To illustrate his opinion that atheists have no morals, Phil Robertson ('Duck Dynasty') eloquently put forth this narrative:
Quote:
“Two guys break into an atheist’s home. He has a little atheist wife and two little atheist daughters. Two guys break into his home and tie him up in a chair and gag him.”
“Then they take his two daughters in front of him and rape both of them and then shoot them, and they take his wife and then decapitate her head off in front of him, and then they can look at him and say, ‘Isn’t it great that I don’t have to worry about being judged? Isn’t it great that there’s nothing wrong with this? There’s no right or wrong, now, is it dude?’”
“Then you take a sharp knife and take his manhood and hold it in front of him and say, ‘Wouldn’t it be something if [there] was something wrong with this? But you’re the one who says there is no God, there’s no right, there’s no wrong, so we’re just having fun. We’re sick in the head, have a nice day.'”
Religious morals includes killing people for adultery or for performing sodomy, trials for working on the Sabbath, stoning women who do not bleed on their wedding night, decapitating people for having faiths in other religions or gods, and murdering people for apostasy.
How can he say that Atheism equates to being immoral when we see immorality in religions? An atheist may not believe in God, but that does not mean he is not good at heart. I believe that Roberts is confusing Atheism to Satanism's extremists.
It's amazing how stupid this dumb **** is. His analogy is sooooooooo ridiculous what even is he trying to imply with that ****? I am a Christian and I dont need a bible to tell me what is wrong or right, does he know anything about morality?
If the only reason you have morals is because you fear some guy in the sky then you don't really have morals to begin with. An atheist's morals come from within. Atheists don't need to be scared into behaving like a decent human being or need to read a book to learn how not to be an asshole, they just live their lives according to what's just right and what's just wrong.
Personally, I'm absolutely petrified of people who only have any sense of morals because a religion told them what morals to have. Imagine what would happen if, somehow, it was proven beyond any doubt that their idol did not exist?
It's all a question of where your morality came from. Secular morality is based on moral subjectivism. It's relative to a particular time and individual. It's ever changing unlike religious morality which is fixed. For example. there are some atheists (or pro-life humanists) who think abortion is wrong, while majority of them are pro-choice. So, which atheist is correct? Religious morality is absolute. Even if all the countries in the world support abortion or gay marriage, the Pope will never change his position on those issues because those are considered sins. Although religious morals have also changed over time. (See the difference in biblical morality between the Old Testament and New Testament.) But that's not actually a change but more of a doctrinal development and I don't think Christian morality will further change unless there will be a Third Testament which is highly unlikely..
It's all a question of where your morality came from. Secular morality is based on moral subjectivism. It's relative to a particular time and individual. It's ever changing unlike religious morality which is fixed. For example. there are some atheists (or pro-life humanists) who think abortion is wrong, while majority of them are pro-choice. So, which atheist is correct? Religious morality is absolute. Even if all the countries in the world support abortion or gay marriage, the Pope will never change his position on those issues because those are considered sins. Although religious morals have also changed over time. (See the difference in biblical morality between the Old Testament and New Testament.) But that's not actually a change but more of a doctrinal development and I don't think Christian morality will further change unless there will be a Third Testament which is highly unlikely..
And herein lies one of the biggest problems of religion.
Then he should start questioning his stance.
