Testament out of context.

[danillum]

It's not a command, it's a loophole. You can stone your wife to death if you decide that you hate her by claiming she wasn't a virgin when you married her.

Deuteronomy Chapter 22 Verses 12-22

Read it and get back to me if I read that incorrectly.

[PowerVine]

As I said before, for an objective look at morality, turn to the NT instead of picking verses from the OT out of context. The context in Deuteronomy is to purge evil (in this case sexual immorality) from Israel (verse 22). Notice that the man is to punished if he brings false charges. If his accusation is found to be true, he cannot stone her. Execution is by the men of the town with the elders' approval. Also verse 22 says that a man involved in sexual immorality must also be put to death.

[UHAX101]

Morality is set by society.

[PowerVine]

When society is the ultimate source of morality without God, there is a great danger. In Hitler's Germany it was a capital crime to be a Jew. Today in parts of the world it is a capital crime to voice your opinion.

[UHAX101]

Surrounding the eagle and Swastika was the motto, "Gott Mit Uns," or "God With Us."

The problem is dogma, in all types, when people stop thinking.

[PowerVine]

I agree.

[justbekindtooall]

I find it so sad that people will truly believe that they require a God to tell them not to cause the suffering to others which they do not wish done to them. Sad they believe without a God they would not it causes suffering to take what is not given, to rape to murder to be unkind to lie. This is very sad indeed.

[justbekindtooall]

It is sad that only from a fear of a God and hell do these people avoid doing these but the facts should that Theist do these things, commit crimes at a higher rate by % of population then non theist.

If we could only give to all others the very same loving kindness- respect and compassion which we seek for ourselves, what we may believe and for who we may love.

When we stop forcing our beliefs on others and calling all who do not believe as us, evil-lost- blind and foolish..

peace

[PowerVine]

You say theists commit crimes at a higher rate than the general population. You are probably referring to statistics that indicate a high % of God-fearing, Bible-believing Christians in prison. When you ask prisoners if they are good or God-fearing or Bible-believing or Christians of course they will tell you they are. They want to get out and they think this might help! I suspect you will find the highest % of these believers on death row. That is not a very scientific study.

[justbekindtooall]

With respect It is so often the case that when a Christian does not agree with another Christian they simply deem them " not real Christians not very honest.

[PowerVine]

Anyone can claim to be a Christian (or a car, or a piece of cheese, or a watermelon) but that does not make it true. A Christian is a person who believes and follows the teaching and example of Christ.

[jazzx251]

hmmm -

this "true" Scotsman knows where you're coming from!

[PowerVine]

It is sad that the Creator who gave us a conscience is so often ignored. Only humans, who were created in the image of God, have the capacity to feel guilt when we do what our conscience tells us is wrong. Where do we get the sense of right and wrong except from the One who made us? Darwinian random mutation and natural selection cannot explain it.

[justbekindtooall]

I respect that is your belief as I respect all peoples right to believe as they wish if of peace.

Now may I ask you to prove what you have said?

[kberka]

As an Atheist, my greed is to respect the bill of rights as set forth in the United States Constitution. That is really all I need.

[PowerVine]

You can say that as an atheist who has been blessed to be a citizen of the USA. (Although I think you mean creed rather than greed.) But is that really all you need? The bill of rights says nothing about murder or armed robbery or many other crimes. Does that mean those things are OK in your moral code?

[Cafeeine]

Furthermore, you are committing a naturalistic fallacy, when you talk about 'survival of the fittest', all the while completely misapplying the concept.

Your final conclusion just falls apart because of your erroneous assumptions about the nature of right and wrong.

[PowerVine]

From a naturalistic viewpoint, survival of the fittest can apply to individuals or societies. In mankind it can mean the one with the strongest or deadliest weapons or it can mean the one with the most economic or legal power. It can also mean the one who is the most unscrupulous morally. I am sure you can think of examples in each of these categories. If there is no God, why should you hold back if you have the advantage?

[Cafeeine]

Survival of the fittest is a natural mechanism, not a moral doctrine.Its like saying "we know how gravity works, now lets go jump off buildings"

You are applying your own preconceived notions of 'fitness' here. Altruism, collaborative work, organized systems of law have also been proven 'fit' so why shouldn't I go for those? And what if gods exist who favor the savagery? In all you are assuming that man is a beast held back by religious doctrine. I have no such preconceptions

[PowerVine]

No, what I am saying is that human beings were created in the image of God with a soul, a God-given sense of morality, and a desire to know God. Unfortunately that desire to know God has been replaced by a desire for self which results in futile thinking and darkened hearts. Claiming to be wise they have become fools and replaced God with religions of their own making, whether theistic or atheistic. The result is immorality of all kinds. This is a very condensed version of Romans 1:18-32.

[Cafeeine]

What you are doing is trying to justify your personal morality with the weight of divine edict, as do most religious moralists. your bible quote does not follow from your previous argument, and has no standing since, as you obviously should have guessed, I do not accept the BIble as a valid source.

[Cafeeine]

Furthermore, you failed to address the mistake you made in linking the theory of evolution with man being a beast held back by god. In effect, you showed that this is a POV held by your religion, where a fallen man needs divine absolution to expunge his sinful immoral nature.

[Cafeeine]

Your claim is a false equivocation. An atheist views morality as a personal code of conduct forged in concert with society. He acts immorally when he breaks that code, and doing so in fact is inconsistent with his beliefs on morality.

[PowerVine]

You are saying what I said, that an atheist creates his own personal code of morality. Society may influence the choices made, but the ultimate decision for what is right and wrong is made by the individual atheist. It can also be changed, at will, by the the individual according to his own convenience or change of mind.

[Cafeeine]

You were making a false comparison. judging both an atheist and a theist's actions as immoral through the theist standard. A believer CAN be immoral and consistent with his worldview, when the rules he bases his morality on are immoral on their face. He may believe his actions are moral because his god told him so, his conscience shaped by indoctrination tells him the same, but in the end, it is not. The recent killer of that abortion doctor is an example.

[PowerVine]

I think any normal person, atheist or believer, would recognize that the murder of that abortion doctor was immoral. The interesting thing is that the doctor (apparently a Christian) and his church did not recognize that killing innocent, viable babies is also immoral, even if it brings the doctor, his family and probably his church a lot of money. Yes, even people who claim to be Christians sometimes act immorally, but are they being consistent with a Christian worldview? I don't think so.

[jazzx251]

The Christian worldview says that we must all be forgiven because some woman ate an apple - the ultimate crime.

Worse - the only way of achieving this is that the deity who sets the rules of the game decides to get his own son sacrificed .. ... to himself!

Try doing that to your own kid when you next get burgled and see whether you end up getting a lethal injection, or in mental hospital.

I will take no lessons from Christianity in morality.

[PowerVine]

You are showing that you need some lessons in theology. The book of Genesis says nothing about apples. The sin was rebelling against God in an act of disobedience. Satan told them they would be like God if they ate the forbidden fruit. Atheists today are trying to be like God by putting themselves in the place of God. There is no higher authority than me, so I can do whatever I want to do. God redeemed us by becoming one of us and showing us how to live and then dying in our place.

[Cafeeine]

Your claim that "when an atheist acts immorally he is being consistent with his belief that there is no ultimate moral authority" is a false equivocation. An atheist does not view morality through the eyes of a christian. What you are saying is that an atheist is being immoral by your standard... because he doesn`t follow your standard, which is just circular,

[PowerVine]

You have a good point. Perhaps I should have said when an atheist acts immorally according to someone else's standard (ANYONE ELSE'S STANDARD) he is being consistent with his belief that there is no ultimate moral authority. Everyone who rejects an ultimate moral authority puts himself in the place of that ultimate authority. An atheist's actions, therefore, may be immoral in the eyes of another atheist, not just a Christian. But to the atheist himself, he is acting morally.

[Cafeeine]

True, but irrelevent. Whether an atheist acts morally or immorally according to anyone's standard he is being consistent with his belief that there is no ultimate moral authority. If a theist acts morally or immorally according to e.g. a particular atheist's standard he may also be consistent with his belief that there is an ultimate moral authority. It is a redundant comparison.

[PowerVine]

The atheist can do whatever he believes to be moral whether anyone else thinks so or not. He sets his own moral standards. However, he may not always follow even his own moral standards. In that case he changes them to justify his actions. A Christian believes that God sets the moral standards and they can't be changed. The Christian believes in absolute truth and Divine Authority. The atheist puts himself in the place of the Divine Authority and says that nothing is absolute.