Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Christians called "intolerant" by some stupid atheist who is going to burn in hell when he gets there   (theherald.co.uk ) divider line
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

14382 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Mar 2009 at 2:20 AM (7 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



678 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2009-03-25 03:10:37 PM  

Deuce McStinkle: So, yes, God had some people killed in the OT. I'm still not seeing your point.


Holy cow! How do you know who made that decision? Somebody certainly did it in the name of God, but if that sort of thing is allowed because "God decided it", who verifies that it was actually God? Answer, the "Holy Men". Believing that it is ok to slaughter men women and children in the name of God may not even be what God wants. But that would mean you would have to question that unquestionable book. And we can't have that. So some people still carry around the idea that there are times when killing large groups of people might be ok, provided that God gave his stamp of approval.
 
2009-03-25 03:11:30 PM  
colon_pow: militant as in being on the front lines in spiritual warfare, battling the forces of good.

Pretty much.

\And evil will win because good is dumb
 
2009-03-25 03:12:17 PM  

VonAether: Zamboro: What the Bleep do we Know makes essentially the same claim as the bestselling book advocated by Oprah Winfrey, "The Secret"; that asking 'the universe' for things will result in actually receiving those things, that focusing on things you want somehow 'attracts' them to you. The mechanism is never explained, of course.

I believe The Secret actually explicitly claims that the reason for the Holocaust was because the Jews wanted to be punished, or didn't want the Nazis to stop, or some equally insulting theory. They didn't get freedom, so obviously they didn't want it enough.

kerpal32: lmao. so all that energy came from where exactly? 2 years of discussing string theory and QCD with you, and you think you've got it all figured out. You're funny.

Zam was talking about quantum theory, which is fairly well-understood, and then you make a crack about string "theory," which hasn't yet been proven. String theory and quantum theory are two different animals. Making a string theory joke when he's talking about quantum theory only serves to make you look foolish.

Where does the energy come from? The vacuum itself. Even you can do math.

1 + -1 = 0

This works backwards, too:

0 = 1 + -1

0 is the vacuum, and 1 + -1 are the particles and antiparticles generated. The total energy of the system remains 0. We see this all the time in the vicinity of black holes in the form of Hawking radiation. We not only know it can happen, we know it does happen. So what exactly is your problem?


Its not in line with his Theist views, thats the problem.

Welcome to the new Bevets.
 
2009-03-25 03:12:36 PM  
kerpal32: "lmao. Nope, you're right, I'm just a mathematician with a degree in pure mathematics. But I did work at SLAC and know a lot more than you."

And yet, you believe in god, so clearly something is amiss.

kerpal32: "And I understand inflationary and spatial stability theory better than you. Even if you keep waving your book at me (like it was some bible I might add)."

Substitute just about anything written on the subject by Hawking and you're just as well off, as he's of the same mind as Stenger where the causation of the big bang is concerned. That particular book is a favorite of mine specifically because it ties together a ton of excerpts from other books by the sort of physicists we could both agree are experts in their field, saving me the trouble of digging up a dozen different links and then explaining how they're all painting different parts of the same picture.

kerpal32: "/again, you didn't answer "where did all that energy come from". This isn't Reaganomics. Separation of positive and negative energy through quantum fluctuations after inflation doesn't explain it away. Just saying the universe did not require the violation of energy conservation at the assumed creation (which is really all you keep stating) does not explain the question away."

As a mathematician who worked at SLAC, you should be able to understand this, and how it supports the model we've been discussing for like six threads now by way of prediction.

You're correct that the answer is incomplete. I've provided a naturalistic mechanism for the big bang, but I haven't explained some of the inconsistencies in how it played out, such as why so little antimatter survived compared to matter, and what accounts for the universes missing mass, things like that. I can't answer those. Perhaps the answers haven't been discovered yet or perhaps they have and I've yet to hear about it, but I only need to provide a well supported naturalistic mechanism for a self-catalyzing big bang. With that provided, we may argue over particulars until we're both old and g....until I'm also old and grey, and it'll be moot. It would be like the Japanese attempting to negotiate the terms of their surrender following the nuclear annihilation of hiroshima and nagasaki.

kerpal32: "Wake me when you can admit atheism is a philosophy just like any other. wake me when you can admit atheism is just a philosophy."

Insofar as gravity, relativity or evolution are philosophies, I guess. Atheism is a conclusion supported by the sum total of evidence available at present. You seem to believe that given a greater understanding of the universe, science will uncover evidence of the divine. That's an interesting prediction, but I hope you'll forgive me if I don't have as much faith in it as you do. Perhaps if you'd share your crystal ball...?
 
2009-03-25 03:12:55 PM  

Facetious_Speciest: colon_pow

militant as in being on the front lines in spiritual warfare, battling the forces of good.

lol?

Do you really think Christians and atheists are locked in some cosmic struggle? Who are the "forces of good?" Are the "forces of evil" merely atheists, or non-Christians, or what?


Who defines "good" and "evil"? Who defines "infidels" and "believers"?

And again, why are we all fighting?
 
2009-03-25 03:13:44 PM  

KiltedBastich: I mean, really. You just can't handle the fact that some theists don't require a heaping helping of cognitive rationalizations to make sense of their inconsistencies, can you, Mr. Roman Catholic Buddhist?


sure i can. the same way i understand there are irrational militant atheists and emo atheists (some on Fark).

/no time to play today kilted. and no, I wasn't talking about you. But the other guy who "read a book" written by an atheist from an atheist perspective and waves it like it literally is a "bible".

KiltedBastich: also note you still haven't explained from last time how you get around the Principle of Noncontradiction when you simultaneously assert the validity of science, which denies teleology, and the "other" philosophical systems, which assert it.


I don't need to. That' why it's called a paradox. at least when you eliminate meta-language, semantics, human interjection to "frame something in human terms" based on 2000+ yr old poorly translated text, etc. etc. etc..

We have paradoxes in mathematics all the time. In fact, we have some that we accept, and we even have a word for it. Dialetheia (pops).

Yet somehow we manage not to be complete militant pricks on the internet imposing our philosophy about it on everyone.

I do not approach science from a teleological perspective. YOU keep making that inference. Because you're biased. I have philosophical beliefs that fall outside of science and scientific method, and do not impede me from applying scientific method.
 
2009-03-25 03:14:20 PM  

kerpal32: VonAether: Zam was talking about quantum theory, which is fairly well-understood, and then you make a crack about string "theory," which hasn't yet been proven.

lol. did you know string theory predicted the results of a QCD test at CERN in January? probably not.

/just curious. I'm talking about quantum theory also. please don't interject yourself. this has been a 2 year debate with him because, well frankly, he's a militant atheist.


You cant argue a point on facts, thats why you resort to the militant atheist stuff.
What does it matter if he is a Militant Atheist, either he is wrong or right.
 
2009-03-25 03:15:13 PM  
i64.photobucket.com
 
2009-03-25 03:16:27 PM  
queenb4biatch

Who defines "good" and "evil"? Who defines "infidels" and "believers"?

Crazy people with paradoxically exclusivist/universalist religious inclinations, apparently.

And again, why are we all fighting?

I'm having a tea party. I reject your reality!
 
2009-03-25 03:17:02 PM  

maddogdelta: TexasRedbud:

Your point was that God can kill anyone he wants (which I think is pretty detestable to start with, but let's work with it).

So, if God tells you to kill someone, that makes it OK, right? (I'm not singling out any particular religion right now, the Moslems are doing pretty good at this kind of argument recently, but they aren't the only ones..)


I guess it sounds bad, as you say. But God is the giver of life, and, as such, life is his to take.

The Bible goes so far as to say that every day is a gift. There is no guaranty that we will have a tomorrow.

In the book of Job, it says something like, 'The Lord gives and the Lord takes away, blessed be the name of the Lord'.

You mention the idea that if God tells someone to kill, I am sure that 99.9999 % of the time anyone announces that God has spoken to them and told them to kill, that God had nothing to do with it.

But from a purely theoretical position, IF God told you do something, it would be moral correct to do it.

The original comment was on a natural death of an un-born child. This takes out the element of God speaking to a person. But it really is the same, isn't it? If God creates and God gives life, he is also commited to an end of that life. At least in the world we live in now. No one lives this life forever. You said it was detestable if God told someone to kill another. Is it detestable if a 90 old woman dies in her sleep?
 
2009-03-25 03:17:40 PM  

Facetious_Speciest: I'm having a tea party. I reject your reality!


May I come to you tea party? It sounds lovely and so much more entertaining that all the douchebaggery found here today...I'll even bring pie!
 
2009-03-25 03:18:30 PM  

Zamboro: I've provided a naturalistic mechanism for the big bang, but I haven't explained some of the inconsistencies in how it played out... I can't answer those. Perhaps the answers haven't been discovered yet or perhaps they have and I've yet to hear about it



The real answer:

i224.photobucket.com
 
2009-03-25 03:18:39 PM  

Facetious_Speciest: colon_pow

militant as in being on the front lines in spiritual warfare, battling the forces of good.

lol?

Do you really think Christians and atheists are locked in some cosmic struggle? Who are the "forces of good?" Are the "forces of evil" merely atheists, or non-Christians, or what?


Satan. the great deceiver. Militant athiests are doing his work.
 
2009-03-25 03:20:25 PM  
zootsuit: "Thanks for sharing. It's nice to see someone describe what they believe in a civilized, non-aggressive manner.

/Totally serious"


Oh, thanks you. Did you read all of it? I'm open to discussion. I have reservations about my favorite post-scarcity economic model (automated labor, see 'Project Venus' and 'Manna') and the cost overruns that seem to plague nuclear plant construction in particular (pressurized water reactors in France), although in either case I do think that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks, and that these are the best solutions for their respective problems.

trappedspirit: "No, my beef was just the wording of your comment. Equating the belief in a soul with creationism. The creationism I see as quite bizarre, but having to accept that or the total mechanistic viewpoint of the universe seems some odd (if then else) equation."

Here, read this.

"I think Zamboro should eat a few shroom caps or smoke a bowl. I think everyone should..LOL! Then we would all feel the special life force that is everywhere.

Then again you also feel like your face is melting upwards and your left arm is turning into a cybernetic dragon. Fun for the whole family, but unlikely to bring you any closer to an accurate understanding of reality.
 
2009-03-25 03:21:04 PM  

kerpal32: guyinjeep16: Love how you use the argument that we have 11 dimesions so we cannot know all the rules, and that those rules will point to the supernatural. But then in the same breath you laugh at the attempts to discover additional said dimensions.

If by that you mean you're recently self aware talking meat on a cosmological scale with an over inflated sense of ego, yea, I agree with you.

Another way of stating that for recently self aware talking meat is human beings, confined to 4 directly observable dimensions (maybe, depends on if #4 is causal and not just the observation of 2 or 3 others interacting, and a 5th just recently observed indirectly) out of 11 theorized dimensions, 10 spatial and 1 temporal (possibly 23) that make up the universe and reality, probability shows the universe operates under "natural laws" with some known anomalies that cannot be explained, but can be relativistically predicted have a right to an atheist philosophy, but not the right to be arrogant farks imposing their philosophy on everyone else.


I make no proselytizing arguments for theism or deism. I just point out to ignorant militant trolls that atheism is just a philosophy, and science doesn't disprove theism.


Simple question- What do YOU suggest we do to find out what the known anomalies are?
 
2009-03-25 03:22:32 PM  

guyinjeep16: You cant argue a point on facts, thats why you resort to the militant atheist stuff.
What does it matter if he is a Militant Atheist, either he is wrong or right.


by "facts" you mean proving to your satisfaction that a metaphysical philosophy fits within a materialistic philosophy?

gee, you're an idiot. please go back to "pushing tin", stop being a dick, and I'll stop being one back at you.

/the "militant" term applies to ardent supporters of a philosophical position who keep arguing from that perspective as if it "proves" anything or even has any validity.
 
2009-03-25 03:22:34 PM  
colon_pow: Satan. the great deceiver. Militant athiests are doing his work.

At least it pays well.
 
2009-03-25 03:23:24 PM  
TexasRedbud: But from a purely theoretical position, IF God told you do something, it would be moral correct to do it.

This sounds quite a bit like "If the President does it, then it's not illegal."
 
2009-03-25 03:24:57 PM  

guyinjeep16: Simple question- What do YOU suggest we do to find out what the known anomalies are?


which ones? the one's we know of today? or the one's we'll continue to uncover? Or do you think man has reached that apex of science and knowledge? Through science of course.

What if science doesn't provide all the answers to the questions?

/wake me when you have a TOE. Then we'll discuss deism.
 
2009-03-25 03:26:45 PM  

The Icelander: colon_pow: Satan. the great deceiver. Militant athiests are doing his work.

At least it pays well.


*snort*

new keyboard, etc....
 
2009-03-25 03:27:35 PM  
kerpal32: Or do you think man has reached that apex of science and knowledge? Through science of course.

We'll never reach the apex of science and knowledge. That's kind of the point. That's what makes it fun.

What if science doesn't provide all the answers to the questions?

It seems like you think we're expecting science to do more than what it can.

I know full well science won't answer all the questions I have. But I'm not going to try to convince myself of something for which there is no evidence just because it will make me feel better.
 
2009-03-25 03:30:31 PM  
colon_pow

Satan. the great deceiver. Militant athiests are doing his work.

I'm sure I'll be either repulsed or vaguely fascinated with the answer, but...if the Christians are the Forces of Good! and atheists work for the other Christian deity, who do, say, Hindus serve?
 
2009-03-25 03:31:41 PM  

The Icelander: It seems like you think we're expecting science to do more than what it can.

I know full well science won't answer all the questions I have. But I'm not going to try to convince myself of something for which there is no evidence just because it will make me feel better.


you want me to debate this from a single position against multiple atheistic and agnostic theistic views? Not gonna happy skippy.

And I don't do it to "make myself feel better". How does that invalidate the philosophy anyway?
 
2009-03-25 03:34:04 PM  
kerpal32: "kerpal32: Or do you think man has reached that apex of science and knowledge? Through science of course."

Do we need to know everything in order to know anything? Is it too presumptuous to conclude that evolution and abiogenesis account for life on Earth in light of the fact that we have not yet reached the apex of knowledge? I don't think so.

It may seem as though we're treading on sacred ground when science speaks of the origin of the universe, but then science was thought to be treading on sacred ground when it first began to speak of the origins of life as well. These are not sacred questions, nor are they impossible to answer. Indeed, we've already made a great deal of progress towards that end.
 
2009-03-25 03:34:11 PM  

Facetious_Speciest: colon_pow

Satan. the great deceiver. Militant athiests are doing his work.

I'm sure I'll be either repulsed or vaguely fascinated with the answer, but...if the Christians are the Forces of Good! and atheists work for the other Christian deity, who do, say, Hindus serve?


The hungry folks at the Indian restaurant?
 
2009-03-25 03:38:05 PM  

The Icelander: We'll never reach the apex of science and knowledge. That's kind of the point. That's what makes it fun.


I can understand the desire to have this statement be true, but why do you believe it's true? Hope? Faith? Gut feeling? Hard facts? Just curious.
 
2009-03-25 03:39:43 PM  

Zamboro: kerpal32: "kerpal32: Or do you think man has reached that apex of science and knowledge? Through science of course."

Do we need to know everything in order to know anything? Is it too presumptuous to conclude that evolution and abiogenesis account for life on Earth in light of the fact that we have not yet reached the apex of knowledge? I don't think so.

It may seem as though we're treading on sacred ground when science speaks of the origin of the universe, but then science was thought to be treading on sacred ground when it first began to speak of the origins of life as well. These are not sacred questions, nor are they impossible to answer. Indeed, we've already made a great deal of progress towards that end.


Nice strawman.

img512.imageshack.us

There is no sacred ground for science. But you're making claims based on your opinions and philosophy. That does not invalidate other opinions or philosophies.

sorry, you fail....
img225.imageshack.us
 
2009-03-25 03:40:36 PM  
So do atheists not believe in anything spiritual because there is no proof of the existence of such forces? If that is true then it sounds like they aren't very creative or imaginative which is exactly what we need to move forward.
 
2009-03-25 03:40:52 PM  

kerpal32: guyinjeep16: You cant argue a point on facts, thats why you resort to the militant atheist stuff.
What does it matter if he is a Militant Atheist, either he is wrong or right.

by "facts" you mean proving to your satisfaction that a metaphysical philosophy fits within a materialistic philosophy?

gee, you're an idiot. please go back to "pushing tin", stop being a dick, and I'll stop being one back at you.

/the "militant" term applies to ardent supporters of a philosophical position who keep arguing from that perspective as if it "proves" anything or even has any validity.


Facts are facts. Doesnt matter where they come from.

/People who name call often use names they themselves have been called recently
 
2009-03-25 03:43:27 PM  

kerpal32: guyinjeep16: Simple question- What do YOU suggest we do to find out what the known anomalies are?

which ones? the one's we know of today? or the one's we'll continue to uncover? Or do you think man has reached that apex of science and knowledge? Through science of course.

What if science doesn't provide all the answers to the questions?

/wake me when you have a TOE. Then we'll discuss deism.


Any and all anomalies.
If science cant answer them then what should we use? Im just wondering why when an Atheist uses the same science that its somehow invalid.
 
2009-03-25 03:44:42 PM  
kerpal32: And I don't do it to "make myself feel better". How does that invalidate the philosophy anyway?

I was speaking more about the people who believe incredible things to make themselves feel better without fully thinking them through.

Like the people who say "god has a plan" when bad things happen to them. Or people who say "he's in a better place" when their pet dies.

My cat's in the hospital right now with liver failure. There's a good chance he'll pull through, but it's still scary and sad that he might die. I could tell myself "He's going to a better place and I'll see him when I get there," but I know that I'd just be lying to myself because there's no evidence at all that he's going to be anything but dead. And I'd rather be sad than delusional.
 
2009-03-25 03:45:45 PM  

trappedspirit: The Icelander: We'll never reach the apex of science and knowledge. That's kind of the point. That's what makes it fun.

I can understand the desire to have this statement be true, but why do you believe it's true? Hope? Faith? Gut feeling? Hard facts? Just curious.


That's easy - simple fact. Technological evolution following Moore's Law to the fullest. Every time we find a question, we make a shovel that can dig for the answers like the LHC, a better microscope, etc., The ability and desire to quest for new answers and more detailed like this instead of relying upon the answers that glorified cavemen came up with 2000 years ago is what separates intelligent man from his peers.

As long as people refuse to let "And then a miracle occurred" sit in the middle of their formula, we will ALWAYS have advances in science and knowledge. ALWAYS.
 
2009-03-25 03:46:20 PM  
trappedspirit: I can understand the desire to have this statement be true, but why do you believe it's true? Hope? Faith? Gut feeling? Hard facts? Just curious.

There was a snippet in the April 09 issue of Scientific American about the nature of knowledge, and that even if we had infinite memory and computing power, the fact that we exist within the universe means we can't ever fully know it.
 
2009-03-25 03:46:37 PM  

twowlz: So do atheists not believe in anything spiritual because there is no proof of the existence of such forces? If that is true then it sounds like they aren't very creative or imaginative which is exactly what we need to move forward.


Imagination can go past the have-to belief in a spiritual being having to exist in order for all things to happen.

I do not necessarily subscribe to the organized religions of the world, but I believe that there are things in the universe which we have not seen or discovered. I can read a book and let my mind envision how other worlds look. I can see a sunrise and be thankful for the opportunity to have another day to do good or to screw up all without having to thank any form of spiritual being for my existence.
 
2009-03-25 03:47:31 PM  
twowlz: So do atheists not believe in anything spiritual because there is no proof of the existence of such forces? If that is true then it sounds like they aren't very creative or imaginative which is exactly what we need to move forward.

So if I tell you that I have a six foot tall rabbit as drinking companion, does that make me delusional or imaginative?

// and if you want to claim "not imaginative because it's been done before, so has the white guy with the beard...
 
2009-03-25 03:47:39 PM  
twowlz: So do atheists not believe in anything spiritual because there is no proof of the existence of such forces? If that is true then it sounds like they aren't very creative or imaginative which is exactly what we need to move forward.

Yes, it's atheism and science that has held back human development, not religion.

How does the fact that atheists don't believe in god mean they aren't creative or imaginative? Are you saying god is created and imagined by people and ergo does not exist? I would agree with THAT statement.
 
2009-03-25 03:47:50 PM  

Zamboro: Really? You never do that?


yet you're the one pa-trolling these threads. I just pop in to shine a light on your personal biases and hatred of religion.
 
2009-03-25 03:49:50 PM  

jekxrb: Overfiend: Well, when you believe killing unborn babies is OK, I would say that makes you anti-life.

Awesome. We can have an atheism AND abortion flame war.

I'm assuming you're against the death penalty, war, are vegetarian and never even kill insects, because in all those cases there is death involved and death of an organism more highly advanced than a fetus.

And nobody is pro-death or pro-abortion. They are PRO-CHOICE. Meaning you have the right to CHOOSE whatever option you want.

Yes I am against the death penalty, not a vegetarian, was an exterminator (so I killed millions of insects).

Where you and I disagree is that I feel that each unborn baby (you call them fetuses) has a soul. I do not believe that animals or insects have souls persay (I think they have some sort of life force, but that's a discussion for another time).

I realize that abortion for most women is not an easy decision. I don't hate women who've had them or the people who provide them. I also am a strong believer in sex education that promotes contraception use. Hey - one thing we can all agree on is the less unwanted pregnancies that end up in abortion is the best thing.

But I believe in my heart that abortion is killing a human being.

Peace to you all,

Overfiend

 
2009-03-25 03:49:56 PM  

The Icelander: I was speaking more about the people who believe incredible things to make themselves feel better without fully thinking them through.


Of course you were. How are they different than the people who simply refuse to think about it, believe it as "must all be natural", and then run around trying to convince everyone else how right they must be in their philosophy?
 
2009-03-25 03:50:18 PM  
guyinjeep16 You like to make things up in your head dont ya.

now you're gettin it. ;D
 
2009-03-25 03:53:07 PM  
queenb4biatch

The hungry folks at the Indian restaurant?

Wow. Why'd you do that? Now I'm starving. :(
 
2009-03-25 03:53:41 PM  
Christ: I have some great news! You don't need a church or a priest to have a relationship with God.

Christians: Awesome! Let's create several churches and priests in Your name!

Christ: *Facepalm*
 
2009-03-25 03:54:29 PM  
kerpal32: How are they different than the people who simply refuse to think about it, believe it as "must all be natural", and then run around trying to convince everyone else how right they must be in their philosophy?

I'm just assuming something doesn't exist unless there's evidence. They're assuming something exists and are making very specific and unconfirmable assertions about it.
 
2009-03-25 03:57:28 PM  
twowlz: So do atheists not believe in anything spiritual because there is no proof of the existence of such forces? If that is true then it sounds like they aren't very creative or imaginative which is exactly what we need to move forward.

avatar.movetoiceland.com

Douglas Adams frowns on your shenanigans.
 
2009-03-25 03:57:56 PM  
kerpal32: "Nice strawman. There is no sacred ground for science. But you're making claims based on your opinions and philosophy. That does not invalidate other opinions or philosophies. sorry, you fail...."

Cute pictures, but you've done nothing to counter my argument, nor was it a straw man. Here are your exact words:

kerpal32: "Or do you think man has reached that apex of science and knowledge? Through science of course."

The implication here is that in order to know certain things which you've declared off-limits to science, we would have to believe that man has reached an apex of science and knowledge. I don't think that's true. The question of whether life was designed or evolved of its own accord was every bit as emotionally charged, every bit as controversial, yet we managed to produce an answer despite not having reached an apex of knowledge and science.

The origin of the universe is not an unknowable. It is a question for particle physics to answer. We'll have answered it completely enough in due time that natural causation will achieve the same degree of support as evolution, relativity and so on. When that occurs, and it takes its appropriate place alongside the findings of cognitive neurobiology re: consciousness and the theory of abiogenesis, all of the essential claims of the Christian religion will have been disproven by science, insofar as it is capable of disproving anything.
 
2009-03-25 04:00:09 PM  

The Icelander: Dead-Guy: Stoning for immoral sexual acts seems strong to us because our society has evolved past that sort of thing.

But I thought that the Bible was the height of morality and the perfect source for rules of behavior?

If we've "evolved beyond" the rules of the Bible, doesn't that mean we must have access to some sort of better morality? And doesn't that imply that the Bible is nothing more than a collection of stories, rules and history and not from god?


No.. as the rest of my post suggested.. evolution is not automatically an improvement. It's impossible to create an objective baseline on anything like that, except to say that each society considers itself to be the best society possible.

Also, I'm not a bible thumper by any means.. As I said, I just think it's a great source of information for creating and maintaining a society that would, in theory, do very well and allow it's members to live happily with one another.. to permit large groups to "work".

The bible wasn't written by God or something, by it's own admission, it was "inspired by God". Which means folks are reading man's interpretation of "his" surroundings circa whatever time period a chapter was written in.

As far as being in possession of a "higher morality" supposedly we have one that's built-in according to the stories regarding the Garden of Eden and the Apple, but the bible is quick to indicate that this doesn't make men holy, it merely makes them liable for evil that they knowingly commit.

Also, it's my estimation that society plays a role in the subjectivity of it too. (ie- is it wrong to eat meat that comes from a "tortured" animal?)

However, if we were all God-fearing Christians, and all followed the bible's teachings, it would be a different society entirely. Better? Sure, because you wouldn't get stuff like priests molesting kids, or serial killers, etc.

It's achieved through the self-imposed reduction of freedoms, which is also the definition of acting responsibly. Simple enough, but with actual religeon thrown in the middle, regarding worship and stuff, it get's a little sticky in terms of "who can prove what" and "if THIS is wrong, it must ALL be wrong" because it 's held against the ultimate in standards... our own natural sense of morality.

Like "genocide is wrong.." What is "wrong?" and who are you to say it shouldn't happen? That's your sense of morality talking.
Otherwise known as guilt, which is what the church is credited with creating.

Guilt is a pretty useful thing for a society to have. It's what protects your mom from being relentlessly raped by anyone who wants to "partake of those goodies." However, it also denied those folks the individual freedom to act in any way they wanted to.

It's a neat trick when you consider the source of it, and neccessary for the viability of a society. Without that self-restraint, there's external restraint, which is what societal laws and rules do...

ie- make rape illegal and punishable, and it won't happen anymore. (FAIL)

BUT-
make everyone feel guilty about it, and their immortal soul in jeopardy for actions such as those, and TWO things happen:
#1- enternal damnation and/or guilt is a stronger deterrent.

#2- if it still happens, the victims and victim families can take consolation in the fact that this person will be punished by a deity upon their death.

Of course, that works a lot better when everyone beleives, rather than just some folks, but what can you do besides putting the religeon out there and hope someone bites?
 
2009-03-25 04:00:58 PM  

The Icelander: Like the people who say "god has a plan" when bad things happen to them. Or people who say "he's in a better place" when their pet dies.


unless of course "he" doesn't have a plan. Are you arguing for metaphysical determinism at a personal level? Seems self centered. While you're at it, why not ask for loot, or love, or happiness for the duration of your natural life....



Bender:
So do you know what I'm going to do before I do it?

God:
Yes.

Bender: What if I do something different?

God:
Then I don't know that.

Bender:
Cool... Cool... I bet a lot of people pray to you, huh?

God:
Yes, but there are so many asking so much. After a while, you just sort of
tune it out.

img135.imageshack.us


hmmmmmm maybe it was an electrical fire.

God:
Bender, being God isn't easy. If you do too much, people get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose hope. You have to use a light touch, like a safecracker or a pickpocket.

Bender: Or a guy who burns down a bar for the insurance money!

God:
Yes, if you make it look like an electrical thing. When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.


or not. whatever floats your boat.
 
2009-03-25 04:06:20 PM  

The Icelander:
Douglas Adams frowns on your shenanigans.



Now that's one rational, froopy dude I could have discussed atheism with.

Sadly, he's been replaced by this asshole.
img502.imageshack.us
 
2009-03-25 04:07:17 PM  
kerpal32: "yet you're the one pa-trolling these threads."

Am I?

zootsuit: "Thanks for sharing. It's nice to see someone describe what they believe in a civilized, non-aggressive manner. /Totally serious"

You seem to be the only person in here who thinks I'm 'trolling' thus far.

kerpal32: "I just pop in to shine a light on your personal biases and hatred of religion."

Really? That's all? No vitriolic ranting about "militant atheists"? No insulting image macros? No denigrating catch phrases? You're just being the last shining beacon of God's mercy in a vile den of ne'er do wells?

I don't hate religion. I've quoted from the Ramayana and Upanishads in past threads. I'm intimately familiar with the capers of the Norse gods. I've studied a greay many religions in depth and I regard them as culturally valuable, as a form of collaborative memetic art, but which has detrmimental effects when sincerely believed in.

If there's anything I hate, it's faith, and I am well prepared to explain why we should all revile faith if you're interested.
 
2009-03-25 04:07:48 PM  
Overfiend: Where you and I disagree is that I feel that each unborn baby (you call them fetuses) has a soul. I do not believe that animals or insects have souls persay (I think they have some sort of life force, but that's a discussion for another time).

And this for me is one of my problems with religion; that it says humans are more important than the other creatures we share the planet with. That 'touch of divinity'. That's a very egotistical attitude; I don't think we are any better than the other animals and in fact, given the way we treat them and the planet, at times I think we're a hell of a lot worse.

I also am a strong believer in sex education that promotes contraception use. Hey - one thing we can all agree on is the less unwanted pregnancies that end up in abortion is the best thing.

Obviously. And very few people who are pro-choice would prioritize abortion over contraception. It's a last resort option, even taking the baby/fetus out of the picture, as it's very hard on the mother, emotionally and physically. But by being 'pro life' and denying abortions to women, you merely ensure that back-door abortions will take place and the woman's life will be endangered too.

It's not up to me to make the decision for someone else. Nor is it up to you. And calling it murder... that's another place in which religion has entered into the secular world, where it doesn't belong. Some people believe a fetus has a soul; some people don't. Who is right? Should the religious get to inflict their views on everyone? Or should we have society set up so that if you wish to have an abortion, you can. If you're religious and you believe it's murder, don't get one. And keep your nose out of other peoples' business. It's easy.
 
Displayed 50 of 678 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report