Well, lets see:
You: "I hate you because of your religious beliefs."
Me: "Do you even know what those are?"
You: "No, but I hate you for them".
That just about sums it up.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Does the god who supposedly created this world deserve to be worshipped?
- Thread starter arcanum
- Start date
- Status
Well, lets see:
You: "I hate you because of your religious beliefs."
Me: "Do you even know what those are?"
You: "No, but I hate you for them".
That just about sums it up.
Well, it's clear to me that you didn't understand the question, but points for trying to answer it anyway.
That's exactly what that is: an assumption.
Which you have been, almost nothing but. In one breath you acknowledge that there's no such thing as absolute, objective, morality. In the next (and the next and the next) you make claims what amounts to "this is my moral standard and anyone with a different standard just doesn't know any better.
In other words, you claim one thing and demonstrate something completely different. "Inconsistent" is actually one of the nicer words for that.
You didn't explain your inconsistency, you merely denied it.
And yet you feel you have the right to play God, ie., to decide what moral standards everyone--past and present--should be following.
Any of which you consider inferior or misguided if they don't match your own.
What else you do is hold everyone else accountable to your moral standards, because--as I've said and as you've shown repeatedly---you consider your standards absolute.
You can say you don't all you like. What you demonstrate is a much more reliable message than what you say about yourself.
There ya go.
You're reciting this, ie., you showing that you understand what moral relativism is, but none of this is in alignment with your actions in this thread so far.
I never said the definition was inconsistent. I'm saying you're being inconsistent.
And I've shown this. Instead of looking at that you just start reciting something you understand but obviously aren't holding yourself to.
It's like slapping a bumper sticker on your car saying "I'm doing the speed limit" and then telling the traffic cop who pulls you over for doing 85 in a 45 "Guess you didn't see the bumper sticker".
Morality isn't no. But you're view of your own obviously is.
No, actually. The subtext of this and any discussions like this is personal responsibility for our own conditions vs denial of responsibility (ie., blaming it on a God, even if you don't believe in one).
As far as I'm concerned this whole discussion has been a demonstration in denial of personal responsibility or accountability by some posters.
Sometimes people contribute to threads in ways they don't even realize.
Ok, the first time you presented this misrepresentation of my position I could assume you just misunderstood.
Since I cleared that up for you and you're still presenting it as my position, I can only assume that since being obtuse wasn't working for you you've decided to switch to out-right dishonesty.
You're right on time. This is exactly what I would have predicted would come from you next.
That's right, you won't. You have way too much evidence to the contrary working against you at this point.
You forgot to say " I have spoken".
You shouldn't assume something doesn't make any sense just because it went over your head.
What both of us have been demonstrating all through this conversation is that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what you're saying.
Again: You shouldn't assume something doesn't make any sense just because it went over your head.
Especially if the reason it went over your head is because you ducked.
Third or forth time: that was never my position. So if it didn't come from me, where did it come from?
Bull, that's just how you took it, which isn't my problem. I've already told you that that was a gross distortion of my position, but apparently that doesn't matter to you. You're going to keep using it anyway because it's all ya got.
You're the one who's been saying they didn't know any better. Not me.
I've tried to be as clear and easy to understand as I could be in this thread.
I'm responsible for what I say. I'm not responsible for what you turn it into.
The fact that you think it's OK to judge someone without trying to put yourself in their shoes says it all.
Last edited:
This and the post above it.
Oh your god, are you serious? Are you seriously admitting that without a belief in god you would be an axe murderer? Because that is what you are accusing atheists of. An atheist can love and live and do right by his fellow man, without any promise of some post death reward from an almost sometimes benevolent sky daddy. Apparently you are incapable of such altruism, is that your argument? Pascal's wager is a sucker bet, enjoy looking at your ticket. If I'm wrong and there is a god and there is an afterlife and the god of abraham is real, then you can count me out of the heavenly worshiping choir, thanks but no thanks. Still you be a good person because you want a great big reward for being that, I'll continue to be a good person because it's the right thing to do, no other incentive required. The argument that an atheist should just kill himself is really absurd. It should be the theist who would want to die as soon possible so they can go and collect their lottery prize. Thank you so much for this episode of light entertainment. :biglaugh:
why would you love and do what you PERCEIVE to be right by your fellow man. Why shackle yourself with such a imaginary belief system.
probably should mention i think many atheists miss a large issue with their idea of morality and ethics.
They claim to follow it and not believe in God, but most values and morals have been passed down via religions. So whatever your learned proper ethics might be, is undoubtedly came via passing of religion and religous influence.
So you can't even be a atheist, and have your own separate system outside of religion. since your values and ethics came at least partly from religion anyway.
you say i am a atheist but was raised,, here, which has puritan ties, which came from england whose law is based on....
following here? A atheist is hardly a independent thinker based on rationalization, but a influence indoctrinated subject reguardless. Only pretending to existant in some clarity and independently.
To really be independent, they would have to shed all belief systems. which hardly a one has done.
So their validity is questiionable, as they fail to recognize obvious faults in their standing. But concern themselves over being anti religion for the purpose of somehow feeing men, while they themselves are shackled only dont recogize it. In fact not only shackled but for lesser a cause as they dont even have a creator to give it explanation.
just my opinion.
They claim to follow it and not believe in God, but most values and morals have been passed down via religions. So whatever your learned proper ethics might be, is undoubtedly came via passing of religion and religous influence.
So you can't even be a atheist, and have your own separate system outside of religion. since your values and ethics came at least partly from religion anyway.
you say i am a atheist but was raised,, here, which has puritan ties, which came from england whose law is based on....
following here? A atheist is hardly a independent thinker based on rationalization, but a influence indoctrinated subject reguardless. Only pretending to existant in some clarity and independently.
To really be independent, they would have to shed all belief systems. which hardly a one has done.
So their validity is questiionable, as they fail to recognize obvious faults in their standing. But concern themselves over being anti religion for the purpose of somehow feeing men, while they themselves are shackled only dont recogize it. In fact not only shackled but for lesser a cause as they dont even have a creator to give it explanation.
just my opinion.
SaintAugustine
At the Monastery
woo, heavy..but deadly true in many cases
i actually think of that as well, as their is undoubtedly a reward system.
But perhaps if you think of it as parents raising a child. The parents may have a reward system for the child to encourage good behavior, but at the root of it is the hope the child respects the parents, just for the reason that the parents are the parents.
It may happen through love, or fear, or a number of ways including a reward system. But at root is the hope of the child seeing the parents position of authority and respecting that as such. Often for the childs own well being.
What a load of tripe. IMO. Most "morals" are the result of a need to co-operate for the betterment of the tribe, to benefit our genes being passed on and our kind succeeding in the battle for survival. Really get some perspective
No religion required thanks all the same.Edit, an atheist doesn't believe in a god. That's it there ain't no more, move along nothing to see here. Absolutely no concomitant extraneous additives or doctrines. Quite simply you need to educate yourself regarding the terms you employ. IMO. :biglaugh:
Last edited:
then how do you explain atheists that choose not to have offspring? And to say it is all tribal is admitting you havent evolved past a monkey. I would assume any atheist would base their decision on rational thought and deduction, dissuading themselves from such primitive influences. Or at least attempt some sense of real freedom as they attempt to escape any beliefs that may imprison them.What a load of tripe. IMO. Most "morals" are the result of a need to co-operate for the betterment of the tribe, to benefit our genes being passed on and our kind succeeding in the battle for survival. Really get some perspective
Edit, an atheist doesn't believe in a god. That's it there ain't no more, move along nothing to see here. Absolutely no concomitant extraneous additives or doctrines. Quite simply you need to educate yourself regarding the terms you employ. IMO. :biglaugh:
In fact if a atheist was a self centered, psychopathic, egoist, axe murderer their case would at least make some logical sense to me. As they apparently for the sake of self reward have broken from any belief system and work on complete ego. At least in that i could consider they have a logical argument, receiving at least a total immediate reward of gratification and self indulgence. Soon as a athiest brings up a belief system or altruism the logical understanding of what they are doing escapes me.
You should go commit some totally egoist act, completley reprehensible but that totally benefits yourself so you are rewarded and free from all doctrines, then come back and talk to me lacking your shackles. Because then you might at least have a logical case.
Last edited:
Ok i'll try again, here:
Edit, an atheist doesn't believe in a god. That's it there ain't no more, move along nothing to see here. Absolutely no concomitant extraneous additives or doctrines. Quite simply you need to educate yourself regarding the terms you employ. IMO. :biglaugh:
And to say it is all tribal is admitting you havent evolved past a monkey: not applicable to an atheist.
ould assume any atheist would base their decision on rational thought and deduction, dissuading themselves from such primitive influences: not applicable to an atheist.
real freedom as they attempt to escape any beliefs that may imprison them.: not applicable to an atheist.
As they apparently for the sake of self reward have broken from any belief system and work on complete ego: not applicable to an atheist..
receiving at least a total immediate reward of gratification and self indulgence: not applicable to an atheist..
You should go commit some totally egoist act, completley reprehensible but that totally benefits yourself so you are rewarded and free from all doctrines, then come back and talk to me lacking your shackles: not applicable to an atheist..
doesn't believe in a god: applicable to an atheist.
Got it yet????? I doubt it, education my boy, it's a wonderful thing even an attempt on your part will be incredibly beneficial, I'm sure.:biglaugh: :thud:
Atheist: not applicable to me :biglaugh:
Last edited:
JMorris
Democratic Socialist
Well, lets see:
You: "I hate you because of your religious beliefs."
Me: "Do you even know what those are?"
You: "No, but I hate you for them".
That just about sums it up.
when did i:
A.) say i hate you?
B.) say i hate you for your religious beliefs?
I don't respect your religious beliefs, whatever those may be. There's a difference, I promise. they really drill that martyr's complex in ya dont they?
no. i must be a slow learner. i don't even understand the argument for being a atheist. I understand that a few percent of the world is atheist, the bible calls atheists fools. But i thought i would try to understand atheists anyway and thought i would find a nice one to help me. Im still having problems with understanding atheists and moral relativity as well. If there is no absolute......Ok i'll try again, here:
Edit, an atheist doesn't believe in a god. That's it there ain't no more, move along nothing to see here. Absolutely no concomitant extraneous additives or doctrines. Quite simply you need to educate yourself regarding the terms you employ. IMO. :biglaugh:
And to say it is all tribal is admitting you havent evolved past a monkey: not applicable to an atheist.
ould assume any atheist would base their decision on rational thought and deduction, dissuading themselves from such primitive influences: not applicable to an atheist.
real freedom as they attempt to escape any beliefs that may imprison them.: not applicable to an atheist.
As they apparently for the sake of self reward have broken from any belief system and work on complete ego: not applicable to an atheist..
receiving at least a total immediate reward of gratification and self indulgence: not applicable to an atheist..
You should go commit some totally egoist act, completley reprehensible but that totally benefits yourself so you are rewarded and free from all doctrines, then come back and talk to me lacking your shackles: not applicable to an atheist..
doesn't believe in a god: applicable to an atheist.
Got it yet????? I doubt it, education my boy, it's a wonderful thing even an attempt on your part will be incredibly beneficial, I'm sure.:biglaugh: :thud:
Atheist: not applicable to me :biglaugh:
:birthday:
i figure if there is no absolute you can celebrate your birthday every day.
InformedIgnorance
Do you 'know' or believe?
Are you attempting to understand the reason for not believing in a religion?
or
Are you attempting to understand the reason for disbelieving in religions?
or
Are you attempting to understand the reason for disbelieving in religions?
Attempting to understand the logic in not believing in a God and creator and how one can say there is no God.
InformedIgnorance
Do you 'know' or believe?
So not believing, rather than disbelieving huh?
Lets pretend we have the following situation, you can substitute 'X' for 'there is life' and 'Y' for 'god created life' if you like.
-Person A knows X is so, but I do not know why it is so
-Person B tells Person A that X is because of Y
Non belief is pretty simple:
-Person A considers Y but does not believe Y MUST BE be true
-Person A knows X but has no reason to believe Y
Disbelief goes further:
-Person A considers Y and does not believe it to be true
-Person A knows X but disbelieves Y
Lets pretend we have the following situation, you can substitute 'X' for 'there is life' and 'Y' for 'god created life' if you like.
-Person A knows X is so, but I do not know why it is so
-Person B tells Person A that X is because of Y
Non belief is pretty simple:
-Person A considers Y but does not believe Y MUST BE be true
-Person A knows X but has no reason to believe Y
Disbelief goes further:
-Person A considers Y and does not believe it to be true
-Person A knows X but disbelieves Y
Last edited:
Sorry, I know this is from a while back in the thread, but thought it might still be interesting to pursue.
But that wasn't my main point in regards to the slavery example. The point was that people have used the Bible to support slavery, and have used the Bible to condemn it. Interpretation is variable; so even if God does give absolute moral laws, it does not appear that people are able to consistently decode what those laws are.
Is this, by the way, a viewpoint based upon your understanding of the Bible? If so, I highly doubt that the majority of people, including Christians, would find such a viewpoint to be moral.
You say you don't do that now, but of course, that's my point. At some point, God did want it, asked for it. And I'm not just talking about Jesus. I'm talking about Isaac (who was spared) and Jephthah's daughter (who wasn't).
What changed? Does this mean that God thinks human sacrifice is fine, and just hasn't had a hankering for it in a while? (What an abhorrent idea!) Or did God say it was okay at some point in time, but not okay for another time? (Meaning, God's morals aren't absolute, but change with culture and eras.)
We aren't talking about a car. We are talking about thousands of people, including kids, who can think, feel, love. To equate the two is astounding.
And regardless of your own acceptance of God's condoning of genocide, again, most people, including Christians, do not see genocide as a moral action. Where do we get the sense that genocide is evil, truly evil? Not from the Bible.
And also, what's up with the 3rd commandment? Exodus 20:5 "...I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me."
Is that an example of justice? Punishing children for the crimes their parents commit? Amazing that we haven't picked that one up too.
Again, how do you know which is which? If the Bible is the source of morality, should not the entire book be a shining example of that? Should not all the good guys in the old stories be good examples for us to follow?
How do you distinguish between what is moral and what is merely a requirement?
God never condemns slavery; he merely gives laws concerning its regulation. This seems to be a pretty glaring moral misstep on behalf of God.bribrius said:i dont recall god condoning slavery. I dont recall any comment at all on it other than masters treat your slaves well and slaves be good to your masters. Not exactly condoning but stating a necessity in a already existing relationship that wasnt changing during the time, to avoid abuse of slaves perhaps. Didnt god free slaves? yeah, he led him through that desert......
But that wasn't my main point in regards to the slavery example. The point was that people have used the Bible to support slavery, and have used the Bible to condemn it. Interpretation is variable; so even if God does give absolute moral laws, it does not appear that people are able to consistently decode what those laws are.
Rights are irrelevant to this discussion. We are talking about morality, how humans should act. Do you believe that humans should enslave other humans? How does slavery compare to the Golden Rule? Would you like to be a slave for life, and have your wife and children be some other man's property? If not, then neither should you condone slavery, according to Jesus.bribrius said:
Generally, capital punishment is reserved for the most horrendous of crimes, like murder (particularly gruesome, serial, or rape-based ones.) Are you claiming that we should kill people for minor crimes as well? And for things that aren't even crimes at all, like disobeying your dad? How many of us would make it past childhood in such a world? How brutish must we become before we can harden our hearts so far that we can kill our children for being children?bribrius said:
Is this, by the way, a viewpoint based upon your understanding of the Bible? If so, I highly doubt that the majority of people, including Christians, would find such a viewpoint to be moral.
I was thinking more specifically of verses that indicated that women are property, that a women should marry her rapist, and that generally indicated that women were worth less than men, such as when Lot offered his daughters to the mob instead of his male guests.bribrius said:I actually believe in the subjugation of women as done biblically in a loving way. For example in corin "love your wife as jesus loved the church". People seem to stray from that which leads to issues...
Are you seriously supporting human sacrifice?bribrius said:
You say you don't do that now, but of course, that's my point. At some point, God did want it, asked for it. And I'm not just talking about Jesus. I'm talking about Isaac (who was spared) and Jephthah's daughter (who wasn't).
What changed? Does this mean that God thinks human sacrifice is fine, and just hasn't had a hankering for it in a while? (What an abhorrent idea!) Or did God say it was okay at some point in time, but not okay for another time? (Meaning, God's morals aren't absolute, but change with culture and eras.)
Are you seriously saying that genocide is a moral thing to do? This really scares me, to be honest.bribrius said:
We aren't talking about a car. We are talking about thousands of people, including kids, who can think, feel, love. To equate the two is astounding.
And regardless of your own acceptance of God's condoning of genocide, again, most people, including Christians, do not see genocide as a moral action. Where do we get the sense that genocide is evil, truly evil? Not from the Bible.
Which interpretation of God's word? And how did you choose which?bribrius said:
Isn't it strange that the first 4 of the 10 commandments weren't made into laws, and in fact, we have laws against forcing people to have to follow those laws? In fact, I think only 3 of the 10 are actually laws: Don't murder, don't steal, and don't bear false witness. That's not a very good track record for someone who is claiming that morality is coming from his religion.bribrius said:
And also, what's up with the 3rd commandment? Exodus 20:5 "...I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me."
Is that an example of justice? Punishing children for the crimes their parents commit? Amazing that we haven't picked that one up too.
bribrius said:
Again, how do you know which is which? If the Bible is the source of morality, should not the entire book be a shining example of that? Should not all the good guys in the old stories be good examples for us to follow?
Ok, last time man: stop talking to me.
im a true believer and believe in absolutes. what others do, and interpret, is not at issue.
This is why you should worship God.
And still, it seems some like it seems you, do not differentiate between absolute morality for humans, and God as a creator.
If God decides to flood the world, it isn't genocide. It is a creator deciding to destroy. Humans dont have the ability to create, they are just human. We are not in the same position. When we destroy we are destroying God creation. There is a difference between you deciding to destroy something you yourself made, and destroying something someone else made. And that is based on made. We are talking about a creator. God would not be in the same position as us. Im not sure why the continued comparison between God and the human condition.
There is a difference between man killing or man genocide. And the flood for instance. One is of divine power and wisdom. Are you even though God created man say it is immoral to destroy that creation? How can the one said to have made our morality even be accused of being immoral. As they have created morality as well. So if i raise a viscious dog that goes rabid i dont have cause or it is immoral to destroy that dog? I rather think i would have a obligation to destroy that dog. I cant speak for God, but perhaps these dogs have become a little to rabid.
why keeping taking the child execution verse and misinterpreting it. wouldnt bringing it before the elders be considered a court case of sorts? How man children do you know are described as drunkards and sluggards. Do we even really know the transgressions of this person or their age? If you refer to a fourty year old as your child does that make them a actual child?
Last edited:
what are you trying to say Falvlun? That God isn't "fair"?
sorry. i have to. i feel compelled
[youtube]FiJOguO9A5o[/youtube]
Norman Greenbaum - Spirit In the Sky - YouTube
sorry. i have to. i feel compelled
[youtube]FiJOguO9A5o[/youtube]
Norman Greenbaum - Spirit In the Sky - YouTube
- Status