Religion

  On 3/28/2012 at 2:51 PM, RandySicko said:

I believe that people don't like religion because most of them would have to change their hedonistic lifestyles if they were to align themselves with a particular faith. I definitely believe Christians in general are morally superior than non-believers and can say this without even having to define "morality" ..because it is already laid out for us; the 10 laws being the simplest way to break it all down. Yes there may be the "spiritual" folks who go around hugging trees, not even thinking about screwing my wife or laying a finger on anyone, etc..... but how are they contributing to society and helping their fellow man when all their time is spent sucking the earth's dick? Granted, most Christians themselves do not follow the laws 100%, but the goal is to live a lifestyle with standards of what is right ..instead of sitting there, wasting time regurgitating some philosophical bullshit thoughts about .."what does it mean to be right?". When compared to the though of "life" after "death"... 80 some odd years does not seem like a lot. Some people choose to live for that, others for what comes after.

I cannot begin to explain to you how inherently immoral Christian doctrine is, or how the God that supposedly passed down your objective moral superiority is bloodthirsty, genocidal, promotes genital mutilation, slavery, and other incredibly inhumane acts. Christianity is not morally superior by a long shot.

  On 3/28/2012 at 2:53 PM, azatoth said:

You might want to read about p-zombies.

Awesome article. Thanks.

  On 3/28/2012 at 3:01 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

  On 3/28/2012 at 2:51 PM, RandySicko said:

I believe that people don't like religion because most of them would have to change their hedonistic lifestyles if they were to align themselves with a particular faith. I definitely believe Christians in general are morally superior than non-believers and can say this without even having to define "morality" ..because it is already laid out for us; the 10 laws being the simplest way to break it all down. Yes there may be the "spiritual" folks who go around hugging trees, not even thinking about screwing my wife or laying a finger on anyone, etc..... but how are they contributing to society and helping their fellow man when all their time is spent sucking the earth's dick? Granted, most Christians themselves do not follow the laws 100%, but the goal is to live a lifestyle with standards of what is right ..instead of sitting there, wasting time regurgitating some philosophical bullshit thoughts about .."what does it mean to be right?". When compared to the though of "life" after "death"... 80 some odd years does not seem like a lot. Some people choose to live for that, others for what comes after.

 

I cannot begin to explain to you how inherently immoral Christian doctrine is, or how the God that supposedly passed down your objective moral superiority is bloodthirsty, genocidal, promotes genital mutilation, slavery, and other incredibly inhumane acts. Christianity is not morally superior by a long shot.

While I don't completely agree with Smettingham, I don't think you quite understand the point of Christianity either way. Also, let's try to stay level-headed. We've done good so far.

I dunno, given the combo of his rant and avatar, Randy Sicko almost convinced me. Kick ass for the lord!

manmayo, how can you possibly say I dont understand the point of Christianity based off of a post on a message board?

  On 3/28/2012 at 3:01 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

I cannot begin to explain to you how inherently immoral Christian doctrine is, or how the God that supposedly passed down your objective moral superiority is bloodthirsty, genocidal, promotes genital mutilation, slavery, and other incredibly inhumane acts. Christianity is not morally superior by a long shot.

Humans are human and therefore not perfect. The church is not perfect because it is run by man. We strive to be better men ..it is as simple as that.

It's all I have to judge you by. I just meant that that post did not seem to portray a clear understanding of Christianity. Maybe I read it wrong.

  On 3/28/2012 at 3:20 PM, gmanyo said:

It's all I have to judge you by. I just meant that that post did not seem to portray a clear understanding of Christianity. Maybe I read it wrong.

says your 666th post

Ha, nice. Maybe I'm actually Satan, then.

  On 3/28/2012 at 3:17 PM, lumpenprol said:

I dunno, given the combo of his rant and avatar, Randy Sicko almost convinced me. Kick ass for the lord!

And chew bubblegum!!

  On 3/28/2012 at 2:46 PM, gmanyo said:

A bunch of chemicals bouncing into each other and electrical impulses shouldn't make any sort of real, experiencing organism, at least as far as we understand matter to work. All it would make is a complex machine, with no "real" emotions. Only chemicals.

Could you elaborate on how your emotions are "real"? Would you say that other animals experience "real" emotions? Lifeforms are essentially a type of machine, it's just that some of them are very complex indeed. (And us humans aren't even the most complex example of life on this planet, let alone others.)

  On 3/28/2012 at 2:51 PM, RandySicko said:

Christians... the 10 laws

Oh? And which ten are they?

Gmanyo, I Explain to me what Christianity is.

Isn't the main focus of your belief system a belief in the miraculous events and existence of Christ, son of God? The God of the Old Testament? Because if it isn't, then you are right, I do not know what Christianity is, nor does most of the Christian population.

  On 3/28/2012 at 3:18 PM, RandySicko said:

manmayo, how can you possibly say I dont understand the point of Christianity based off of a post on a message board?

 

  On 3/28/2012 at 3:01 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

I cannot begin to explain to you how inherently immoral Christian doctrine is, or how the God that supposedly passed down your objective moral superiority is bloodthirsty, genocidal, promotes genital mutilation, slavery, and other incredibly inhumane acts. Christianity is not morally superior by a long shot.

 

Humans are human and therefore not perfect. The church is not perfect because it is run by man. We strive to be better men ..it is as simple as that.

Atheists strive to be better men. So judging from your statement here, we are at least morally equal (which I would still disagree with).

  On 3/28/2012 at 4:13 PM, ZoeB said:

Oh? And which ten are they?

if you hadn't made the absurd claim that humans aren't the most complex example of life on this planet, I might have taken you seriously enough to provide an answer.

RandySicko, you're being one of those Christians that are impossible to have a rational discussion with.

  On 3/28/2012 at 4:27 PM, RandySicko said:

  On 3/28/2012 at 4:13 PM, ZoeB said:

Oh? And which ten are they?

 

if you hadn't made the absurd claim that humans aren't the most complex example of life on this planet, I might have taken you seriously enough to provide an answer.

you do know there are far more than the Ten Commandments you are referring to in the Old Testament, right?

The Ten Commandments is actually a mistranslated statement. The actual phrase is "Ten Statements", only the ten handed down to Moses from Mount Sinai. There are according to Jewish doctrine, over six hundred commandments, some of which determine roles in the family based on gender, owning slaves, and eating certain kinds of food.

Unless you are referring to the Noahide Laws, in which case you are still wrong, as there are only seven of those.

Christianity is the extension from Judaism, therefore if you had to follow the Ten Commandments, you must also follow the others as well.

  On 3/28/2012 at 4:25 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

Atheists strive to be better men. So judging from your statement here, we are at least morally equal (which I would still disagree with).

I compare how "good" of a man I am against a set of Christian moral values. I have determined that this Christian set of moral values is ideal to having a peaceful society. If you have no defined moral values, what makes you better than the next man with no defined moral values?

  On 3/28/2012 at 4:28 PM, Candiru said:

RandySicko, you're being one of those Christians that are impossible to have a rational discussion with.

You mean a Christian who is resolute in my faith? I am completely capable of having rational discussions and I quite enjoy them.

  On 3/28/2012 at 4:33 PM, RandySicko said:

  On 3/28/2012 at 4:25 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

Atheists strive to be better men. So judging from your statement here, we are at least morally equal (which I would still disagree with).

 

I compare how "good" of a man I am against a set of Christian moral values. I have determined that this Christian set of moral values is ideal to having a peaceful society. If you have no defined moral values, what makes you better than the next man with no defined moral values?

 

  On 3/28/2012 at 4:28 PM, Candiru said:

RandySicko, you're being one of those Christians that are impossible to have a rational discussion with.

 

You mean a Christian who is resolute in my faith? I am completely capable of having rational discussions and I quite enjoy them.

But here is where you are missing the point: I do have a set of moral values. Im sure everyone that has posted on this thread from an atheist perspective has a set of moral values. The difference is that we form those values based upon evidence. The logical example of why murdering children is wrong was explained by me a few pages ago.

You on the other hand claim to derive objective moral values from a God there is no evidence for, other than a series of writings written thousands of years ago, mistranslated and rearranged innumerable amounts of times to serve particular political agendas by human beings.

  On 3/28/2012 at 4:30 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

  On 3/28/2012 at 4:27 PM, RandySicko said:

  On 3/28/2012 at 4:13 PM, ZoeB said:

Oh? And which ten are they?

 

if you hadn't made the absurd claim that humans aren't the most complex example of life on this planet, I might have taken you seriously enough to provide an answer.

 

you do know there are far more than the Ten Commandments you are referring to in the Old Testament, right?

 

 

The Ten Commandments is actually a mistranslated statement. The actual phrase is "Ten Statements", only the ten handed down to Moses from Mount Sinai. There are according to Jewish doctrine, over six hundred commandments, some of which determine roles in the family based on gender, owning slaves, and eating certain kinds of food.

 

Unless you are referring to the Noahide Laws, in which case you are still wrong, as there are only seven of those.

 

Christianity is the extension from Judaism, therefore if you had to follow the Ten Commandments, you must also follow the others as well.

This is all true, but man have the Ten Commandments themselves been prioritized a bit too much...

  On 3/28/2012 at 3:33 AM, Atop said:

having faith in infinity,

 

not a personal god...........

 

a gigantic,

 

multi-dimensional,

 

infinite swirling first thing,

 

that has existed and will exist,

 

forever

 

and ever

 

AMEN-RA

 

Ra Hoor Khuit

 

Horus

 

Ain Soph

 

The First Thing

With infinite names.

Call it what you will.

The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao

The name that can be named is not the eternal name

The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth

The named is the mother of myriad things

Thus, constantly without desire, one observes its essence

Constantly with desire, one observes its manifestations

These two emerge together but differ in name

The unity is said to be the mystery

Mystery of mysteries, the door to all wonders

  On 3/28/2012 at 4:27 PM, RandySicko said:

if you hadn't made the absurd claim that humans aren't the most complex example of life on this planet, I might have taken you seriously enough to provide an answer.

It depends on your criteria. As we're talking about how life works, I was going by genetics. Humans do not have the biggest genome of any life on this planet by a long shot. Of course, it's not the size that matters, but what you do with it...

So, which ten commandments were you referring to? As you're a Christian, I'm guessing either the "ten" in Exodus or the other "ten" in Deuteronomy, I was just wondering which in particular.

  On 3/28/2012 at 4:25 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

Atheists strive to be better men.

And women. If there's one thing we shouldn't inherit from religions (and of course, there's many more than one), it's sexism.

  On 3/28/2012 at 4:38 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

  On 3/28/2012 at 4:33 PM, RandySicko said:

  On 3/28/2012 at 4:25 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

Atheists strive to be better men. So judging from your statement here, we are at least morally equal (which I would still disagree with).

 

I compare how "good" of a man I am against a set of Christian moral values. I have determined that this Christian set of moral values is ideal to having a peaceful society. If you have no defined moral values, what makes you better than the next man with no defined moral values?

 

  On 3/28/2012 at 4:28 PM, Candiru said:

RandySicko, you're being one of those Christians that are impossible to have a rational discussion with.

 

You mean a Christian who is resolute in my faith? I am completely capable of having rational discussions and I quite enjoy them.

 

But here is where you are missing the point: I do have a set of moral values. Im sure everyone that has posted on this thread from an atheist perspective has a set of moral values. The difference is that we form those values based upon evidence. The logical example of why murdering children is wrong was explained by me a few pages ago.

 

You on the other hand claim to derive objective moral values from a God there is no evidence for, other than a series of writings written thousands of years ago, mistranslated and rearranged innumerable amounts of times to serve particular political agendas by human beings.

I see evidence of God all around me ...in me and you. The very fact that we're typing back and forth here is evidence of God to me. No matter what writings we rearranged to serve man-made creations such as politics, war, etc.. the message still remains the same. It is not so much about controlling as it is helping people get along and see something greater than themselves.

  On 3/28/2012 at 4:42 PM, chimera slot mom said:

  On 3/28/2012 at 3:33 AM, Atop said:

having faith in infinity,

 

not a personal god...........

 

a gigantic,

 

multi-dimensional,

 

infinite swirling first thing,

 

that has existed and will exist,

 

forever

 

and ever

 

AMEN-RA

 

Ra Hoor Khuit

 

Horus

 

Ain Soph

 

The First Thing

With infinite names.

Call it what you will.

 

The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao

The name that can be named is not the eternal name

The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth

The named is the mother of myriad things

Thus, constantly without desire, one observes its essence

Constantly with desire, one observes its manifestations

These two emerge together but differ in name

The unity is said to be the mystery

Mystery of mysteries, the door to all wonders

So why call it a God?

Why not say the infinite? The truth? The Good? The Universe? The Way of All Things? Why does it need to be attributed as a God? This incredibly nebulous, non-specific thing? Why not call science a God at that rate?

Btw, Im not necessarily disagreeing with you, I love Taoist philosophy myself, I'm just throwing this out there that we shouldn't rely on the word to comfort and protect ourselves from atheism.

I dont pay any attention to religion atall, but i find it quite disconcerting that to get anywhere in american politics, and henceforth become one of the worlds powerful people, you have to believe in something of which there is absolutely no proof of existence apart from a 2000 year old book.

it just seems absurdly delusional.

  On 3/28/2012 at 4:46 PM, RandySicko said:

  On 3/28/2012 at 4:38 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

  On 3/28/2012 at 4:33 PM, RandySicko said:

  On 3/28/2012 at 4:25 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

Atheists strive to be better men. So judging from your statement here, we are at least morally equal (which I would still disagree with).

 

I compare how "good" of a man I am against a set of Christian moral values. I have determined that this Christian set of moral values is ideal to having a peaceful society. If you have no defined moral values, what makes you better than the next man with no defined moral values?

 

  On 3/28/2012 at 4:28 PM, Candiru said:

RandySicko, you're being one of those Christians that are impossible to have a rational discussion with.

 

You mean a Christian who is resolute in my faith? I am completely capable of having rational discussions and I quite enjoy them.

 

But here is where you are missing the point: I do have a set of moral values. Im sure everyone that has posted on this thread from an atheist perspective has a set of moral values. The difference is that we form those values based upon evidence. The logical example of why murdering children is wrong was explained by me a few pages ago.

 

You on the other hand claim to derive objective moral values from a God there is no evidence for, other than a series of writings written thousands of years ago, mistranslated and rearranged innumerable amounts of times to serve particular political agendas by human beings.

 

I see evidence of Flying Spaghetti Monsters all around me ...in me and you. The very fact that we're typing back and forth here is evidence of Flying Spaghetti Monsters to me. No matter what writings we rearranged to serve man-made creations such as politics, war, etc.. the message still remains the same. It is not so much about controlling as it is helping people get along and see something greater than themselves.

do you agree with this alteration of your quote? It relies on the exact same amount of evidence.

  On 3/28/2012 at 4:33 PM, RandySicko said:

I have determined that this Christian set of moral values is ideal to having a peaceful society. If you have no defined moral values, what makes you better than the next man with no defined moral values?

O.O

Those moral values didn't even go as far as to condemn slavery. They're certainly far from ideal.

What makes atheists, and indeed everyone else, moral is their innate sense of morals. You don't need to be taught an arbitrary list of forbidden activities. You already have a sense of what's right and what's wrong. If you didn't, you wouldn't feel a need to speak out against injustices that your religious texts say nothing against.