Notices
Results 1 to 96 of 96

Thread: Why are atheists angry?

  1. #1 Why are atheists angry? 
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    There are a lot of angry atheists on this forum, theists seem less angry, they seem more full of sh!t, but not angry. Why are atheists angry?


    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    We have been oppressed by the religious for centuries. Crusades, Inquisition, Witch hunts, Christian church declaring all non-christians to be Pagans, then declaring all Pagans to be brought before the church and hung until dead... or lit on fire.
    Think of it. The church has mutilated so many people in the past. Why would I want to follow a religion that has done so much evil? Thats like declaring myself a nazi and saying that being a nazi is good, then trying to convert everyone else.
    I am personally sick and tired of people trying to convert me. I am sick and tired of people thinking athiesm = devil talk (my mom told me to quit my devil talk the other day) Athiesm is not evil. It does not = lawlessness. Don't blame athiests dude. Christians started this confrontation first by trying to kill us off, or convert us. If we did not convert, we would be killed. Yeah religion believes in free will alright...


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Cooking Something Good MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    2,051
    Once again, SV, you're lumping all athiests in one big pile.
    Fixin' shit that ain't broke.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: Why are atheists angry? 
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    540
    Quote Originally Posted by svwillmer
    There are a lot of angry atheists on this forum, theists seem less angry, they seem more full of shit, but not angry. Why are atheists angry?
    why do you define a reasoned reply as anger, Is it anyone that criticizes your beliefs, "must be angry"
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Hook line and sinker HAHAHAHHAA .

    Ahem, quiet devilish me.

    Right, Jesus would not kill anyone for not believing would He?

    ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS remember that all the murders, and horrible acts that are caused by religion is because of mans own ways and evil deeds. Your Mum says that it is evil talk? She is upset that you don't believe like her, she feels hurt.

    I'm not trying to convert you, I don't do that, I try to clarify religion.
    I can see your anger, but it does not come from God or Jesus, it is due to mans wicked ways. Christians that try to kill you are not Christians, any religious person that trys to kill another is not a true Christian. Follow the word of Jesus if not anything. Other texts are so confusing and contradictory.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by MacGyver1968
    Once again, SV, you're lumping all athiests in one big pile.
    Sorry Mac, but (Q), Jeremey and all the others have stereotyped my belief. I mean young atheists to correct that .
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 Re: Why are atheists angry? 
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by svwillmer
    There are a lot of angry atheists on this forum, theists seem less angry, they seem more full of shit, but not angry. Why are atheists angry?
    why do you define a reasoned reply as anger, Is it anyone that criticizes your beliefs, "must be angry"
    No. You just come on strong, too strong at times. Admitted not as strong as Jeremy would.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Pagans back then were considered devil worshipers... and Pagan was anything NOT christian. The church wanted to kill satanists because they feared their evil ways.
    There would be no satan, thus no excuse, if religion never existed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    Pagans back then were considered devil worshipers... and Pagan was anything NOT christian. The church wanted to kill satanists because they feared their evil ways.
    There would be no satan, thus no excuse, if religion never existed.
    And there would be no such thing as atheism either, and we wouldn't be here, along with billions of other people on Earth, as far technologically adavnaced as we are.

    Word of warning folks. God doesn't give power to those who murder and kill and convince people to.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Wow, the level of ignorance rose to a level I have yet to witness.... Thanks, I am now a little more dumb for your comment.
    Athiesm is the disbelief in god. Can you say DISBELIEF in GOD? If religion never existed, then everyone would have a DISBELIEF IN GOD making EVERYONE an ATHIEST. We just would not have a word for it, because we would not have a word for defining what athiesim is.
    You are aware that if someone came up with a scientific advancement that went against the church teachings, they would call him a heretic, right? They would also try to sweep it under the rug. I'm horrible with names, but when this one guy proposed earth was NOT the center of the universe, he was ridiculed by the church... sounds like it would be AGAINST technology, not for it.

    EDIT: Oh, btw, if god was against killing, then why did he give us a spleen which has the only purpous, that we know of, to kill us?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    Wow, the level of ignorance rose to a level I have yet to witness.... Thanks, I am now a little more dumb for your comment.
    Athiesm is the disbelief in god. Can you say DISBELIEF in GOD? If religion never existed, then everyone would have a DISBELIEF IN GOD making EVERYONE an ATHIEST. We just would not have a word for it, because we would not have a word for defining what athiesim is.
    You are aware that if someone came up with a scientific advancement that went against the church teachings, they would call him a heretic, right? They would also try to sweep it under the rug. I'm horrible with names, but when this one guy proposed earth was NOT the center of the universe, he was ridiculed by the church... sounds like it would be AGAINST technology, not for it.

    EDIT: Oh, btw, if god was against killing, then why did he give us a spleen which has the only purpous, that we know of, to kill us?
    If God didn't exist nor religion. How can you not believe in God if you never heard of Him? He doesn't exist right? So is there a need to believe in Him or not?

    The Earth is round. Take care from now on you are starting to reach insult level. (your reference to my ignorance). Which is funny because you are being ignorant to my statements.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    I know I'm giving you a rough start to the forum, sorry about that. :?
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    We have been oppressed by the religious for centuries. Crusades, Inquisition, Witch hunts, Christian church declaring all non-christians to be Pagans, then declaring all Pagans to be brought before the church and hung until dead... or lit on fire.
    Wow you sure know how to hold a grudge.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Quote Originally Posted by svwillmer
    I know I'm giving you a rough start to the forum, sorry about that. :?
    Dude, don't apologize. I'm having a blast.
    I had to come to a forum like this, because my other forums I visit wont let me think. They call me an idiot, then move on... Don't you hate it when "idiots" who dont understand what someone is talking about is automatically labled an idiot?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Quote Originally Posted by svwillmer
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    Wow, the level of ignorance rose to a level I have yet to witness.... Thanks, I am now a little more dumb for your comment.
    Athiesm is the disbelief in god. Can you say DISBELIEF in GOD? If religion never existed, then everyone would have a DISBELIEF IN GOD making EVERYONE an ATHIEST. We just would not have a word for it, because we would not have a word for defining what athiesim is.
    You are aware that if someone came up with a scientific advancement that went against the church teachings, they would call him a heretic, right? They would also try to sweep it under the rug. I'm horrible with names, but when this one guy proposed earth was NOT the center of the universe, he was ridiculed by the church... sounds like it would be AGAINST technology, not for it.

    EDIT: Oh, btw, if god was against killing, then why did he give us a spleen which has the only purpous, that we know of, to kill us?
    If God didn't exist nor religion. How can you not believe in God if you never heard of Him? He doesn't exist right? So is there a need to believe in Him or not?

    The Earth is round. Take care from now on you are starting to reach insult level. (your reference to my ignorance). Which is funny because you are being ignorant to my statements.
    Dude, you awensered your own question. If you have never heard of a chocolate bar, how can you eat it? Or how bout "if you have never heard of a television, how can you even contemplate the TV's existance?"
    The basic run down?
    When you never hear of something, it's IMPOSSIBLE to believe in him, thus, fullfilling the athiestic description.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    Quote Originally Posted by svwillmer
    I know I'm giving you a rough start to the forum, sorry about that. :?
    Dude, don't apologize. I'm having a blast.
    I had to come to a forum like this, because my other forums I visit wont let me think. They call me an idiot, then move on... Don't you hate it when "idiots" who dont understand what someone is talking about is automatically labled an idiot?
    I very much dislike it, its because we start making sense to them and they have to call you an idiot, its the trump card for selfish scientists that they use because they think it will greatly insult you.

    Think all you like, I'll never insult anyone, only tease. Your opinions are valued here. If there weren't those that disagreed with religion then there would not be a need for a religious discussion, and my total posts would be near the 400 mark. Blast away, blow off steam, its a great place to .
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    when I call you ignorant, don't be offended by the way. It's like playing Halo 3 and saying, "Dude, you just got PWNED!" =P Just playful shit talking.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    when I call you ignorant, don't be offended by the way. It's like playing Halo 3 and saying, "Dude, you just got PWNED!" =P Just playful shit talking.
    Oh ok, like teabagging, ooh thats low .
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Thanks for the offer, but ive already pwned you enough in the last couple of seconds to last the rest of the week. I always knew christians were all sick sadists.. =P (mental trauma ftl)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Hmm...
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    You know what, I said that the exact opposite as what I ment... Me being this sick kind of makes me type the opposite of what I mean occasionally. I ment, "Masochist" not "sadist" ... gah, I insulted myself!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    You know what, I said that the exact opposite as what I ment... Me being this sick kind of makes me type the opposite of what I mean occasionally. I ment, "Masochist" not "sadist" ... gah, I insulted myself!
    Machoist LOL!
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    792
    Wow this forum has just exploded!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by svwillmer
    Follow the word of Jesus if not anything.
    Yeah, let's all gouge out our eyes when they "sin" and kill disobedient children.

    Sorry, couldn't help myself Had to let out all the anger boiling inside of me because I don't believe in God.

    I'd say you percieve us as angry because you want to. All the posts I've read so far, some of them could've indicated irritation, but anger? How do you see if someone's angry just by looking at what they're writing?

    THIS IS HOW YOU STUPID ****!!!!!!!

    The above was only to prove a point. No worries, I'm not actually angry. Or am I?

    I can recall similar responses from some atheist (trying not to mention names), but so far you've only made an hasty generalization.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    i wouldn't say angry... passionate.
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by dejawolf
    i wouldn't say angry... passionate.
    Now that's an attempt for an excuse. Passion is the emotion of feeling very strongly about a subject or person, usually referring to feelings of intense desire and attraction. Anger could derive from the passion, right? If you're passionate enough you might even kill.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Quote Originally Posted by svwillmer
    Follow the word of Jesus if not anything.
    Yeah, let's all gouge out our eyes when they "sin" and kill disobedient children.

    Sorry, couldn't help myself Had to let out all the anger boiling inside of me because I don't believe in God.

    I'd say you percieve us as angry because you want to. All the posts I've read so far, some of them could've indicated irritation, but anger? How do you see if someone's angry just by looking at what they're writing?

    THIS IS HOW YOU STUPID ****!!!!!!!

    The above was only to prove a point. No worries, I'm not actually angry. Or am I?

    I can recall similar responses from some atheist (trying not to mention names), but so far you've only made an hasty generalization.
    Point proved. I wouldn't see you as a angry unless you were being that way. I see a turtle as a turtle, because, it is a turtle. You'll find that the way you treat people actually influences what they think of you, and the way you act and speak makes them assume what you are like. I don't choose what I find in people, its what they show me in their nature that does that.

    Hasty generalisation? How about when pavlos comes along and says 'all religion is scum and needs to be eradicated', or when Jeremy says it, or all the others? Hm? How do you think that makes me feel? Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

    PS This thread was posted to get a reaction from atheists anyway, and they pounced on it like a hungry lion on a wounded zebra.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Obviously where the heck does Jesus say kill disobedient children?
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    Maybe Matthew 15:4 ?
    For God said, 'HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER,' and, 'HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by svwillmer
    Point proved. I wouldn't see you as a angry unless you were being that way. I see a turtle as a turtle, because, it is a turtle. You'll find that the way you treat people actually influences what they think of you, and the way you act and speak makes them assume what you are like. I don't choose what I find in people, its what they show me in their nature that does that.

    Hasty generalisation? How about when pavlos comes along and says 'all religion is scum and needs to be eradicated', or when Jeremy says it, or all the others? Hm? How do you think that makes me feel? Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

    PS This thread was posted to get a reaction from atheists anyway, and they pounced on it like a hungry lion on a wounded zebra.
    Where does the anger fit in?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    The only time I get angry is when creationists do something like - try to get evolution out of, and creationism into science class. Damn straight that makes me angry when they try to completely sabotage the quality of science education.
    Or when they do things like beat up homosexuals, bomb abortion clinics, or fly planes into buildings. That stuff does make me angry too. But I don't think being an atheist is the *reason* I'm angry although it probably makes me more likely to get angry at those acts since I don't have the religious dogma suggesting that those things are OK. (Or that the principles behind those wrong acts are even ok)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by Neutrino
    Maybe Matthew 15:4 ?
    For God said, 'HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER,' and, 'HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH
    ...But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have recieved from me is a gift devoted to God'.

    Before what you put:

    For GOD SAID: HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER.

    Jesus was using this example from God to claim that folk were hypocrites, Jesus Himself didn't actually say you could kill now did He? Clearly it reads: GOD SAID, so A: He's quoting God, and B: Jesus didn't say what obviously claimed.

    So if Jesus was quoting God, and if you quoted God now, in the future you'd be percieved to allow murder based on obviously's interpretation.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    I thought Jesus was God And wouldn't he agree with God anyways? At least he agrees with the law and the prophets:

    Quote Originally Posted by Matthew 5:17
    "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
    By the way, is there actually a ranking system in heaven? Who is to be least and who's not? I guess heaven is probably much like our world, right?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by svwillmer
    Quote Originally Posted by Neutrino
    Maybe Matthew 15:4 ?
    For God said, 'HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER,' and, 'HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH
    ...But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have recieved from me is a gift devoted to God'.

    Before what you put:

    For GOD SAID: HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER.

    Jesus was using this example from God to claim that folk were hypocrites, Jesus Himself didn't actually say you could kill now did He? Clearly it reads: GOD SAID, so A: He's quoting God, and B: Jesus didn't say what obviously claimed.

    So if Jesus was quoting God, and if you quoted God now, in the future you'd be percieved to allow murder based on obviously's interpretation.
    I dunno I'm not buying that explanation. I mean if God wants people put to death who collect sticks on the Sabbath, it seems consistent to kill people who dishonor their parents too. Maybe I'm just not seeing it though
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by Neutrino
    Quote Originally Posted by svwillmer
    Quote Originally Posted by Neutrino
    Maybe Matthew 15:4 ?
    For God said, 'HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER,' and, 'HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH
    ...But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have recieved from me is a gift devoted to God'.

    Before what you put:

    For GOD SAID: HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER.

    Jesus was using this example from God to claim that folk were hypocrites, Jesus Himself didn't actually say you could kill now did He? Clearly it reads: GOD SAID, so A: He's quoting God, and B: Jesus didn't say what obviously claimed.

    So if Jesus was quoting God, and if you quoted God now, in the future you'd be percieved to allow murder based on obviously's interpretation.
    I dunno I'm not buying that explanation. I mean if God wants people put to death who collect sticks on the Sabbath, it seems consistent to kill people who dishonor their parents too. Maybe I'm just not seeing it though
    If God wants me dead for chopping wood on Sunday, so be it, I accept my death, but it won't stop me chopping wood. Sounds odd that he'd do that though considering that I am very much more faithful and deedworthy than a lot of other Christians and people. :?.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    SV's question reminds me of the story of the preacher who was preaching from Psalms. When he got to Psalm 2, he started to read the first verse:

    "Why do the heathen rage. . ."

    He paused for a moment and then said, "Well, because they're heathens, that's why."
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    SV's question reminds me of the story of the preacher who was preaching from Psalms. When he got to Psalm 2, he started to read the first verse:

    "Why do the heathen rage. . ."

    He paused for a moment and then said, "Well, because they're heathens, that's why."
    LMAO

    Amusing as always, daytonturner
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Freshman Tony John C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    94
    It is darkly amusing that billions of people have died and that everyone you know, will know will also die. Eventually time will erode away all memory of your existence regardless of your contributions to society. Yet for all we claim to know, what happens on the point of death remains a mystery. Anyone who claims to know what happens, is living in a world all their own. Anyone who questions our beliefs is quickly attacked. Regardless of theological affiliation. (Now I realize this is not all people, but a majority) Verzen seems to harbor much animosity towards religion because of the actions of a few against certain sects of people. About killings of a group of people he was not born into, but was merely adopted by. Hate breeds more hate, just as life springs from other life. It is a sad cycle.
    Why is hate so ingrained in humans? For the supposed enlightened species we are very limited to such primitive behaviors. Peace is a fleeting in our society.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Guest
    TJC,

    And if all the people of the world agreed on the subject of religion (either way) they'd find something else to kill each other over. Religion is not the reason for hatred it's the excuse.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Freshman Tony John C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    94
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    TJC,

    And if all the people of the world agreed on the subject of religion (either way) they'd find something else to kill each other over. Religion is not the reason for hatred it's the excuse.
    That is one of the most true things I've heard in such a long time. Its human nature to fight. I just wish we would hate each other because of character and not because of religious affiliation. Better yet, not hate at all. I can only hope that one day we can achieve such a worthy goal.

    ~TJC
    Why is hate so ingrained in humans? For the supposed enlightened species we are very limited to such primitive behaviors. Peace is a fleeting in our society.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    TJC,

    And if all the people of the world agreed on the subject of religion (either way) they'd find something else to kill each other over. Religion is not the reason for hatred it's the excuse.
    I have to disagree - at least in some cases. Some extremists are that "extreme" due to specific religious beliefs and I am not convinced that they'd be as fanatical about anything else. Maybe some would but I wouldn't say all and probably not most. Religion has a special place when it comes to motivating man to do evil things that I don't think anything else could ever replace.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by Neutrino
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    TJC,

    And if all the people of the world agreed on the subject of religion (either way) they'd find something else to kill each other over. Religion is not the reason for hatred it's the excuse.
    I have to disagree - at least in some cases. Some extremists are that "extreme" due to specific religious beliefs and I am not convinced that they'd be as fanatical about anything else. Maybe some would but I wouldn't say all and probably not most. Religion has a special place when it comes to motivating man to do evil things that I don't think anything else could ever replace.
    Watch the film called 'Munich'. It dives into the realm of fanaticism more and shows you what it could actually be.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Neutrino
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    TJC,

    And if all the people of the world agreed on the subject of religion (either way) they'd find something else to kill each other over. Religion is not the reason for hatred it's the excuse.
    I have to disagree - at least in some cases. Some extremists are that "extreme" due to specific religious beliefs and I am not convinced that they'd be as fanatical about anything else. Maybe some would but I wouldn't say all and probably not most. Religion has a special place when it comes to motivating man to do evil things that I don't think anything else could ever replace.
    Except Money, oil, raw materials and of course power.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Freshman Tony John C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    94
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    Quote Originally Posted by Neutrino
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    TJC,

    And if all the people of the world agreed on the subject of religion (either way) they'd find something else to kill each other over. Religion is not the reason for hatred it's the excuse.
    I have to disagree - at least in some cases. Some extremists are that "extreme" due to specific religious beliefs and I am not convinced that they'd be as fanatical about anything else. Maybe some would but I wouldn't say all and probably not most. Religion has a special place when it comes to motivating man to do evil things that I don't think anything else could ever replace.
    Except Money, oil, raw materials and of course power.

    I think that sums it up. :wink:
    Why is hate so ingrained in humans? For the supposed enlightened species we are very limited to such primitive behaviors. Peace is a fleeting in our society.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Freshman tkkenyon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    www.tkkenyon.com
    Posts
    11
    I'm reading "god is not great," by Hitchens right now, and he has an admirable reason why: because, while theists demand that atheists respect and "tolerate" their diverse religious views, all of them, even the contradictory ones, they have no compunctions about proselytizing to atheists and calling atheists immoral.

    TK Kenyon

    Author of RABID: A Novel "What begins as a riff on Peyton Place smoothly metamorphoses into a philosophical battle between science and religion. …Kenyon creates four very subtle and intriguing central characters. A novel quite unlike most standard commercial fare, a genre-bending story--part thriller, part literary slapdown with dialogue as the weapon of choice that makes us laugh, wince, and reflect all at the same time. Kenyon is definitely a keeper.” --Booklist Starred Review.

    Author of CALLOUS: A Novel, May, 2008
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    tk wrote:
    they have no compunctions about proselytizing to atheists and calling atheists immoral.
    Not sure we Christians call the people immoral; we do call some practices immoral so perhaps its a case of the conscience making the shoe fit.

    We do call people sinners, but we include ourselves in that group since we believe all people fail to live up to God's standards and, thereby, we estrange ourselves from Him and subject ourselves to His wrath on the day of judgement. In order to be reconciled and avoid that wrath and receive, instead, God's mercy, one must accept Jesus Christ as his personal savior and trust that Jesus' life, death and resurrection satisfied God's wrath.

    I'm not sure you are properly using the term proselytize unless you consider atheism a religion. We do attempt to warn others of the fate that awaits those who have not accepted Jesus.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    I personally dont understand why anyone would follow a religion out of fear...

    (Don't deny it, thats what it is. Most christians follow JC to avoid god's wrath, you just said so yourself)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    We do call people sinners
    To which people whose psychology touches reality might object. I am not a sinner and have no intention of measuring my actions and feelings by the standard of 4000 year old Jewish Law or the whims of an epileptic misogynistic priest (bet you didn't know whether I meant Paul or Muhammed).

    We do attempt to warn others of the fate that awaits those who have not accepted Jesus.
    Which I think is insulting:

    "But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses." (Matthew vi, 15.)--Very compromising for the said "father."

    "Judge not, that ye be not judged. With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." (Matthew VII, l.)17--What a notion of justice, of a "just" judge! . . ."

    To be judged by such a low standard, devoid of any integrity or conscience, is insulting. It would be insulting enough to have someone come and say "I think you are being immoral for this and this reason," but to add to that the belief that some Supreme, All-Powerful being agrees with you on this is offensive beyond measure!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    We do attempt to warn others of the fate that awaits those who have not accepted Jesus.
    That would be a similar fate for YOU who have not accepted Muhammad as the one true prophet and Allah as the one true god.

    And, perhaps the myriad of other adolescent fairy tales spouting such nonsense are also awaiting the dead to begin zombification.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    We do attempt to warn others of the fate that awaits those who have not accepted Jesus.
    That would be a similar fate for YOU who have not accepted Muhammad as the one true prophet and Allah as the one true god.

    And, perhaps the myriad of other adolescent fairy tales spouting such nonsense are also awaiting the dead to begin zombification.
    Alternatively, we shall be consumed by Elder Gods, and all we can do is ask to eat us first. Considering the human trackrecord for lies, obfuscations and idiocies, the fact that so many for so long have believed in Christianity seems to speak against it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by HomoUniversalis

    Alternatively, we shall be consumed by Elder Gods, and all we can do is ask to eat us first.
    I did often wonder where the term, "Bite Me!" originated, now I know.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    HomoUniversalis said:

    I am not a sinner
    Well, the Bible says you are. But it does not say you are a mean, despicable, decadent, nasty person. It merely says you are not perfect. By saying you are not a sinner, you are saying you have attained the position of being a perfect human being who is incapable of doing even one single thing wrong. If that is the case, then I would agree that you have no need of God.

    But, if you have ever told a lie, you are a liar; if you have ever taken something that was not yours, you are a thief. It is my understanding that these practices are still frowned upon by society (and you even can go to jail for stealing) even though they come from the 4,000-year-old standard you think is archaic.

    HU continues:

    and have no intention of measuring my actions and feelings by the standard of 4000 year old Jewish Law
    Well, whether you measure your actions by that standard or not, does not impact whether God will measure your actions by that standard. You can only ask yourself, if there is a God and he judges me by that standard, am I guilty or innocent? If you are honest, you must admit that if God exists, he would find you guilty. Obviously, that does not particularly concern you. It should.

    HU adds:
    or the whims of an epileptic misogynistic priest (bet you didn't know whether I meant Paul or Muhammed).
    You are right; I would not have known. To the best of my knowledge, neither Paul nor Muhammad was a priest. Paul was more properly called a disciple and Muhammad is considered a prophet by his followers. Had you not mentioned them, I would have assumed you were expressing your opinion of Jesus who consistently appealed to the consciences of individuals such as the Woman at the Well and the Rich Young Ruler. They reacted differently. The woman realized her status as a sinner and repented while the rich man walked away, unwilling to repent. Does your reaction to being confronted with your status before God evoke either of these reactions?

    HU concludes:
    To be judged by such a low standard, devoid of any integrity or conscience, is insulting. It would be insulting enough to have someone come and say "I think you are being immoral for this and this reason," but to add to that the belief that some Supreme, All-Powerful being agrees with you on this is offensive beyond measure
    You would have to show me how a standard that demands perfection is a low standard. It would seem to me that the Bible standard is pretty high. In fact, it is so high, it is impossible to attain. That is why God has provided a method to avoid the penalty for not being perfect.

    I must reiterate that if I point out that the Bible says a certain practice, such as lying or stealing is immoral, I have not called any individual immoral. That is, unless that person, himself, knows he has done these things and agrees they are immoral. It is possible that there is someone who has never done those things. Such a person would not be troubled by being reminded that these are immoral practices. This is the purpose of the law, to tell us what is right and wrong behavior. When we recognize that these things are offense to God, our conscience is piqued.

    Perhaps you would be willing to explain which action(s) recommended or prohibited by the 10 Commandments would better serve humanity if they were consistently violated.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    HomoUniversalis said:

    I am not a sinner
    Well, the Bible says you are.
    I have a book here that says I'm not a sinner.

    But it does not say you are a mean, despicable, decadent, nasty person. It merely says you are not perfect.
    Again, I find it insulting to be measured by a standard conjured up by people who didn't even know disease was caused by micro-organisms, rather than the wrath of God.

    By saying you are not a sinner, you are saying you have attained the position of being a perfect human being who is incapable of doing even one single thing wrong. If that is the case, then I would agree that you have no need of God.
    Yes, I am incapable of doing something wrong, because if I did something, it would not be wrong. I don't need anyone to tell me what is wrong for me, and to have someone consult a 4000-year old book and 'tell me the Creator of the Universe agrees with me' is offensive to me.

    But, if you have ever told a lie, you are a liar; if you have ever taken something that was not yours, you are a thief. It is my understanding that these practices are still frowned upon by society (and you even can go to jail for stealing) even though they come from the 4,000-year-old standard you think is archaic.
    What? You honestly think that prior to Moses on mount Sion, everyone believed rape, theft and lying was okay? And then, when Moses came down with the second (and different) commandments, they went "Shit, we can't do all that stuff any more?"

    Not only is it absurd as a historical tale - it is meaningless as a moral tale, it adds no credibility to morality, only diminishes it (divine sanction is never a good motivator) but it is - again - insulting to say that they can't steal because it is written in a book, or wrong because it does not correspond with your interpretation of the words of the Creator of the Universe.

    HU continues:

    and have no intention of measuring my actions and feelings by the standard of 4000 year old Jewish Law
    Well, whether you measure your actions by that standard or not, does not impact whether God will measure your actions by that standard. You can only ask yourself, if there is a God and he judges me by that standard, am I guilty or innocent? If you are honest, you must admit that if God exists, he would find you guilty. Obviously, that does not particularly concern you. It should.
    The creator of the Universe is concerned with my belief in the dying of a jew 2000 years before I was born? I find it offensive that you pretend to know that, and then tell me what kind of morals I should be having, or what I am and am not. I'll judge myself, thank you.



    HU adds:
    or the whims of an epileptic misogynistic priest (bet you didn't know whether I meant Paul or Muhammed).
    You are right; I would not have known. To the best of my knowledge, neither Paul nor Muhammad was a priest. Paul was more properly called a disciple and Muhammad is considered a prophet by his followers. Had you not mentioned them, I would have assumed you were expressing your opinion of Jesus who consistently appealed to the consciences of individuals such as the Woman at the Well and the Rich Young Ruler. They reacted differently. The woman realized her status as a sinner and repented while the rich man walked away, unwilling to repent. Does your reaction to being confronted with your status before God evoke either of these reactions?
    Let me cite the one redeeming sentence uttered in the New Testament, that I would repeat before the creator of the universe if he lowered himself to concern himself with such lowlies of lowest affairs as are human: "What is truth?"

    HU concludes:
    To be judged by such a low standard, devoid of any integrity or conscience, is insulting. It would be insulting enough to have someone come and say "I think you are being immoral for this and this reason," but to add to that the belief that some Supreme, All-Powerful being agrees with you on this is offensive beyond measure
    You would have to show me how a standard that demands perfection is a low standard. It would seem to me that the Bible standard is pretty high. In fact, it is so high, it is impossible to attain. That is why God has provided a method to avoid the penalty for not being perfect.
    High? Grovelling in the dirt, fearful, loving suffering, hating the world is not high. I consider the Christian morality below myself. Even if I believed in the existence of a Creator - which I find implausible and a bad hypothesis - and that he concerned himself with human affairs - which I find implausible, contemptuous and narcissistic - I would not follow his morality. I mean, look at what it did to Pascal!

    I must reiterate that if I point out that the Bible says a certain practice, such as lying or stealing is immoral, I have not called any individual immoral. That is, unless that person, himself, knows he has done these things and agrees they are immoral. It is possible that there is someone who has never done those things. Such a person would not be troubled by being reminded that these are immoral practices. This is the purpose of the law, to tell us what is right and wrong behavior. When we recognize that these things are offense to God, our conscience is piqued.

    Perhaps you would be willing to explain which action(s) recommended or prohibited by the 10 Commandments would better serve humanity if they were consistently violated.
    Perhaps you should read the New Justine.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    HomoUniversalis asked:


    What? You honestly think that prior to Moses on mount Sion, everyone believed rape, theft and lying was okay? And then, when Moses came down with the second (and different) commandments, they went "Shit, we can't do all that stuff any more?"
    Nope. God saying these things are wrong in Exodus 20 did not make them wrong. They were always wrong. As far back as Genesis 4 we can see that improper regard for God and improper treatment of other human beings was wrong.

    Exodus 20 is merely an expansion on the two LexiUniversalis: 1. Love God with all your heart and soul and might; 2. Love your neighbor as much as you love yourself.

    It would not appear that there is forthcoming a critique of the 10 Commandments suggesting which ones are inapplicable to modern society.

    It is interesting that you are offended by the fact that Christians mention these as standards of the God of the Bible and that there are spiritual consequences for failing to observe them. Would you be equally offended if someone said these same things concerning the Flying Spaghetti Monster? If not, can you explain why one would offend you and not the other? Is it because you recognize the validity of the one but not the other? I am just non reactive such such claims relating to Flying Spaghetti Monster. And they would not threaten me to the point of anger.

    Your contempt for God is reminiscent of Paul’s contempt for Jesus. And you know what happened to him.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    HomoUniversalis asked:


    What? You honestly think that prior to Moses on mount Sion, everyone believed rape, theft and lying was okay? And then, when Moses came down with the second (and different) commandments, they went "Shit, we can't do all that stuff any more?"
    Nope. God saying these things are wrong in Exodus 20 did not make them wrong. They were always wrong. As far back as Genesis 4 we can see that improper regard for God and improper treatment of other human beings was wrong.

    Exodus 20 is merely an expansion on the two LexiUniversalis: 1. Love God with all your heart and soul and might; 2. Love your neighbor as much as you love yourself.

    It would not appear that there is forthcoming a critique of the 10 Commandments suggesting which ones are inapplicable to modern society.
    You didn't even specify what 10 commandments.

    2 I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery;
    I don't see how a modern society needs a God that refers to a tale that highly motivated Jewish archaeologists have been unable to find a single shred of evidence for and are willing to admit never happened.

    3 Do not have any other gods before Me.
    I don't see how modern society needs monotheism. The key values that we are finally returning to - from the Dark Ages of Christianity - are Greek. Born from a polytheism that had no problem including the gods of other peoples.

    4 You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
    I think modern society rather needs art.

    5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me,
    I don't think holding people accountable for the crimes of their parents belongs in a modern society. I don't think praising a being that is irrational, that is jealous, belongs in a modern society, neither does an imperative against worship.

    6 but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.
    Not really a commandment, but all are equal to the law, so I think that's rather sad too.

    7 You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.
    Are you really willing to start a debate with me over secularism and freedom of speech? You'll end up on the side of Iranian Mullahs.

    8 Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy.
    I don't think a modern society should have anything to do with imperatives on what people can't and can't do on any given day.

    9 For six days you shall labour and do all your work.
    Likewise. People are free to decide for themselves whether they want to work or not.

    10 But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns.
    YOUR SLAVES?! Aside from YOUR SLAVES!? I think we can safely say that people should be entitled to their own damn mind what they do on any day.

    11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and consecrated it.
    I don't see how believing in a story that has not a grain of evidence will help modern society,

    12 Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.
    I don't think honouring one's mother and father should be compulsory. Honour those worthy of honouring.

    13 You shall not murder.
    Let's just say 'You shall not kill', because murder really means killing when it is wrong, which makes it a tautology, like saying 'it's wrong to do wrong'. There are numerous places in which society deems it acceptable to kill.

    14 You shall not commit adultery.
    If you want to have sexual relations outside of your marriage, that has nothing to do with the government or society at large.

    15 You shall not steal.
    Define steal. Is taking money by force of violence stealing? Then the government steals when they collect taxes. You do not want to stop paying your taxes. How do you define property laws when it comes to intellectual property? Is downloading a song stealing?

    16 You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.
    Why not? Go with it, have fun! I don't see why God decided on preferring this over 'You shall not rape' (which incidentally, I could actually agree with as being a used concept within Modern society - like, 'don't commit genocide')

    17 You shall not covet your neighbour’s house; you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour.
    It's called Capitalism, get with the program.

    It is interesting that you are offended by the fact that Christians mention these as standards of the God of the Bible and that there are spiritual consequences for failing to observe them. Would you be equally offended if someone said these same things concerning the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
    Yes, I would. Mind you, at least they wouldn't judge me based on a book from the Stone Age.

    If not, can you explain why one would offend you and not the other? Is it because you recognize the validity of the one but not the other? I am just non reactive such such claims relating to Flying Spaghetti Monster. And they would not threaten me to the point of anger.
    I don't see how that has anything to do with it. If people believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster and start making equally offensive claims, I'll reserve the right to be equally offensive.

    Your contempt for God is reminiscent of Paul’s contempt for Jesus. And you know what happened to him.
    I don't have contempt for God. God does not exist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Junior SolomonGrundy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    232
    Why are atheists angry? simple answer!!!
    Because they belive that do not belive in nothing .
    And that says all about them!!!
    belivers in nothing
    Solomon Grundy
    In 1944, this creature rose from the swamp, with tremendous strength and some dormant memories that for example allowed him to speak English, but not knowing what he was, and not remembering Cyrus Gold or his fate. Wandering throughout the swamp, he encountered two escaped criminals, killed them, and took their clothes. When they asked him his name, he simply muttered that he had been born on Monday. Reminded of an old nursery rhyme about a man born on Monday, the thugs named the creature "Solomon Grundy".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    HomoUniversalis has done a great job of describing the world as it exists today -- one in which many ignore God and have no regard for their fellow man.

    Incidentally, there is archeological evidence of the Exodus and scientific explanations for the natural phenomena which occurred in relation to the events as recorded in the Bible. A synopsis can be found in Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus_Decoded
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by SolomonGrundy
    Why are atheists angry? simple answer!!!
    Because they belive that do not belive in nothing .
    And that says all about them!!!
    belivers in nothing
    Right.

    HomoUniversalis has done a great job of describing the world as it exists today -- one in which many ignore God and have no regard for their fellow man.
    Ignore God? It would be prudent of you to remind me when the religious do not rain salt in the wounds of once great civilisations, when the religious do not throw oil on heated conflicts and when the religious do not seek to - by any means possible - oppress their fellow man.

    Of course, the religious is as fictional a group of people as 'the atheists'. And yet, here stands an atheist, challenged to address the 10 commandments by a theist, as if that were even worth his time. I could ask a four-year old child and (s)he would come up with a better list of 10 commandments.

    To even mention that as if it holds some moral power, when it is a document that condemns religious freedom before murder, ought to be offensive not just to atheists, but to theists as well.

    Incidentally, there is archeological evidence of the Exodus and scientific explanations for the natural phenomena which occurred in relation to the events as recorded in the Bible. A synopsis can be found in Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus_Decoded
    Perhaps you should read the criticism section.

    Detailed criticism of Jacobovici's assertions can be found on the Web site of the Biblical Archaeology Society. The site, for example, includes a review of The Exodus Decoded by Dr. Ronald Hendel, Professor of Hebrew Bible and Jewish Studies at the University of California, Berkeley.[2] As Dr. Hendel writes in his review, "The made-for-TV documentary, The Exodus Decoded, begins with some excellent special effects and a short excerpt from the Steven Spielberg-George Lucas thriller, Raiders of the Lost Ark. This introduction sets the stage for a fast-paced show with high production values and dramatic footage. Unfortunately, unlike the Indiana Jones movie, this film presents itself as non-fiction. Watching it is reminiscent of an expensive infomercial, in which the actor-salesman makes increasingly exaggerated claims for his product—it makes you lose weight, adds muscle, and makes you rich to boot. In this case, the actor-director is selling a highly dubious bundle of theories about the historical and scientific veracity of the Biblical Exodus".
    (links are available on the source page)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    I am well aware that Jacobvici's project is not without criticism.

    What he has managed to do is raise the hackles of both the religious traditionalists and the religious academians.

    HomoUniversalis' claim, however. was that there is NO evidence of the Exodus. Even the detractors acknowledge some of the evidences Jacobvici used. It becomes not a matter of the existence of evidence, but what evidence is relevant and how is it to be interpreted.

    Since almost all civilizations proscribe most of the no-nos in the 10 Commandments, it would seem they must have some moral impact. If you do not think so, why don't you just go out and make a practice of doing just the opposite of the behaviors recommended by the 10 Commandments and see how long you remain out of jail. And that's if you don't end up infuriating someone to the point he takes action on his own first.

    Oh, I know, why don't you adopt a policy that you always lie to your boss and see how long you remain employed. Or, in the alternative, always lie to your customers and see how long they remain customers.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    I am well aware that Jacobvici's project is not without criticism.

    What he has managed to do is raise the hackles of both the religious traditionalists and the religious academians.

    HomoUniversalis' claim, however. was that there is NO evidence of the Exodus. Even the detractors acknowledge some of the evidences Jacobvici used. It becomes not a matter of the existence of evidence, but what evidence is relevant and how is it to be interpreted.
    It's not the existence of empirical data I argued against, but whether it is evidence for a certain theory - there is no evidence. Perhaps you should read the criticisms a bit better. He never makes successfully makes a case historically.

    Like I said before, highly motivated Jewish archaeologists have found no trace, no evidence for the Exodus. If you want to change the goalposts and want to say that you can twist Egyptian documents to argue for your story, I doubt anyone will argue against that. You will find a lot people arguing against that if you call it evidence, however.

    Since almost all civilizations proscribe most of the no-nos in the 10 Commandments, it would seem they must have some moral impact.
    You think that the 10 commandments (what 10 commandments, exactly?) are the only moral code out there claimed to come from God? It's preposterous. More importantly, it is offensive and insulting to argue that it is where we get our morals from, as I have said before - and you have repeatedly ignored.

    If you do not think so, why don't you just go out and make a practice of doing just the opposite of the behaviors recommended by the 10 Commandments and see how long you remain out of jail. And that's if you don't end up infuriating someone to the point he takes action on his own first.
    Like what? Work on Sunday? Dishonour my father and mother? Worship another God? Yeah, I'm sure people are anxious to put me in jail.

    Oh, I know, why don't you adopt a policy that you always lie to your boss and see how long you remain employed. Or, in the alternative, always lie to your customers and see how long they remain customers.
    There are secular reasons for that. Economies function better under certain circumstances. Besides, even that commandment is dubious. Some scholars believe it meant 'do not steal persons', as in 'don't kidnap'.

    This debate reminds me a bit of 'the God of the gaps'. Theists make outrageous claims first, and then slowly retreat to ever more safe position under the bludgeoning of reason.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Well, the difficulty is when some people attempt to evade the obvious.

    HomoUniversalis, for example, keeps asking "Which 10 Commandments," when he knows very well that I am talking about the same 10 Commandments that everybody recognizes as THE 10 Commandments found in Exodus 20, a Bible cite which I have even previously mentioned.

    Such evasive tactics are merely ploys to ignore their value to society and ascribe their wisdom to some other source.

    HU says:

    Like what? Work on Sunday? Dishonour my father and mother? Worship another God? Yeah, I'm sure people are anxious to put me in jail.
    Is it that in HU's desperate attempt to undermine the value of the 10 Commandments, he is now advocating the 7-day work week and parental abuse?

    No one, to the best of my knowledge, is suggesting that Exodus 20 is the only place or even the first place where the practices recommended there were codified. For HU to ask if I think that is the only moral code is a strawman argument which is, really, beneath his dignity. Most of these same standards are found in most social groups. Besides, this concept o where morals come from has been hashed and rehashed on several other threads.

    HU says:

    This debate reminds me a bit of 'the God of the gaps'. Theists make outrageous claims first, and then slowly retreat to ever more safe position under the bludgeoning of reason.
    I, for one, have not retreated at all from my post to which HU orginally responded. To wit:

    Not sure we Christians call the people immoral; we do call some practices immoral so perhaps its a case of the conscience making the shoe fit.

    We do call people sinners, but we include ourselves in that group since we believe all people fail to live up to God's standards and, thereby, we estrange ourselves from Him and subject ourselves to His wrath on the day of judgement. In order to be reconciled and avoid that wrath and receive, instead, God's mercy, one must accept Jesus Christ as his personal savior and trust that Jesus' life, death and resurrection satisfied God's wrath.

    I'm not sure you are properly using the term proselytize unless you consider atheism a religion. We do attempt to warn others of the fate that awaits those who have not accepted Jesus.
    Hmmm, in looking back, I notice that megabrain has removed his name from one of the really meaningful things he has ever said here:

    And if all the people of the world agreed on the subject of religion (either way) they'd find something else to kill each other over. Religion is not the reason for hatred it's the excuse.
    I think it a sad commentary on the atheist population here when they don't even want to take credit when they make such an observation.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Well, the difficulty is when some people attempt to evade the obvious.
    'The obvious'? That which is self-evident is self-refuting. If you have something to say, say it.

    HomoUniversalis, for example, keeps asking "Which 10 Commandments," when he knows very well that I am talking about the same 10 Commandments that everybody recognizes as THE 10 Commandments found in Exodus 20, a Bible cite which I have even previously mentioned.
    There are two in every bible, and there are many translations/interpretations, to which I alluded earlier (with the example of the interpretation of stealing). Here is referred to Exodus, which was the first set, Deuteronom 5:6-21 was the second. He broke the first one, remember, then God made him a second, a bit different one.

    Those Jewish priests.. They are not just bad writers and bad moral philosophers - they are bad plagiarisers as well.

    Such evasive tactics are merely ploys to ignore their value to society and ascribe their wisdom to some other source.
    What value to society? As an anachronistic artefact worthy only of ridicule and attempt? I would not dear diminish such an excellent laughing stock as Christendom - I applaud it.

    HU says:

    Like what? Work on Sunday? Dishonour my father and mother? Worship another God? Yeah, I'm sure people are anxious to put me in jail.
    Is it that in HU's desperate attempt to undermine the value of the 10 Commandments, he is now advocating the 7-day work week and parental abuse?
    Not honouring my parents is 'parental abuse'? Then isn't the commandment 'Don't abuse your parents?' Besides, why are my parents especially worthy of not abusing? This is all very confusing to someone who is not used to living by one-liners or one book.

    No one, to the best of my knowledge, is suggesting that Exodus 20 is the only place or even the first place where the practices recommended there were codified. For HU to ask if I think that is the only moral code is a strawman argument which is, really, beneath his dignity.
    My dignity? Far greater, older and more learned men than you have commended me. Save your sarcasm for garage sales.

    Most of these same standards are found in most social groups. Besides, this concept o where morals come from has been hashed and rehashed on several other threads.
    Yes, and? If I write a book about farm equipment, that doesn't mean that all farm equipment was made using my book. More importantly, as a moral code, the ten commandments are offensive. Condemning religious freedom before murder? It's shameful.

    And that's not even addressing all the other crap in Deuteronomy, of stoning, of homosexuals, &c. The Bible is not just immoral, it is offensively so.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Ph.D. william's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Wherever I go, there I am
    Posts
    935
    I ran across this article (and comments) just this morning. Some of you may find it "interesting"....

    http://www.intellectualconservative....aith/#comments

    Cheers
    "... the polhode rolls without slipping on the herpolhode lying in the invariable plane."
    ~Footnote in Goldstein's Mechanics, 3rd ed. p. 202
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    While looking back, I also noted this other response to the very same post.


    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    I personally dont understand why anyone would follow a religion out of fear...

    (Don't deny it, thats what it is. Most christians follow JC to avoid god's wrath, you just said so yourself)
    I would certainly not deny that is an aspect of it.

    But consider this: Why is it most of us don't go around robbing banks? Is it because we are "afraid" of going to jail? Or is it that we recognize that going to jail would be an unpleasant experience, one that we would prefer to avoid?

    I would only be "afraid" of going to jail if I actually robbed a bank. Then I would fear being exposed, arrested and convicted of the crime and sentenced to the unpleasant experience of jail.

    It is not clear if verzen is expressing the opinion that "fear" is an improper motivator. For some animals, fear is the only that stands between them and certain death. Would you have the prairie dog, when the coyote happens by, say, "I ain't skeared of no stinking coyote; I will stand before him and defy him." That is probably the last thing the prairie dog would say.

    verzen's post expresses the thoughts of those who do not believe he has a soul nor that there is a hell nor that there is a God who will judge them and allow them to spend enternity in hell because that has been their choice.

    As for me, it is not that I am "afraid" of hell, but rather that it seems to me that an eternity in hell would be a most unpleasant eternal existence and I am thankful that God has provided a way to avoid that.

    The only people who need fear the laws against bank robbing and people who enforce them are the people who rob banks. The only people who need fear God are those who have chosen to subject themselves to His wrath rather than His mercy.

    verzen and other likeminded people are banking on the belief that there is no God. Some of us call this the Devil's Bank.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    The only people who need fear God are those who have chosen to subject themselves to His wrath rather than His mercy.
    "The everyday Christian. -- If the Christian dogmas of a revengeful God, universal sinfulness, election by divine grace and the danger of eternal damnation were true, it would be a sign of weak-mindedness and lack of character not to become a priest, apostle or hermit and, in fear and trembling, to work solely on one's own salvation; it would be senseless to lose sight of ones eternal advantage for the sake of temporal comfort. If we may assume that these things are at any rate believed true, then the everyday Christian cuts a miserable figure; he is a man who really cannot count to three, and who precisely on account of his spiritual imbecility does not deserve to be punished so harshly as Christianity promises to punish him." - Friedrich Nietzsche

    I love Nietzsche.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    If I may intrude…. Dayton, who exactly are you addressing in your posts? You always respond as if talking to an audience; as if you’re standing at an altar, preaching. I find it a little offensive when you do that. Can I ask that you address your fellow debater directly?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Kalster asks:

    Dayton, who exactly are you addressing in your posts?
    If I have quoted somebody, I am basically responding to that quote.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    I mean that your replies are structured as if you are a teacher, a kid asks a question and then you address the class, saying "Peter does not understand....", instead of saying "Well, Peter, you do not understand...". In my mind it creates the impression (not being insulting here, just my impression) that you fancy yourself a Wise Man, dispensing wisdom to all who would listen.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    I mean that your replies are structured as if you are a teacher, a kid asks a question and then you address the class, saying "Peter does not understand....", instead of saying "Well, Peter, you do not understand...". In my mind it creates the impression (not being insulting here, just my impression) that you fancy yourself a Wise Man, dispensing wisdom to all who would listen.
    Don't mind him Kalster, many people speak to themselves... It is often found more in religious individuals however..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Well, yes, but when they are caught amongst a passel of atheists, it is the only way to have an intelligent conversation.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    My hit and run post. All I have seen from some atheists in this discussion is condescension and self righteousness on their part:

    It is often found more in religious individuals however
    Based on what evidence?

    "The everyday Christian. -- If the Christian dogmas of a revengeful God, universal sinfulness, election by divine grace and the danger of eternal damnation were true, it would be a sign of weak-mindedness and lack of character not to become a priest, apostle or hermit and, in fear and trembling, to work solely on one's own salvation; it would be senseless to lose sight of ones eternal advantage for the sake of temporal comfort. If we may assume that these things are at any rate believed true, then the everyday Christian cuts a miserable figure; he is a man who really cannot count to three, and who precisely on account of his spiritual imbecility does not deserve to be punished so harshly as Christianity promises to punish him." - Friedrich Nietzsche
    This is a huge generalisation of Nietzsche is based on philosiphy and not proven science, most of his time was spent at a desk writing so I'd say he never went out to effort and scientificly proove any of his philosiphies. On top of that he must have had a lot on in his mind as far as philosiphy is concerened to have gone loopy. Excuse the Colloquialism there.

    The problem with atheists now myself being agnostic is that they have never taken religion seriously and followed the rules of such. So they do not fully understand in some parts here daytons opinions. Heres a bit of a metaphor, don't tell someone how to drive if you've never driven before or only ever been a passenger. :wink:
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Professor sunshinewarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner

    HomoUniversalis, for example, keeps asking "Which 10 Commandments," when he knows very well that I am talking about the same 10 Commandments that everybody recognizes as THE 10 Commandments found in Exodus 20, a Bible cite which I have even previously mentioned.
    Hi dayton turner

    I've not really been terribly involved in this discussion but what you said here intrigued me. I have never, through reading the Bible (I love the KJV, as a student of English Literature) been able to figure out how those passages come out as 10 commandments.

    Wiki shows how each sect/division within Christianity has a different way of dividing up the 14 imperative statements contained in the Old Testament (with slight differences between the Exodus 20 set and that of Deuteronomy).

    Now if the Christian professionals themselves cannot agree on which are the exact 10, it's hardly fair to expect an outsider like me to take it on faith is it?

    Apparently, the only warrant for calling them ten is a different passage in the Bible. Alas, wiki does not say where this passage is. If you know of it I'd be grateful for a reference.

    Until then, provisionally, I will continue to think of them as the 14 imperatives... :P

    cheer

    shanks
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    wales
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by svwillmer

    The problem with atheists now myself being agnostic is that they have never taken religion seriously and followed the rules of such. So they do not fully understand in some parts here daytons opinions. Heres a bit of a metaphor, don't tell someone how to drive if you've never driven before or only ever been a passenger. :wink:

    That’s a bit of a wild assumption. Most atheists, agnostics I know have been brought up with some level of religious teaching and have therefore received the same type of brainwashing that theists get. Many have probably taken it as seriously as theists at some point of their lives before “seeing the light”. I know I believed without much question until I was a teenager.

    I should imagine that there are far more atheist/agnostics who have formally taken religion seriously than there are theists that have come from totally atheist backgrounds, so your metaphor really applies to those who have not experienced both worlds, and they tend to be the theists who are happy to continue with their childhood brainwashing.

    As for the main question “why are atheists angry”?......well you've heard the saying, ignorance is bliss.

    Religion acts as society's brain tranquilliser so all the nasty, scary thoughts get packaged up prettily and explained away in simple terms. Us poor atheists have to deal with reality as it is, hence, I assume, a greater propensity for anger when we have to blame stupid humans for things rather than simply attribute them to a god's great plan and then forget about them.

    However, I think we are less consumed by guilt and fear of demons poking big forks in our burning bums when we die….so it’s swings and roundabouts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by sunshinewarrio
    Now if the Christian professionals themselves cannot agree on which are the exact 10, it's hardly fair to expect an outsider like me to take it on faith is it?
    I plead afternoon boredom for going somewhat off topic.

    Moses descends from the mountain to the expectant Israelites.
    "I have good news and I have bad news," he declares. "The good news is I've got him down to ten. The bad news is, adultery is still in."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Professor sunshinewarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by sunshinewarrio
    Now if the Christian professionals themselves cannot agree on which are the exact 10, it's hardly fair to expect an outsider like me to take it on faith is it?
    I plead afternoon boredom for going somewhat off topic.

    Moses descends from the mountain to the expectant Israelites.
    "I have good news and I have bad news," he declares. "The good news is I've got him down to ten. The bad news is, adultery is still in."
    :P

    Even moderators are allowed to stray on occasion. And it's a grey afternoon here in southern Blighty so....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    (For KALSTER’s edification, this is in response to Sunshinewarrior’s post.)

    There are four things here to discuss.

    First of all, the use of the word imperatives to refer to The 10 Commandments is in no way offensive to me and will be covered more completely below. I see them as expansions on God’s two main laws: Love God and love your neighbor. The first four explain ways you can love God; the last six explain ways you can show love for your fellow man. They are not exhaustive lists.

    Second, the claim that there is a difference between the commands in Exodus and those in Deuteronomy. Someone is going to have to show me how they differ. Here are the traditional 10 Commandments with their corresponding references:

    1. No other Gods – Ex. 20:3, Deut. 5:7
    1. No making of images (of God) – Ex: 20:4, Deut. 5:8
    1. No use of God’s name in vain – Ex: 20:7, Deut 5:11
    1. Remember Sabbath – Ex. 20:8, Deut. 5:12
    1. Honor Parents – Ex. 20:12, Deut. 5:16
    1. No homicide – Ex. 20:13, Deut. 5:17
    1. No adultry – Ex. 20:14, Deut. 5:18
    1. No stealing – Ex. 20:15, Deut. 5:19
    1. No lying – Ex. 20:16, Deut. 5:20
    1. Don’t covet (mess with) other peoples’ stuff – Ex. 20:17, Deut. 5:21

    While, I suppose someone could be concerned that they are not word for word the same, they still say the same thing just as if I said “Hurry up,” in one place and “Shake a leg,” in another. They mean the exact same thing. Some of the explanations following the commands may also be slightly rephrased.

    Third, other Bible references calling them the 10 Commandments: They are called the 10 Commandments in three other places: Ex. 34:23, Deut. 4:13 and Deut. 10:4. This does require a little more explanation, though.

    The most often used Hebrew word translated commandments is mitsvah. In the three above references, the Hebrew word translated commandments is dabar. Dabar is derived from a verb which means to speak and thus, dabar would better be translated “word.” So the only three times the Bible calls them the “10 Commandments,” a more literal translation would be the “10 Words.” Thus, the “10 Imperitives” would not be a misrepresentation of their significance.

    Finally, I do not know what Sunshinewarrior’s other four imperitives are. I can only suspect that he is confusing some explanations of a commandment as being a separate commandment.

    For example, in No. 2. -- “No making of images” – there is also an admonition not to worship them, but that is an example of how one could fail to follow No. 1.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    For example, in No. 2. -- “No making of images” – there is also an admonition not to worship them, but that is an example of how one could fail to follow No. 1.
    Am I being picky? Perhaps. Surely it is the other way around. Making images would be a prerequisite for worshiping them. The problem lies more in the worship of them than in the making of them. If the prohibition to make them is scrupulously honoured then there is no opportunity to worship them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by svwillmer
    "The everyday Christian. -- If the Christian dogmas of a revengeful God, universal sinfulness, election by divine grace and the danger of eternal damnation were true, it would be a sign of weak-mindedness and lack of character not to become a priest, apostle or hermit and, in fear and trembling, to work solely on one's own salvation; it would be senseless to lose sight of ones eternal advantage for the sake of temporal comfort. If we may assume that these things are at any rate believed true, then the everyday Christian cuts a miserable figure; he is a man who really cannot count to three, and who precisely on account of his spiritual imbecility does not deserve to be punished so harshly as Christianity promises to punish him." - Friedrich Nietzsche
    This is a huge generalisation of Nietzsche is based on philosiphy and not proven science, most of his time was spent at a desk writing so I'd say he never went out to effort and scientificly proove any of his philosiphies. On top of that he must have had a lot on in his mind as far as philosiphy is concerened to have gone loopy. Excuse the Colloquialism there.

    The problem with atheists now myself being agnostic is that they have never taken religion seriously and followed the rules of such. So they do not fully understand in some parts here daytons opinions. Heres a bit of a metaphor, don't tell someone how to drive if you've never driven before or only ever been a passenger. :wink:
    I don't have to be able to drive a car to shoot someone in a car if he is coming at me at full speed with the intent to kill. I find his beliefs, and his proselytising of those beliefs offensive. I'm not saying how he should believe or what, only that I find his beliefs unreasonable, offensive to free-thinking spirits and inconsistent (as Nietzsche's quote clarifies).

    Considering your post at most is a category error and an ad hominem, I don't see how it addresses Nietzsche's point in that quote.

    Am I being picky? Perhaps. Surely it is the other way around. Making images would be a prerequisite for worshiping them. The problem lies more in the worship of them than in the making of them. If the prohibition to make them is scrupulously honoured then there is no opportunity to worship them.
    No, picky would be concerning oneself with God's choice of commandments. Why not - say - ban rape or genocide rather than idolatry, or the first, religious freedom.

    Differences? Aside from some minor ones, an entire verse:

    11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and consecrated it.

    15 Remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm; therefore the Lord your God commanded you to keep the sabbath day.

    ---

    I never really understood how the writers of the bible knew what was written on the first one, but also why it was so written for the Jewish people explicitly. Of course, historical analyses make this more clear, but they don't leave very much alive of the conception that the Jewish God.. err.. existed.

    Of course, such matters pale in comparison to the offensiveness of the ten commandments, in its choice and preference of banning religious freedom, art, &c long before murder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    For example, in No. 2. -- “No making of images” – there is also an admonition not to worship them, but that is an example of how one could fail to follow No. 1.
    Am I being picky? Perhaps. Surely it is the other way around. Making images would be a prerequisite for worshiping them. The problem lies more in the worship of them than in the making of them. If the prohibition to make them is scrupulously honoured then there is no opportunity to worship them.
    No, you are not exactly being picky. You are correct in the sense that one could not worship a graven image that had not been made.

    However, that is only one form of the idolatry proscribed in the first commandment. A more common modern form of idolatry is self worship in which we establish our own authority as being superior to that of God.

    I see that being practiced here all the time with people saying something to the effect, "God cannot exist because He does not do things they way I think He should." Thus, the person has set himself "before God."

    And when it comes to setting our own standards instead of using God's, it is amazing how adept we are at always drawing the line just a little bit below ourselves. Example: I don't abide killing and raping, but a little bit of adultery is OK.

    HU wrote:

    I don't have to be able to drive a car to shoot someone in a car if he is coming at me at full speed with the intent to kill. I find his beliefs, and his proselytising of those beliefs offensive. I'm not saying how he should believe or what, only that I find his beliefs unreasonable, offensive to free-thinking spirits and inconsistent (as Nietzsche's quote clarifies).
    So, by saying that my beliefs are unreasonable and offensive, you are not implying that I should change them to more closely conform to your self aggrandizing free thinking? Is subtle proselytising by implication a better form of evangelism than plain old open and obvious evangelism?
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    HU wrote:
    I don't have to be able to drive a car to shoot someone in a car if he is coming at me at full speed with the intent to kill. I find his beliefs, and his proselytising of those beliefs offensive. I'm not saying how he should believe or what, only that I find his beliefs unreasonable, offensive to free-thinking spirits and inconsistent (as Nietzsche's quote clarifies).
    So, by saying that my beliefs are unreasonable and offensive, you are not implying that I should change them to more closely conform to your self aggrandizing free thinking?
    Self-aggrandising? Please. And no, I don't seek conformity. I have responded to the outrageous claim that the Ten Commandments have anything to do with modern society and I have asserted that Christianity and its morality is lowly and offensive to people of good health - freethinkers.
    Whether you find that indicative of inflated self-importance I could not care less about - I am beyond such timid morality.


    Is subtle proselytising by implication a better form of evangelism than plain old open and obvious evangelism?
    Methinks being silent about it would be even better. Was Wittgenstein the last decent Christian?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Professor sunshinewarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,525
    Dear daytonturner

    Couple of qualifications:

    A. It's not fair copying and pasting entire chunks of wiki here, but dagnabit, nobody seems to follow the links any longer.

    B. The table's formatting goes to pieces but I'm hoping some of it will still make sense.


    Quote Originally Posted by wiki

    The commandments passage in Exodus contains more than ten imperative statements, totalling 14 or 15 in all. While the Bible itself assigns the count of "10", using the Hebrew phrase ʻaseret had'varim—translated as the 10 words, statements or things, this phrase does not appear in the passages usually presented as being "the Ten Commandments".[4] Various religions divide the commandments differently. The table below highlights those differences.

    Division of the Ten Commandments by religion/denomination Commandment Jewish Orthodox Roman Catholic*, Lutheran** Anglican, Reformed, and other Christian
    I am the Lord your God 1 1 1 preface
    You shall have no other gods before me 2 1
    You shall not make for yourself an idol 2 2
    You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God 3 3 2 3
    Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy 4 4 3 4
    Honor your Father and Mother 5 5 4 5
    You shall not murder* 6 6 5 6
    You shall not commit adultery 7 7 6 7
    You shall not steal 8 8 7 8
    You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor 9 9 8 9
    You shall not covet your neighbor's house 10 10 9 10
    You shall not covet your neighbor's wife 10

    Notes:

    * The Roman Catholic Church uses the translation 'kill' (less specific) instead of 'murder'.[5]
    ** Some Lutheran churches use a slightly different division of the Ninth and Tenth Commandments (9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house; 10. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his workers, or his cattle, or anything that is your neighbor’s).[6]
    This seems to suggest at least three or four ways of slicing it up (as it were). And a hand count of demonstrably separate issues (by me, admittedly) comes to about 13. I'll check with my KJV to see if it agrees.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Sunshinewarrior said:

    It's not fair copying and pasting entire chunks of wiki here, but dagnabit, nobody seems to follow the links any longer.
    I looked at the wiki article on the 10 commandments and it is a pretty good survey of the different ways different groups flesh it out. It is not my opinion that these minor differences alter the overall meaning. They all encourage or discourage, as the case may be, the same activities and practices.

    Objections as to minor differences in text and differences in interpretation are merely smoke screens used to excuse disregarding the entire slate. It would be like if here in the US, we got into some argument over our Bill of Rights in relation to what "freedom of speech" in the First Amendment means and somebody else (who does not even live under a constitution) comes along and suggests that the different interpretations of freedom of speech invalidates the entire Bill of Rights and, therefore, we should just scrap the entire Constitution.

    I would hesitate to make Wikipedia my sole source of information on any topic. I do not think it carries the scholarly credentials and reputation of say Encyclopedia Britannica or other well established reference materials.
    However, it does provide a great starting point for lots of topics.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    Objections as to minor differences in text and differences in interpretation are merely smoke screens used to excuse disregarding the entire slate. It would be like if here in the US, we got into some argument over our Bill of Rights in relation to what "freedom of speech" in the First Amendment means and somebody else (who does not even live under a constitution) comes along and suggests that the different interpretations of freedom of speech invalidates the entire Bill of Rights and, therefore, we should just scrap the entire Constitution.
    Actually, constitutional courts exist to test concepts, what they mean and how they are to be interpreted. Jurisprudence is basically the interpretation of legislation.

    Moreover, for some legislation, studying the history may yield some understanding about its intention. The first amendment to the US constitution on religious freedom had two drafts before it. Only the third, wherein it was not just freedom of religion, but also freedom from religion, was passed.
    Reading the writings of Jefferson and Madison, their intentions can clarify the understanding of legal concepts, how they were originally intended, and how the figure in society.

    Your analogy is deeply and fundamentally flawed.

    I would hesitate to make Wikipedia my sole source of information on any topic.
    I would hesitate to make the bible my sole source of information on any topic. And yet, here we are.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Ph.D. william's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Wherever I go, there I am
    Posts
    935
    My 2 cents...

    I think the problem arises when people (whoever they are) push their views onto others. And one of the rubs, is that many religious persons believe that it is necessary (their duty, if you will) to try to help others (i.e., prevent eternal damnation, etc.). So it is within many religious folks a deep desire to help others, which many of the recipients don't see as help, but more as this "pushing" of their views.

    I know many religious folks that take the stand of not being priviledged to the absolute truth, and maintain the view of simply aligning themselves with one interpretation of "history." They are open to the idea that their views may be flawed, yet still choose to believe. They also believe that their path is not the only path. I admire this, and I don't see any harm in this.

    In my opinion, the trouble arises when one holds a view that they believe is the absolute truth, are unwilling to concede that they may be wrong, and passionately attempt to "push" their views onto others.

    Cheers,
    william
    "... the polhode rolls without slipping on the herpolhode lying in the invariable plane."
    ~Footnote in Goldstein's Mechanics, 3rd ed. p. 202
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by william
    My 2 cents...

    In my opinion, the trouble arises when one holds a view that they believe is the absolute truth, are unwilling to concede that they may be wrong, and passionately attempt to "push" their views onto others.

    Cheers,
    william
    What trouble arises? What activities constitute "pushing"? I ask this sincerely because I have never felt inconvenienced in any way by somebody else's opinion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by HomoUniversalis

    I don't have to be able to drive a car to shoot someone in a car if he is coming at me at full speed with the intent to kill. I find his beliefs, and his proselytising of those beliefs offensive. I'm not saying how he should believe or what, only that I find his beliefs unreasonable, offensive to free-thinking spirits and inconsistent (as Nietzsche's quote clarifies).

    Considering your post at most is a category error and an ad hominem, I don't see how it addresses Nietzsche's point in that quote.
    Still, you are not driving. So the intentions are fully known, you'd have to prove B wrong before you can prove A is correct, and even then it states A may be correct and not entirely. Even if the driver was at 10000c, or 0.00001c, you still are not driving, it does not matter the speed. Unless you drive the car in the same instance, in the same purpose and for the same understanding, you can never comment with 100% accuarcy the truth you state. Therefore you only have an opinion, and that without evidence can be proven incorrect. I'm simply stating that although you can comment on one thing, you cannot totally be correct with that comment, and that is what I am picking at.

    Nietzsche was my way of stating that it is irrelevant what he thinks regarding this modren converstation. Thats like telling Caractacus Potts how to pilot the starship enterprise.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Forum Ph.D. william's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Wherever I go, there I am
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by william
    My 2 cents...

    In my opinion, the trouble arises when one holds a view that they believe is the absolute truth, are unwilling to concede that they may be wrong, and passionately attempt to "push" their views onto others.

    Cheers,
    william
    What trouble arises? What activities constitute "pushing"? I ask this sincerely because I have never felt inconvenienced in any way by somebody else's opinion.
    Hi harold,

    I can imagine differing levels of "trouble." I suppose it depends on how much power the "pusher" has over others.

    A minor example is this; where I live, one cannot buy alcoholic beverages on Sunday. Why?

    One has only to look to the middle-east to see more severe examples.

    Cheers
    "... the polhode rolls without slipping on the herpolhode lying in the invariable plane."
    ~Footnote in Goldstein's Mechanics, 3rd ed. p. 202
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by svwillmer
    Quote Originally Posted by HomoUniversalis

    I don't have to be able to drive a car to shoot someone in a car if he is coming at me at full speed with the intent to kill. I find his beliefs, and his proselytising of those beliefs offensive. I'm not saying how he should believe or what, only that I find his beliefs unreasonable, offensive to free-thinking spirits and inconsistent (as Nietzsche's quote clarifies).

    Considering your post at most is a category error and an ad hominem, I don't see how it addresses Nietzsche's point in that quote.
    Still, you are not driving. So the intentions are fully known, you'd have to prove B wrong before you can prove A is correct, and even then it states A may be correct and not entirely. Even if the driver was at 10000c, or 0.00001c, you still are not driving, it does not matter the speed. Unless you drive the car in the same instance, in the same purpose and for the same understanding, you can never comment with 100% accuarcy the truth you state. Therefore you only have an opinion, and that without evidence can be proven incorrect. I'm simply stating that although you can comment on one thing, you cannot totally be correct with that comment, and that is what I am picking at.
    You have lost me completely.

    Nietzsche was my way of stating that it is irrelevant what he thinks regarding this modren converstation.
    Why is he irrelevant? Have you read his books?

    Thats like telling Caractacus Potts how to pilot the starship enterprise.
    It is impossible to pilot the starship enterprise - It is fictional, as is Caractacus Potts. Nietzsche is not a fictional character.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    OK. Our argument is going nowhere. I am intruiged by some of Neitzsche's works but my Christian look still needs filtering out of my scientific outlook on texts.

    EDIT: Put a full stop after OK. Forgot it .
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Forum Junior DivideByZero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    260
    I hypothesize that many atheists in this forum do believe in the most loose interpretation of god. I say this blindly but believe it to be true.
    A strong interpretation of god is Zeus.
    A loose interpretation of god is nature.
    Believing that nature is a living organism of patterns may be represented as a god. "a god" is now a human like idol or a super natural being. But there is something above this... the real God.
    Above, I am not defining god in my terms, but giving a deeper definition of it.

    The God is not one being that controls us. The God is the nature we control. It is the illusion of life. We refer to the God as a being but the God is not alive AND alive at the same time. Interpret that as what ever you want.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner

    But consider this: Why is it most of us don't go around robbing banks? Is it because we are "afraid" of going to jail? Or is it that we recognize that going to jail would be an unpleasant experience, one that we would prefer to avoid?
    Jail has nothing to do with robbing banks. You don't rob banks because you intentionally do harm to others, the bank, their employees and the people whose money you're stealing.

    I would only be "afraid" of going to jail if I actually robbed a bank. Then I would fear being exposed, arrested and convicted of the crime and sentenced to the unpleasant experience of jail.
    So, the thought of intentionally doing harm to others doesn't phase on you at all?

    It is not clear if verzen is expressing the opinion that "fear" is an improper motivator. For some animals, fear is the only that stands between them and certain death. Would you have the prairie dog, when the coyote happens by, say, "I ain't skeared of no stinking coyote; I will stand before him and defy him." That is probably the last thing the prairie dog would say.
    "Fear" IS the motivator as societies are largely theist, and it is only fear which theists understand, based on their fear of gods.

    As for me, it is not that I am "afraid" of hell, but rather that it seems to me that an eternity in hell would be a most unpleasant eternal existence and I am thankful that God has provided a way to avoid that.
    Rather a selfish view you have of how to live your life. You don't appear to be thinking about the harm you might do to others but instead think about the harm that might come to you.

    The only people who need fear the laws against bank robbing and people who enforce them are the people who rob banks. The only people who need fear God are those who have chosen to subject themselves to His wrath rather than His mercy.
    A typical theist approach. Theists are unable to understand the consequences of their actions and must live in fear of a wrath rather than use their own faculties to comprehend the right thing to do.

    verzen and other likeminded people are banking on the belief that there is no God. Some of us call this the Devil's Bank.
    You aren't banking on anything at all. You don't think about the consequences of your actions. You can "sin" all you want and then plead forgiveness. You don't learn anything by this method, other than ways to deceive yourself.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Q is mah hero...



    for exacly 5 seconds
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Forum Freshman teeniewitabeenie1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    making lemons into lemonade
    Posts
    81
    they are afraid. just imagine you don't believe in nothing, nothing to look up to or look forward to, alone. alone in a your dog eats my dog every man for themselves world that just blackness forever afterward. scary huh?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by teeniewitabeenie1
    they are afraid. just imagine you don't believe in nothing, nothing to look up to or look forward to, alone. alone in a your dog eats my dog every man for themselves world that just blackness forever afterward. scary huh?
    Hmmm.... Do you have personal experience of this? Is this your view of the world? Or is this just something you are imagining?
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by teeniewitabeenie1
    they are afraid. just imagine you don't believe in nothing, nothing to look up to or look forward to, alone. alone in a your dog eats my dog every man for themselves world that just blackness forever afterward. scary huh?
    That certainly would increase the need to create some sort of cult in which everlasting life based on purposeful obedience to an omnipotent being is promised.

    That is, if you're afraid of the dark.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    540
    Quote Originally Posted by teeniewitabeenie1
    they are afraid. just imagine you don't believe in nothing, nothing to look up to or look forward to, alone. alone in a your dog eats my dog every man for themselves world that just blackness forever afterward. scary huh?
    and once again another five year old.
    religious morals, are vastly inferior to any nonbeliever, a atheist does good because he wants to, not to appease some sky daddy cult.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •