True help
| |
Anonymous comments allowed.
225 comments displayed.
#60 to #55
-
soyfriedbryce (12/23/2015) [-]
He announced the wrong winner to miss universe. Called someone up, gave them everything, then took it away. Said the teleprompter was wrong but most people think its bull.
#76 to #62
-
themongoose (12/23/2015) [-] In order to absolve Mr. Harvey of putting blame elsewhere as soyfriedbryce is saying, watch here. 
He specifically says at 4:27 that it was his mistake and he misread the card.
He specifically says at 4:27 that it was his mistake and he misread the card.
#66 to #65
-
tacticalbacon ONLINE (12/23/2015) [-]
I just notcied all my porn, and reaction pictures have been deleted, m8000000000000
#71 to #66
-
soyfriedbryce (12/23/2015) [-] oh **** that sucks dude M8000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 Heres one to get you started on a new reaction pic folder.
#74 to #71
-
tacticalbacon ONLINE (12/23/2015) [-]
thanks, but I cant back down now M8000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
#86 to #80
-
soyfriedbryce (12/23/2015) [-]
It was lost years ago in the war. My team had been backed up against a wall, rations were low. There was nothing we could do. I remember hearing the sergant scream about how we were the good guys, we could do it, we could prevail, but I dont think anyone was even listening. All we could hear were the guns. That horrible ratatatatatata over and over, any knowing that any one of them could be the last thing we ever heard. I thought the last thing I heard would be the soft hum of a fan as I fell asleep, or maybe even something good, maybe I'd hear my family by my bedside, some crying, but others just glad I had such a long shot in life. Instead it was just that banging, over and over, screams and clangs like it was some kind of hellforge. Ironic as it is, I'd never felt more alive either, every second was a gift, every bit of pain in my knees from being crouched a blessed agony. Every single touch on my skin from the dirt and the plants, every thought, no matter how angry or bitter, I realized could be my last, so I tried to think kind thoughts, just in case some god up above did exist and was listening. All of them, all the senses, everything meant so much in those moments, and ever since its only been grey. You never really how much you love the world until your faced with death. Until you've stared down the barrel of both your enemy, and yourself, not sure which you want to end it all. Looking at the picture of a child you know you wont see grow up, wishing you could be there to walk her down the aisle, and hoping beyond all hope that she at least remembers the little bit of time you had together. But then you think of the woman next to her, the love of your life, and you realize she'll cry. You can see the tears when someone shows up at the door with a flag and your uniform, if they can even find that. You hear it in your head and all it does it make you want to keep going through all the pain, through the hell. You look at the people around you, everyone is afraid, even the brass. They know you're surrounded, they know the speeches they make are empty and hopeless, but hope is the only thing left to cling to, its either hope or death. So you stand up, you and you stare down the barrel at some kid, you see the look in his eyes. He doesn't want to be here any more than you do, all he wants is to go home, to his family. He wants to play soccer, he wants to see his sister again. And he stares down his sights at you, and you lock eyes, and you both recognize the pain in the other. And you pull the trigger and watch that pain slowly fade. You dont know if it was a mercy or not, you dont even know if you wanted him to pull first. All you know is you dont want to think anymore, about home, about family, about anything, you want to be a machine, cold and unfeeling. You want to be nothing. But you keep going, over and over, on some desperate, empty hope that someday you'll make it back home. That someday you can worry about normal things like your daughters first date, or if you'll get a raise this year. Hell, you even miss worrying about taxes and money. Slowly your losing energy, and you look down and realize that you've been shot. You dont even know when it happened, you dont feel the pain, you dont feel anything anymore. Your entire body starts to go numb before you even realize you're dying. You see your comrades running to you but they cant get close, and you keep thinking about that family back home, but you cant remember their faces. Was her hair long? Was it short? Everything is fading. You just need a little more strength, you just need something to give you that energy. You need life, you need water, you need anything, any form of protein, anything at all. What you need, is tacticalbacon.
#90 to #89
-
soyfriedbryce (12/23/2015) [-]
I'm bored and its 2:06 am. I felt like *********** , and I like your username.
#93 to #92
-
soyfriedbryce (12/23/2015) [-] **soyfriedbryce used "*roll picture*"**
**soyfriedbryce rolled image** I... I think so? Cool, new friend.
**soyfriedbryce rolled image** I... I think so? Cool, new friend.
#190 to #187
-
boomyturtle (12/23/2015) [-]
Steve Harvey did an interview where he essentially says
"I don't **** with atheists because they don't believe in God and therefore have no moral barometer to know right from wrong."
"I don't **** with atheists because they don't believe in God and therefore have no moral barometer to know right from wrong."
#184 to #1
-
anon (12/23/2015) [-] Either way; Atheist, Muslim, logical people known as purely agnostics, Christians, etc.
Merry Christmas and happy new year!
I bring you tidings of great joy:
fur.ly/col0
Merry Christmas and happy new year!
I bring you tidings of great joy:
fur.ly/col0
#247 to #184
-
gravysponge (12/23/2015) [-] Agnostic is a kind of theist or atheist, agnostic isn't a thing on it's own, just fyi.
#250 to #248
-
gravysponge (12/23/2015) [-] There's a problem with that though, someone either believes in a god or gods (theist) or doesn't (atheist). There's no middle ground there, you do or you don't. Even cave people completely unaware of even the concept of religion or a creator or whatever would be classified as atheist, because they lack a belief in a god or gods. Now, these cave people would definitely be classified as agnostic atheists, because they truly do not claim to know either way, but they would still be agnostic atheists.
If a different tribe of cave people thought that something probably built the world around them, then they'd be theists. Depending on whether they thought they knew for sure or not, they'd be either agnostic or gnostic.
The word gnostic means to claim to have knowledge. The word agnostic means you don't claim to have knowledge. The word theist means to have a belief in a god or gods. The word atheist means to lack a belief in a god or gods. Do you see how the two words cannot replace one another?
Saying someone is agnostic with no other label is like describing the flavor of a food by telling someone if it was hot or cold, it doesn't make any sense.
If a different tribe of cave people thought that something probably built the world around them, then they'd be theists. Depending on whether they thought they knew for sure or not, they'd be either agnostic or gnostic.
The word gnostic means to claim to have knowledge. The word agnostic means you don't claim to have knowledge. The word theist means to have a belief in a god or gods. The word atheist means to lack a belief in a god or gods. Do you see how the two words cannot replace one another?
Saying someone is agnostic with no other label is like describing the flavor of a food by telling someone if it was hot or cold, it doesn't make any sense.
#253 to #252
-
gravysponge (12/23/2015) [-] I think that to a lot of people the word atheist has some kind of stigma attached, and they don't want to be lumped in with them, so they call themselves agnostic to seem more moderate. It still doesn't work, though. You're either theist, or you're not.
#254 to #253
-
zomitlu (12/23/2015) [-] Atheist is the default position of any human being, before being indoctrinated into a religion or choosing to believe one
It doesn't mean to reject any possible existence of God, which is what many people believe, it just means to not believe
Atheists cannot be "wrong", as many religious people smugly ask
"What if you're wrong?"
It doesn't mean to reject any possible existence of God, which is what many people believe, it just means to not believe
Atheists cannot be "wrong", as many religious people smugly ask
"What if you're wrong?"
#82 to #61
-
satrenkotheone ONLINE (12/23/2015) [-] Isn't that pretty much what the agnostics are all about?
#115 to #114
-
satrenkotheone ONLINE (12/23/2015) [-] Hey! Don't put this one on me.
And yeah, both four of them.
And yeah, both four of them.
#117 to #116
-
satrenkotheone ONLINE (12/23/2015) [-] Did you even read any of what I said so far?
I said I'd like the quarter of them.
I said I'd like the quarter of them.
#119 to #118
-
satrenkotheone ONLINE (12/23/2015) [-] Yes welcome to Nice Guys Burger and Fries, what would you like to order?
#125 to #123
-
satrenkotheone ONLINE (12/23/2015) [-] Don't blame me, you're the one who felt like replying every time I said something retarded.
#249 to #112
-
gravysponge (12/23/2015) [-] Just to add a little to this image, since it doesn't say/explain it itself.
Strong atheism isn't gnostic atheism because a strong atheist only counters the claims made by theists, and doesn't claim that no gods exist. The reason is, you can't have evidence that no god exists, but you can point to logical inconsistencies in scriptures and say that that specific deity as described by that scripture doesn't exist. Basically, strong atheists dispute religions, not the claim of god, because the existence or non existence of a god cannot be proven and cannot be falsified.
Strong atheism isn't gnostic atheism because a strong atheist only counters the claims made by theists, and doesn't claim that no gods exist. The reason is, you can't have evidence that no god exists, but you can point to logical inconsistencies in scriptures and say that that specific deity as described by that scripture doesn't exist. Basically, strong atheists dispute religions, not the claim of god, because the existence or non existence of a god cannot be proven and cannot be falsified.
#273 to #270
-
gravysponge (12/25/2015) [-] I just thought that the little asterisk wasn't as clear as it could be lol
#177 to #112
-
emiyashirou (12/23/2015) [-] You know there's a thing called a pure agnostic, also known as an apatheistic, right?
#297 to #271
-
cannibalvegan ONLINE (01/03/2016) [-] This is a response to comment #296, I can't reply directly to it because this thread is too damn long.
I have provided links to the Oxford English Dictionary that supports my views, you have not given me anything that supports your views. Again: "Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." which means that it can both mean "disbelief in God" (My definition.) and "lack of belief in God" (Your definition.).
Link: www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/atheism
I have provided links to the Oxford English Dictionary that supports my views, you have not given me anything that supports your views. Again: "Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." which means that it can both mean "disbelief in God" (My definition.) and "lack of belief in God" (Your definition.).
Link: www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/atheism
#298 to #297
-
YllekNayr (01/03/2016) [-] "To most people, those two definitions are interchangeable. They mean practically the same thing, and the only difference can be found by being pedantic.
If you want reasoning why the "lack of" definition is the actual most accurate one, look at the word itself.
Theism is belief in a god or gods, and it is preceded by the prefix a-
Putting the prefix of a- on something makes it lack the root word.
For example, asexual is without sexual characteristics.
Note the difference between immoral and amoral: being immoral is acting contrary to what your morals tell you. Being amoral is psychotic in that you lack the idea of morals entirely. "
If you want reasoning why the "lack of" definition is the actual most accurate one, look at the word itself.
Theism is belief in a god or gods, and it is preceded by the prefix a-
Putting the prefix of a- on something makes it lack the root word.
For example, asexual is without sexual characteristics.
Note the difference between immoral and amoral: being immoral is acting contrary to what your morals tell you. Being amoral is psychotic in that you lack the idea of morals entirely. "
#277 to #271
-
cannibalvegan ONLINE (12/25/2015) [-] No it doesn't because agnostic atheism means that you believe more than 50% that no gods exist, I personally have no idea. If someone told me to guess if God exists or not I'd have to flip a coin or something because I really don't know.
#278 to #277
-
YllekNayr (12/25/2015) [-] " I personally have no idea. If someone told me to guess if God exists or not I'd have to flip a coin or something because I really don't know. "
This is a description of agnostic atheism.
Your understanding of it is incorrect. The 50% thing is something you made up. That has nothing to do with anything.
What you have described your beliefs as are fit the agnostic atheism description.
Just want you to know that.
This is a description of agnostic atheism.
Your understanding of it is incorrect. The 50% thing is something you made up. That has nothing to do with anything.
What you have described your beliefs as are fit the agnostic atheism description.
Just want you to know that.
#280 to #278
-
cannibalvegan ONLINE (12/26/2015) [-] No. Agnostic atheists lean towards atheism, agnostic theists lean towards theism and agnostics leans towards neither.
#281 to #280
-
YllekNayr (12/26/2015) [-] That's not true.
If you lean towards neither, that's atheism.
That's the default.
Unless you lean towards theism, you're still at the starting position.
A lack of theism is atheism. That's all it is.
You don't have to lean towards anything.
If you DON'T lean towards anything, that's agnostic atheism.
Most self-described agnostics simply don't understand that.
It doesn't CHANGE anything about your beliefs. That's just the most accurate descriptor. Everyone's beliefs can fall into one of those 4 categories in the chart.
If you lean towards neither, that's atheism.
That's the default.
Unless you lean towards theism, you're still at the starting position.
A lack of theism is atheism. That's all it is.
You don't have to lean towards anything.
If you DON'T lean towards anything, that's agnostic atheism.
Most self-described agnostics simply don't understand that.
It doesn't CHANGE anything about your beliefs. That's just the most accurate descriptor. Everyone's beliefs can fall into one of those 4 categories in the chart.
#283 to #281
-
cannibalvegan ONLINE (12/27/2015) [-] This is just semantics at this point, if we use that definition agnosticism and atheism means the exact same thing. I don't see any reason to complicate it, most people define an atheist as "Someone who believes that there is no afterlife, god or intelligent design" and an agnostic as "Someone who has no idea what to believe in.". The thing is that these words means what people think they mean, according to Oxford atheism means either "lack of belief" or "denial" which means that you can either say that atheists don't believe or disbelieve in God, but you can also say that atheists simply deny the existence of God for various reasons.
If you are an atheist who thinks that atheism purely means "lack of belief" then there is no reason for you to call yourself an atheist and not an agnostic, people will just get confused unless you define the definition every ******* time someone asks you what your religious views are and people will just see you as a pretentious asshole.
If you are an atheist who thinks that atheism purely means "lack of belief" then there is no reason for you to call yourself an atheist and not an agnostic, people will just get confused unless you define the definition every ******* time someone asks you what your religious views are and people will just see you as a pretentious asshole.
#284 to #283
-
YllekNayr (12/28/2015) [-] I AM an agnostic. I am also an atheist.
If we use that definition, atheism is the position on the X axis while agnosticism is the position on the Y axis.
I'm not complicating it.
I'm just explaining what the actual meaning is.
I'm not expecting you to change anything about yourself.
I just want people to know when someone else shares their views.
That's the best way I can think of to facilitate understanding.
You can see it as pretentious to be correct if you want.
I'm just trying to explain what it IS. You don't have to like it, though I'm not sure why you wouldn't.
If we use that definition, atheism is the position on the X axis while agnosticism is the position on the Y axis.
I'm not complicating it.
I'm just explaining what the actual meaning is.
I'm not expecting you to change anything about yourself.
I just want people to know when someone else shares their views.
That's the best way I can think of to facilitate understanding.
You can see it as pretentious to be correct if you want.
I'm just trying to explain what it IS. You don't have to like it, though I'm not sure why you wouldn't.
#285 to #284
-
cannibalvegan ONLINE (12/28/2015) [-] Like I said, it is not the correct definition because there are different meanings.
It's also pretty stupid to use your definition because every agnostic and atheist is an agnostic atheist according to you. With your definition every atheist would be an agnostic because it is 100% impossible to know if there is a god or not which means that every atheist is agnostic about their beliefs. It's much better to say that agnostics are uncertain about either way and atheists are 99% certain that there is no god. You're complicating things because you take two groups and lump them into one.
It's also pretty stupid to use your definition because every agnostic and atheist is an agnostic atheist according to you. With your definition every atheist would be an agnostic because it is 100% impossible to know if there is a god or not which means that every atheist is agnostic about their beliefs. It's much better to say that agnostics are uncertain about either way and atheists are 99% certain that there is no god. You're complicating things because you take two groups and lump them into one.
#286 to #285
-
YllekNayr (12/29/2015) [-] 1. It IS the correct definition.
2. It's not MY definition.
3. Not every agnostic is an atheist, and not every atheist is an agnostic. If you think I actually believe that, you haven't been reading what I've said.
4. I believe it is more SENSIBLE for every atheist to be agnostic, and true to that form, MOST atheists are agnostic atheists, even if they are "strong atheists" because they recognize that gnostic anything is impossible.
5. I'm not complicating anything. These are the actual definitions and descriptions. What do you have to offer in return to prove that your view is so much more correct that mine is "pretentious and complicated"?
2. It's not MY definition.
3. Not every agnostic is an atheist, and not every atheist is an agnostic. If you think I actually believe that, you haven't been reading what I've said.
4. I believe it is more SENSIBLE for every atheist to be agnostic, and true to that form, MOST atheists are agnostic atheists, even if they are "strong atheists" because they recognize that gnostic anything is impossible.
5. I'm not complicating anything. These are the actual definitions and descriptions. What do you have to offer in return to prove that your view is so much more correct that mine is "pretentious and complicated"?
#287 to #286
-
cannibalvegan ONLINE (12/29/2015) [-] An example: www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/atheist
"A person who disbelieves Believes there is no god or gods. or lacks belief Doesn't believe that there is a god or that there isn't a god. in the existence of God or gods."
This means that "atheist" has different meanings and that you can differentiate between an atheist and an agnostic. If you look here: www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/agnostic there is no statement that suggests that someone has to be an atheist in order to be an agnostic. Basically, if your definition was the one and true definition "agnostic" would be something that you can't identify with on its own, it would be like saying that you are an "unsure", you'd have to add that unsure to something else, like "unsure atheist" or "unsure theist" or something like that. Agnostic is its own thing.
"A person who disbelieves Believes there is no god or gods. or lacks belief Doesn't believe that there is a god or that there isn't a god. in the existence of God or gods."
This means that "atheist" has different meanings and that you can differentiate between an atheist and an agnostic. If you look here: www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/agnostic there is no statement that suggests that someone has to be an atheist in order to be an agnostic. Basically, if your definition was the one and true definition "agnostic" would be something that you can't identify with on its own, it would be like saying that you are an "unsure", you'd have to add that unsure to something else, like "unsure atheist" or "unsure theist" or something like that. Agnostic is its own thing.
#288 to #287
-
YllekNayr (12/29/2015) [-] To most people, those two definitions are interchangeable. They mean practically the same thing, and the only difference can be found by being pedantic.
If you want reasoning why the "lack of" definition is the actual most accurate one, look at the word itself.
Theism is belief in a god or gods, and it is preceded by the prefix a-
Putting the prefix of a- on something makes it lack the root word.
For example, asexual is without sexual characteristics.
Note the difference between immoral and amoral: being immoral is acting contrary to what your morals tell you. Being amoral is psychotic in that you lack the idea of morals entirely.
"there is no statement that suggests that someone has to be an atheist in order to be an agnostic."
That has absolutely no relevance to anything, because I never claimed anything remotely like that. You can be an agnostic theist.
Your definition of atheist has come from your own invention, and it is very poor. Mine is supported by the structure of the word itself.
If you want reasoning why the "lack of" definition is the actual most accurate one, look at the word itself.
Theism is belief in a god or gods, and it is preceded by the prefix a-
Putting the prefix of a- on something makes it lack the root word.
For example, asexual is without sexual characteristics.
Note the difference between immoral and amoral: being immoral is acting contrary to what your morals tell you. Being amoral is psychotic in that you lack the idea of morals entirely.
"there is no statement that suggests that someone has to be an atheist in order to be an agnostic."
That has absolutely no relevance to anything, because I never claimed anything remotely like that. You can be an agnostic theist.
Your definition of atheist has come from your own invention, and it is very poor. Mine is supported by the structure of the word itself.
#289 to #288
-
cannibalvegan ONLINE (12/29/2015) [-] They are not interchangable and most people who are not atheists assume that when someone says they're an atheist that they believe that there is no god, intelligent design and after life, etc. and not that they simply lack a religious belief. This is why I keep saying that it is stupid to complicate things by making it less specific. With your definition, every agnostic and atheist will be lumped together into "agnostic atheist" and there is zero reason to do that. Even if it would be technically correct (Which I don't think it is.) it is only impractical.
You're correct about the "agnostic theist" part, but I merely forgot about it, what I mean is that I think that agnostic shouldn't have to be constricted to atheist or theist.
I think it's a good point that the "A" in atheist is there to suggest it's a lack of belief, but it doesn't change the meaning of the word. There are many words that are technically incorrect, but is in official dictionaries because the meaning of words develop. There are an extreme amount of inconsistencies in the english language, just take the pronounciation of the letter "G" as an example, there is no consistent rule to how it's supposed to sound, "gym" and "galaxy" both start with a G, but only one of them are pronounced as one, the other is pronounced as "J".
What I'm trying to say is that just because there is an A at the beginning of atheist it doesn't change the developed meaning of the word and will cause confusion, if you start pronouncing every G as a hard G just because you think it's correct people will be confused.
You're correct about the "agnostic theist" part, but I merely forgot about it, what I mean is that I think that agnostic shouldn't have to be constricted to atheist or theist.
I think it's a good point that the "A" in atheist is there to suggest it's a lack of belief, but it doesn't change the meaning of the word. There are many words that are technically incorrect, but is in official dictionaries because the meaning of words develop. There are an extreme amount of inconsistencies in the english language, just take the pronounciation of the letter "G" as an example, there is no consistent rule to how it's supposed to sound, "gym" and "galaxy" both start with a G, but only one of them are pronounced as one, the other is pronounced as "J".
What I'm trying to say is that just because there is an A at the beginning of atheist it doesn't change the developed meaning of the word and will cause confusion, if you start pronouncing every G as a hard G just because you think it's correct people will be confused.
#290 to #289
-
YllekNayr (12/29/2015) [-] With your definition, every agnostic and atheist will be lumped together into "agnostic atheist"
For about the third time, this is not true at all.
A lot of them will, but it is not every. Please stop saying that.
there is zero reason to do that.
Except
it would be technically correct
Your argument consistently can be boiled down to "I don't like that because I find it complicated and arrogant"
That's not good enough.
most people who are not atheists assume that when someone says they're an atheist that they believe that there is no god, intelligent design and after life, etc. and not that they simply lack a religious belief.
Exactly! Thank you for highlighting one of my points.
Being an atheist doesn't have anything to do with intelligent design and the afterlife.
Let me explain.
While an atheist is not going to believe in intelligent design, this isn't to say that there's a definite replacement, ie; the Big Bang or something similar. Sure, a lack of belief in a god necessitates a lack of anything ATTRIBUTED to such a god, but the connection stops there. For something like, let's say the afterlife, that is entirely independent of theistic belief. You can believe in reincarnation without believing in a deity. The Buddhist school of thought includes no deities, but they have a specific view of the afterlife as well. The assumptions most non-atheists have about atheists are WRONG, which is precisely WHY such a specification is useful.
Correcting a long-standing misconception is the goal here.
I don't know why you'd be against that.
For about the third time, this is not true at all.
A lot of them will, but it is not every. Please stop saying that.
there is zero reason to do that.
Except
it would be technically correct
Your argument consistently can be boiled down to "I don't like that because I find it complicated and arrogant"
That's not good enough.
most people who are not atheists assume that when someone says they're an atheist that they believe that there is no god, intelligent design and after life, etc. and not that they simply lack a religious belief.
Exactly! Thank you for highlighting one of my points.
Being an atheist doesn't have anything to do with intelligent design and the afterlife.
Let me explain.
While an atheist is not going to believe in intelligent design, this isn't to say that there's a definite replacement, ie; the Big Bang or something similar. Sure, a lack of belief in a god necessitates a lack of anything ATTRIBUTED to such a god, but the connection stops there. For something like, let's say the afterlife, that is entirely independent of theistic belief. You can believe in reincarnation without believing in a deity. The Buddhist school of thought includes no deities, but they have a specific view of the afterlife as well. The assumptions most non-atheists have about atheists are WRONG, which is precisely WHY such a specification is useful.
Correcting a long-standing misconception is the goal here.
I don't know why you'd be against that.
#291 to #290
-
cannibalvegan ONLINE (12/30/2015) [-] I will say it again, every agnostic and atheist will be lumped together into "agnostic atheist" because it is impossible to be an atheist, agnostic or a gnostic atheist. There's agnostic theist too, but most who identify as agnostics will have to be put into the agnostic atheist category based on what you've said. I don't understand why you don't get it, as an example: I identify as an agnostic which puts me in the agnostic atheist category, my friend identifies as an atheist which puts him in the agnostic atheist category as well so even though our beliefs differ they are identical according to your definition. How is that not completely dumb and unnecessary? Please explain how that would be better than to differentiate between our religious views.
No, it doesn't boil down to "I don't like that because I find it complicated and arrogant", it boils down to "I don't like it because this whole ordeal is interpretable and my interpretation is superior to yours.".
I agree that your definition of atheism is lack of belief and you are free to think that, but since there are two definitions of atheism you will have to accept that others think differently, the other definition is like I have previously mentioned, the disbelieve in a god. If you define it as lack of belief then why won't you just call yourself agnostic? They are virtually the same thing and again, it is completely unnecessary to use your definition. You even said it yourself, you said that it is because you think it's "technically correct" and that just shows that this question is completely trivial. I personally believe that the use of soft G's is technically incorrect, but I'm not gonna start pronouncing "giraffe" with a hard G because of that.
No, it doesn't boil down to "I don't like that because I find it complicated and arrogant", it boils down to "I don't like it because this whole ordeal is interpretable and my interpretation is superior to yours.".
I agree that your definition of atheism is lack of belief and you are free to think that, but since there are two definitions of atheism you will have to accept that others think differently, the other definition is like I have previously mentioned, the disbelieve in a god. If you define it as lack of belief then why won't you just call yourself agnostic? They are virtually the same thing and again, it is completely unnecessary to use your definition. You even said it yourself, you said that it is because you think it's "technically correct" and that just shows that this question is completely trivial. I personally believe that the use of soft G's is technically incorrect, but I'm not gonna start pronouncing "giraffe" with a hard G because of that.
#292 to #291
-
YllekNayr (12/30/2015) [-] "most who identify as agnostics will have to be put into the agnostic atheist category based on what you've said."
I don't see the problem with this. That's what it is. Why do you not like that?
"So even though our beliefs differ they are identical according to your definition."
They DON'T differ! That's the point! How have you not understood that? They are the SAME.
Those that actively disbelieve in gods are gnostic atheists.
It's not unnecessary. It's the definition.
I don't see the problem with this. That's what it is. Why do you not like that?
"So even though our beliefs differ they are identical according to your definition."
They DON'T differ! That's the point! How have you not understood that? They are the SAME.
Those that actively disbelieve in gods are gnostic atheists.
It's not unnecessary. It's the definition.
#293 to #292
-
cannibalvegan ONLINE (01/02/2016) [-] I don't like to lump every agnostic and atheist into one because it is only problematic, as I previously mentioned, my friend is an atheist and I am an agnostic, our religious views are different so saying we're the same is incorrect and pointless.
Again, atheism means different things. To most people (And my buddy.) atheism means to disbelieve in God and an after life and agnosticism means that you don't know and that you are open to everything.
Gnostic atheism barely exists, those who consider themselves gnostic atheists are deluded buffoons and/or insane because a sane person would know that nobody has the knowledge to be 100% certain about the existence/non existence of a deity.
This whole debate is merely a semantic discussion that leads nowhere, both of our definitions are correct, to think otherwise is delusional. This debate will lead nowhere I'm afraid.
Again, atheism means different things. To most people (And my buddy.) atheism means to disbelieve in God and an after life and agnosticism means that you don't know and that you are open to everything.
Gnostic atheism barely exists, those who consider themselves gnostic atheists are deluded buffoons and/or insane because a sane person would know that nobody has the knowledge to be 100% certain about the existence/non existence of a deity.
This whole debate is merely a semantic discussion that leads nowhere, both of our definitions are correct, to think otherwise is delusional. This debate will lead nowhere I'm afraid.
#296 to #293
-
YllekNayr (01/03/2016) [-] "I don't like to lump every agnostic and atheist into one"
"every agnostic and atheist"
"every"
Still not actually reading what I'm saying.
Ultimately, here's what it boils down to.
Your beliefs are exactly the same as mine.
I'm an agnostic atheist. You're an agnostic atheist.
"my friend is an atheist and I am an agnostic, our religious views are different so saying we're the same is incorrect and pointless."
You are suggesting that one example shows that everyone is the same, or you're STILL saying I think ALL atheist and ALL agnostic are the same, which is wrong. Everything about your logic on this point is totally wrong.
"those who consider themselves gnostic atheists are deluded buffoons"
Agreed. It's silly.
But you can have two agnostic atheists with different views. It's a broad category. They're not all going to think the same thing. You and I hold the same views. We are in the same category, but there may also be other people in the category that do not hold the same views. What you're essentially arguing is that we shouldn't classify lions and tigers "cats" because a housecat is different from a lion or tiger. Just because they're within the same BROAD category, doesn't mean they're identical. You keep trying to say I'm saying that, but I have been EXPLICITLY telling you that's not the case. Even now, you are STILL strawmanning the **** out of everything I'm saying by NOT ACTUALLY READING what I've said.
"both of our definitions are correct"
No. Our positions are opposite, they cannot both be correct.
Mine is correct, yours is not. You have also not supported yours with ANY kind of reasoning or logic that holds up.
"This debate will lead nowhere I'm afraid."
Be an obstinate **** if you want.
I don't care any more.
I've explained this thoroughly all the way through.
You are refusing the actual definition of something because you don't like it, and you refuse to read or acknowledge anything.
Just goes to show that just because we're in the same category doesn't mean we hold the same views. You're an absolute twat about your wrongness, and you've condescended to me the entire time, and I can see civility is wasted on you.
"every agnostic and atheist"
"every"
Still not actually reading what I'm saying.
Ultimately, here's what it boils down to.
Your beliefs are exactly the same as mine.
I'm an agnostic atheist. You're an agnostic atheist.
"my friend is an atheist and I am an agnostic, our religious views are different so saying we're the same is incorrect and pointless."
You are suggesting that one example shows that everyone is the same, or you're STILL saying I think ALL atheist and ALL agnostic are the same, which is wrong. Everything about your logic on this point is totally wrong.
"those who consider themselves gnostic atheists are deluded buffoons"
Agreed. It's silly.
But you can have two agnostic atheists with different views. It's a broad category. They're not all going to think the same thing. You and I hold the same views. We are in the same category, but there may also be other people in the category that do not hold the same views. What you're essentially arguing is that we shouldn't classify lions and tigers "cats" because a housecat is different from a lion or tiger. Just because they're within the same BROAD category, doesn't mean they're identical. You keep trying to say I'm saying that, but I have been EXPLICITLY telling you that's not the case. Even now, you are STILL strawmanning the **** out of everything I'm saying by NOT ACTUALLY READING what I've said.
"both of our definitions are correct"
No. Our positions are opposite, they cannot both be correct.
Mine is correct, yours is not. You have also not supported yours with ANY kind of reasoning or logic that holds up.
"This debate will lead nowhere I'm afraid."
Be an obstinate **** if you want.
I don't care any more.
I've explained this thoroughly all the way through.
You are refusing the actual definition of something because you don't like it, and you refuse to read or acknowledge anything.
Just goes to show that just because we're in the same category doesn't mean we hold the same views. You're an absolute twat about your wrongness, and you've condescended to me the entire time, and I can see civility is wasted on you.
#275 to #271
-
emiyashirou (12/25/2015) [-] Theism is saying "I believe in a god (and if agnostic saying they might be wrong"
Atheism is saying "I reject the belief that gods exist (and if agnostic, saying they might be wrong)
Apatheism is, as the name implies, when you don't care to make or deny any claims or hold convictions about the existence of a god(s). Granted, it's more of a philosophical standpoint than a religious one, but it's a valid standpoint.
Atheism is saying "I reject the belief that gods exist (and if agnostic, saying they might be wrong)
Apatheism is, as the name implies, when you don't care to make or deny any claims or hold convictions about the existence of a god(s). Granted, it's more of a philosophical standpoint than a religious one, but it's a valid standpoint.
#279 to #275
-
YllekNayr (12/25/2015) [-] If you don't care and don't actively hold any beliefs in any gods, that makes you agnostic atheist by default.
Its a common misconception that atheists must "reject" something, but in actuality, someone who has never even HEARD of gods before is an agnostic atheist.
It's the default position of a human.
If you don't care enough to choose a position, you remain the default.
I mean you can call it apatheism if you want, but it still falls under the umbrella of agnostic atheism.
Its a common misconception that atheists must "reject" something, but in actuality, someone who has never even HEARD of gods before is an agnostic atheist.
It's the default position of a human.
If you don't care enough to choose a position, you remain the default.
I mean you can call it apatheism if you want, but it still falls under the umbrella of agnostic atheism.
#161 to #112
-
lathyrusvii (12/23/2015) [-] Oh hey, neat. I'm a gnostic theist. :3 Yay, I can define myself further. thx
#215 to #161
-
DJBitz (12/23/2015) [-]
Or you could define yourself in your own words. Be an individual, damnit. That's what we all are, the world is made up of billions of individuals each with our own personal take and opinion on a vast array of subjects including but not limited to the world and our existence.
#217 to #215
-
lathyrusvii (12/23/2015) [-] I do define myself in my own words, though. But utilizing descriptions from other people allow me to communicate some aspects of myself in ways they comprehend.
Unless you're telling me to invent my own language, in which case, that's a lot of work, guy. English is just fine.
What's really funny is the kneejerk reaction, though; you hardly know me. What'd I do to earn your criticism so fast?
Unless you're telling me to invent my own language, in which case, that's a lot of work, guy. English is just fine.
What's really funny is the kneejerk reaction, though; you hardly know me. What'd I do to earn your criticism so fast?
#276 to #274
-
lathyrusvii (12/25/2015) [-] It's cool. We gotta stop drinking so much, you and I. I mean, I can only help myself in this regard, but it's a good idea for both of us.
Probably.
Probably.
#163 to #61
-
thechosentroll (12/23/2015) [-] That sounds surprisingly similar to the church of **** If I Care, which I founded years ago. Am I gonna have to declare a holy war on your ass?
Because I reeeeeeeeeeally can't be bothered to do it.
Because I reeeeeeeeeeally can't be bothered to do it.
#7
-
anon (12/23/2015) [-]
since no one has posted the obv link to this
-- religion teaches atheists are a test of faith, atheists teach religion is a test of logic
-- religion teaches atheists are a test of faith, atheists teach religion is a test of logic
#20 to #7
-
kibuza (12/23/2015) [-] Religion is a lack of logic, and an abundance of blind faith.
Explaining that to religious people is a test of logic. Well, not really logic. More like patience.
Although religious people could say the exact same about Atheists.
One of my favorite quotes when dealing with this stuff is "Ok, so you're a (Christian / Muslim / Hindu / JubJub of the Sea etc) believer? So you yourself already don't believe in 99% of established religions, Atheists just go one religion further.
Explaining that to religious people is a test of logic. Well, not really logic. More like patience.
Although religious people could say the exact same about Atheists.
One of my favorite quotes when dealing with this stuff is "Ok, so you're a (Christian / Muslim / Hindu / JubJub of the Sea etc) believer? So you yourself already don't believe in 99% of established religions, Atheists just go one religion further.
#84 to #20
-
anon (12/23/2015) [-]
I'm not interested in actually trying to convert you or whatever, but do you seriously believe in that last line? Is it not common knowledge that many religions have overlapping beliefs, along with atheists? Some large scale religions don't even reject the big bang theory???
Your pretentiousness is basically leaking through the screen, and you think you're just a pure genius, don't you?
Your pretentiousness is basically leaking through the screen, and you think you're just a pure genius, don't you?
#194 to #191
-
kibuza (12/23/2015) [-] You did read the content right?
Also, when did I say that some religions do not have overlapping beliefs or that none believe in the big bang? Both Christianity and Buddhism have some overlapping beliefs, does that mean Christians believes in Buddhism? No, which is exactly what I said. Seemed fine for him to make assumptions on me so why can't I reply in kind?
Also, when did I say that some religions do not have overlapping beliefs or that none believe in the big bang? Both Christianity and Buddhism have some overlapping beliefs, does that mean Christians believes in Buddhism? No, which is exactly what I said. Seemed fine for him to make assumptions on me so why can't I reply in kind?
#103 to #20
-
alfonshister (12/23/2015) [-] You already don't believe in 90 billion concepts of physics except for one
retards just go one further
retards just go one further
#189 to #181
-
kibuza (12/23/2015) [-] We don't believe in 90 billion concepts of Physics because they either have been proven wrong or have no supporting evidence...
Despite what you seem to think believing in something with no supporting evidence is a pretty stupid thing to do if you're trying to live in reality.
Or can you just say some ******** like Physics now claims water falls reverses gravity when it falls from the sky. Not from clouds, from the sky. Well, there's another concept of Physics I don't believe in. Show me some proof and I will immediately change my opinion of it.
Despite what you seem to think believing in something with no supporting evidence is a pretty stupid thing to do if you're trying to live in reality.
Or can you just say some ******** like Physics now claims water falls reverses gravity when it falls from the sky. Not from clouds, from the sky. Well, there's another concept of Physics I don't believe in. Show me some proof and I will immediately change my opinion of it.
#221 to #189
-
alfonshister (12/23/2015) [-] you're absolutely right. I just wanted to show that >>#20 only works when a religion goes against logic. Then his point makes sense.
Except if you have something to support the belief in a specific religion.
Except if you have something to support the belief in a specific religion.
#12
-
anon (12/23/2015) [-]
God gave man dominion over the world.
Its ours to do what we want with it. Someone needs help, then help. Wanna blow stuff up, go for it, its unlikely he will stop you.
He gave us dominion, full control over the world.
Why dont non-religious people get this?
Its ours to do what we want with it. Someone needs help, then help. Wanna blow stuff up, go for it, its unlikely he will stop you.
He gave us dominion, full control over the world.
Why dont non-religious people get this?
#202 to #12
-
buddywuggle (12/23/2015) [-] Assuming you speak of the christian god, that's ******** . God made all animals equal to the point where he wanted everything to be an herbivore. It wasn't until some bitch-ass snake came along and told Adam and Eve to eat that one fruit God specifically said not to eat. After they broke the rule, it was anarchy, as you said.
#32 to #12
-
captainprincess ONLINE (12/23/2015) [-] What they dont get is why pretend he exists
No difference is made by lacking the faith of his existence
Either by our own strength or his will, we have dominion over the world
he has no reason to be believed in
No difference is made by lacking the faith of his existence
Either by our own strength or his will, we have dominion over the world
he has no reason to be believed in
#133 to #12
-
HonkIfIDriveWell (12/23/2015) [-] Strange how he would create a world in which him not existing is perfectly plausible. If he made his existence apparent, even with the stipulation of non-interference, his whole "create life and leave it alone" experiment would probably run a lot smoother, with everyone having full knowledge that they will be judged upon death.
As it stands, the only people who fear divine judgement are the ones who came to the conclusion that it exists based on blind faith. Odd that he would give us the ability to use logic and reason, and then expect us to throw it all out of the window if we are to pass our heavenly entrance exam.
As it stands, the only people who fear divine judgement are the ones who came to the conclusion that it exists based on blind faith. Odd that he would give us the ability to use logic and reason, and then expect us to throw it all out of the window if we are to pass our heavenly entrance exam.
#178 to #133
-
BloodyTurds ONLINE (12/23/2015) [-]
Actually..., if its an 'experiment' to see how humanity unfolds.. then, it would serve a purpose NOT to reveal himself, and thus corrupt the results. This being said, it is also possible we are simply the control group, and there could be an alternate universe, where god clearly, and regularly makes his presence known..
#183 to #178
-
HonkIfIDriveWell (12/23/2015) [-] If that were the case, he would be an an asshole to judge anyone poorly for not believing he exists when he actively stays hidden from all methods of detection.
Like I said, we have the ability to reason. This ability has served us far better in the pursuit of knowledge than our ability to have faith, because faith is just hoping really hard.
If the point of the test is to see how many of us ignore reason and just hope really hard instead, then I am positively delighted to fail the test, and I hope to see you in hell.
Like I said, we have the ability to reason. This ability has served us far better in the pursuit of knowledge than our ability to have faith, because faith is just hoping really hard.
If the point of the test is to see how many of us ignore reason and just hope really hard instead, then I am positively delighted to fail the test, and I hope to see you in hell.
#185 to #183
-
BloodyTurds ONLINE (12/23/2015) [-]
Who said he judges everyone, and sends sinners to hell ;) because I've only ever that from other humans. and even if he did say it, maybe lying was part of his experiment the whole time?
#192 to #185
-
HonkIfIDriveWell (12/23/2015) [-] Everything you've heard about God has been from other humans. Of course some would argue that various holy texts are the word of God(s), but the sheer number of conflicting beliefs alone is solidly evident of it all being devised by human minds and written by human hand, not to mention the effect scientific discovery has had on the validity of so many claims.
As to Divine Judgement upon death, well, its a pretty commonly accepted belief, so I was just addressing that specifically. If he exists, then I suppose I will be at his mercy just like everyone else, whether he chooses to judge me or not.
Still, I will never apologise for not having faith. If refusing to accept fantastic notions absent reason or logic is sinning, then I am proud to be a sinner. If I am to be punished for that, then so be it.
As to Divine Judgement upon death, well, its a pretty commonly accepted belief, so I was just addressing that specifically. If he exists, then I suppose I will be at his mercy just like everyone else, whether he chooses to judge me or not.
Still, I will never apologise for not having faith. If refusing to accept fantastic notions absent reason or logic is sinning, then I am proud to be a sinner. If I am to be punished for that, then so be it.
#198 to #192
-
BloodyTurds ONLINE (12/23/2015) [-]
exactly, every holy text, was at the very least, transcribed by man.. with all his errors and potential miss interpretations Throw in a few con-men willing to take advantage of blind faith, and suddenly god wants a considerable sum of your monetary possessions..
Arguing whether there is/isnt a god is pointless for 2 reasons... Firstly you cant prove a negative, secondly if an all powerful being wished to remain unknown.. by definition he would have the power to do-so warping reality to his will..
I would say i probably lean towards the ideology that we are simply products of chaos.. but to dismiss other possibilities is just stupid..
Arguing whether there is/isnt a god is pointless for 2 reasons... Firstly you cant prove a negative, secondly if an all powerful being wished to remain unknown.. by definition he would have the power to do-so warping reality to his will..
I would say i probably lean towards the ideology that we are simply products of chaos.. but to dismiss other possibilities is just stupid..
#15 to #12
-
hubaa (12/23/2015) [-] God also kinda told humans to protect the world... Not **** it up. This is very dangerous way of thinking... It is very close to Mechanical philosophy. Because of thinking like this people hurt the environment during the 1800s and early 1900s beyond repairing. The Bible is not to be blamed here. The blame lays with people who thought/think that humans can do what ever they please with the nature.
#50 to #15
-
popeflatus (12/23/2015) [-] There's no reason to think that the Bible is literally true though.
#56 to #12
-
Ripsometime (12/23/2015) [-] There is no single piece of compelling evidence that God exists.
Faith is just faith, it requires no evidence or logic.
Why would I choose to believe in one particular religion over all of the others and drastically change my life to accommodate what its religious texts say.
Even if God did exist, most religions forbid worshipping false gods. It would just be a blind gamble on what was the right religion.
Hilariously, the majority of religions say that even a non-believer will make it to the "good" afterlife if they simply live their life "well".
If the goal is for innately bad people to go to "hell" and good people to go to "heaven", then what is the point in making bad people pretend to be good? That's all religion really does. It doesn't even do that right, since there are so many horrible people doing horrible things in the name of religion, and even some protected by their religion.
If the only thing stopping you from doing horrible things, is the fear of going to "hell", then you are a cunt. And if hell exists, most religions would say you are going there anyway.
Why don't religious people get this?
Faith is just faith, it requires no evidence or logic.
Why would I choose to believe in one particular religion over all of the others and drastically change my life to accommodate what its religious texts say.
Even if God did exist, most religions forbid worshipping false gods. It would just be a blind gamble on what was the right religion.
Hilariously, the majority of religions say that even a non-believer will make it to the "good" afterlife if they simply live their life "well".
If the goal is for innately bad people to go to "hell" and good people to go to "heaven", then what is the point in making bad people pretend to be good? That's all religion really does. It doesn't even do that right, since there are so many horrible people doing horrible things in the name of religion, and even some protected by their religion.
If the only thing stopping you from doing horrible things, is the fear of going to "hell", then you are a cunt. And if hell exists, most religions would say you are going there anyway.
Why don't religious people get this?
#58 to #56
-
Ripsometime (12/23/2015) [-] Also, either there isn't a god and were stuck here wondering how it all began and how we happened. Or there is one, and it is wondering the same thing about itself.
#205
-
anon (12/23/2015) [-] im a christian and ive never heard anyone say "ill pray that god will help you" to a homeless person / drug addict
i have however seen christians giving money, a meal and bringing them to church
theres also a couple of christian institutions that help these people
"god created the atheist"
god created everything and everyone and everyone is free to chose its faith
"be an atheist and pretend god doesnt exist to help someone"
what?
im gonna assume that the message here is to teach christians that they should help people more. atheists are people that dont believe in god and sometimes seem to do a better job at helping others than us. its our job to be good and help everyone
i have however seen christians giving money, a meal and bringing them to church
theres also a couple of christian institutions that help these people
"god created the atheist"
god created everything and everyone and everyone is free to chose its faith
"be an atheist and pretend god doesnt exist to help someone"
what?
im gonna assume that the message here is to teach christians that they should help people more. atheists are people that dont believe in god and sometimes seem to do a better job at helping others than us. its our job to be good and help everyone
#224 to #205
-
itskennyandjosh (12/23/2015) [-] My mom says it to people all the time, but she's the kinda christian who gets pissed when people say happy holidays so you're hanging out with the right kinds of christians
#240 to #205
-
anon (12/23/2015) [-] Daily reminder: www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Kings%202%3A23-25
#2
-
lean (12/22/2015) [-] Morals only make sense in the context which they are taught. The ideas of racial equality, cultural understanding, and treat others how you would want to be treated are decidedly founded in Abrahamic religions.
I know someone is going to argue this point, but before the widespread growth of Christianity virtually every independent race and culture hated, slaughtered, and conquered those deemed inferior. It is still ongoing to this day. The morality of acceptance within society became widespread because of religious doctrine, even if practiced by an atheist. On top of that, western society's more or less successful adoption of non-oligarchic structure comes from the same. Every single person has thought at one time or another that they are "better" than someone else, it's human nature. The morals of religion were the first claiming that despite differences of action, opinion, race, creed, etc all people should be accepted and treated as equal. It all came from the fundamental Christian teachings that kings are no better than the poor and wretched.
Society may have evolved beyond the need for religion to be the root of being a good person, but it is still the foundation by which widespread acceptance of these moral obligations came to be.
I know someone is going to argue this point, but before the widespread growth of Christianity virtually every independent race and culture hated, slaughtered, and conquered those deemed inferior. It is still ongoing to this day. The morality of acceptance within society became widespread because of religious doctrine, even if practiced by an atheist. On top of that, western society's more or less successful adoption of non-oligarchic structure comes from the same. Every single person has thought at one time or another that they are "better" than someone else, it's human nature. The morals of religion were the first claiming that despite differences of action, opinion, race, creed, etc all people should be accepted and treated as equal. It all came from the fundamental Christian teachings that kings are no better than the poor and wretched.
Society may have evolved beyond the need for religion to be the root of being a good person, but it is still the foundation by which widespread acceptance of these moral obligations came to be.
#146 to #2
-
blackmageewizardt (12/23/2015) [-] "The ideas of racial equality, cultural understanding, and treat others how you would want to be treated are decidedly founded in Abrahamic religions."
Didn´t know the abrahamic religions have an Copyright on morals in General, you lern everyday something new~ The more you know. Notl ike they existed already in former religions befor them, hell forbid most likely existed befor the concept of Religion was thought of!
"I know someone is going to argue this point, but before the widespread growth of Christianity virtually every independent race and culture hated, slaughtered, and conquered those deemed inferior."
Not like they did the same, also how is that Copyright on abrhamaic religions again? Could have sworn Buddhists and Hindus did that first.
"The morality of acceptance within society became widespread because of religious doctrine, even if practiced by an atheist."
And they just needed 2000 years until we got to this ************ of Point? ... I would like to think it could have gone faster somehow.
"Every single person has thought at one time or another that they are "better" than someone else, it's human nature. The morals of religion were the first claiming that despite differences of action, opinion, race, creed, etc all people should be accepted and treated as equal"
Didn´t work out so fine the first 3750 years for the abrahamic Religion i guess...
"t all came from the fundamental Christian teachings that kings are no better than the poor and wretched"
> wtf
> seemingless never heard about the greek mythology, who had also gigantic influence in europe.
> mfw, the Titans and gods are often portrayed as manchilds, while the humans are portrayed as noble, so People would lern from the stupid mistakes of the gods.
> MFW many mythological foundations actuelly had Storys about that the king is not always just and right.
Again, Christian teachings are surely NOT the king of this, as they needed also again 1500 years befor that started to work.
Didn´t know the abrahamic religions have an Copyright on morals in General, you lern everyday something new~ The more you know. Notl ike they existed already in former religions befor them, hell forbid most likely existed befor the concept of Religion was thought of!
"I know someone is going to argue this point, but before the widespread growth of Christianity virtually every independent race and culture hated, slaughtered, and conquered those deemed inferior."
Not like they did the same, also how is that Copyright on abrhamaic religions again? Could have sworn Buddhists and Hindus did that first.
"The morality of acceptance within society became widespread because of religious doctrine, even if practiced by an atheist."
And they just needed 2000 years until we got to this ************ of Point? ... I would like to think it could have gone faster somehow.
"Every single person has thought at one time or another that they are "better" than someone else, it's human nature. The morals of religion were the first claiming that despite differences of action, opinion, race, creed, etc all people should be accepted and treated as equal"
Didn´t work out so fine the first 3750 years for the abrahamic Religion i guess...
"t all came from the fundamental Christian teachings that kings are no better than the poor and wretched"
> wtf
> seemingless never heard about the greek mythology, who had also gigantic influence in europe.
> mfw, the Titans and gods are often portrayed as manchilds, while the humans are portrayed as noble, so People would lern from the stupid mistakes of the gods.
> MFW many mythological foundations actuelly had Storys about that the king is not always just and right.
Again, Christian teachings are surely NOT the king of this, as they needed also again 1500 years befor that started to work.
#231 to #146
-
lean (12/23/2015) [-] Morals only apply to the context in which they are taught. So morals according to who? According to what doctrine?
The Aztecs practiced human sacrifice. Do you think society thought it to be immoral?
Hindus and Buddhists have been exterminating each other in india for centuries now. Not to mention neither of those faiths have any kind of proselytism. Buddhists Monks in fact are known for isolating themselves from the rest of the world aren't they? This isn't about who did it first, it is about how it because widespread. Christianity is the only large faith with an active form of proselytism, virtually worldwide mission destinations.
Yeah, our society as a whole needed thousands of years to be accepting of differences. We still aren't there yet. Basically it is only law and religion stopping most people from running amok.
>the first 3450 years...... Ok, so you mean the Jews. In all that time what race, creed, or group did the Jews oppress? seems like it worked ******* great, they didn't hurt anyone
******* greek civilization that is your argument? That's sad. I guess if we all want to aspire to be warring citystates that hate each other controlled by a handful or wealthy aristocrats..... You clearly don't understand my point, or why I made it. Nice try though.
It's not about who was first, it's about who spread the most. No pagan cultures held beliefs of equality, especially for strangers. Christianity went around the world.
The Aztecs practiced human sacrifice. Do you think society thought it to be immoral?
Hindus and Buddhists have been exterminating each other in india for centuries now. Not to mention neither of those faiths have any kind of proselytism. Buddhists Monks in fact are known for isolating themselves from the rest of the world aren't they? This isn't about who did it first, it is about how it because widespread. Christianity is the only large faith with an active form of proselytism, virtually worldwide mission destinations.
Yeah, our society as a whole needed thousands of years to be accepting of differences. We still aren't there yet. Basically it is only law and religion stopping most people from running amok.
>the first 3450 years...... Ok, so you mean the Jews. In all that time what race, creed, or group did the Jews oppress? seems like it worked ******* great, they didn't hurt anyone
******* greek civilization that is your argument? That's sad. I guess if we all want to aspire to be warring citystates that hate each other controlled by a handful or wealthy aristocrats..... You clearly don't understand my point, or why I made it. Nice try though.
It's not about who was first, it's about who spread the most. No pagan cultures held beliefs of equality, especially for strangers. Christianity went around the world.
#256 to #231
-
blackmageewizardt (12/23/2015) [-] "Morals only apply to the context in which they are taught. So morals according to who? According to what doctrine?"
And here start the Problems. You can´t put on morals, who can have any meaning, an Copyright letter and say that or this Religion invented it.
"The Aztecs practiced human sacrifice. Do you think society thought it to be immoral?"
In which of my sentences did i gave the indications that ANY Religion has an Copyright on morals?
"Hindus and Buddhists have been exterminating each other in india for centuries now. Not to mention neither of those faiths have any kind of proselytism. Buddhists Monks in fact are known for isolating themselves from the rest of the world aren't they? This isn't about who did it first, it is about how it because widespread. Christianity is the only large faith with an active form of proselytism, virtually worldwide mission destinations."
1. Just like Christians and Muslims.
2. Proselytism is an 2 sided sword, it´s after all often violently in it´s process, causing one civilization to give up it´s ideas.
3. They are also respecting anyones beliefs and do not invade them.
4. Again, proselytism is often not an good think when we consider morals from an perspectiv of free will, be forcing your will onto other civilizations you go against this morals, from which you said are an deep part of said Religion.
"Ok, so you mean the Jews."
I mean all abrahamic religions. Each of them though they are the true one even though they pray to the same god, discriminaiting each other, killing each other, calling for war against each other. It´s not even an war between religions of different gods, it´s conflicts between religions who belief in the SAME god. Also calling the jews as absolut innocent is a bit to far taken, their were reasons many civilizations discriminaited them, alone for their inner working.
" ******* greek civilization that is your argument? That's sad. I guess if we all want to aspire to be warring citystates that hate each other controlled by a handful or wealthy aristocrats..... You clearly don't understand my point, or why I made it. Nice try though."
Not like they had the first sort of Democracy or somethin~
"It's not about who was first, it's about who spread the most. No pagan cultures held beliefs of equality, especially for strangers. Christianity went around the world."
Is cancer good because it spreeds indefinetly regardless of what the Body Needs? No? Was it good what cristianity did? Invading in cultures and forcing their ideas open them for the sake of spreading? Questionble.
Also it is even more questionble that christianity did it on their own. After all europe was nations of EXPLORERS, the reason it went so far around the world was, because the europens went all around the world.
The vikings just raided or stayed at their home. No time to spread their religions in this raids i guess.
The greecs had already Problems uniting themself, not even considering spreading their beliefs to other lands.
The romans gods were wide spreaded all over europe befor christianity, why? because romans where spreaded all over europe.
Where germanic beliefs spreaded all over europe? Yes indeed, why? Because they travelled around europe and settled in many places all over it.
Theirfore it´s questionble if it was christinaity who spreaded itself, or if it was Europe spreading cristianity all over the world.
And here start the Problems. You can´t put on morals, who can have any meaning, an Copyright letter and say that or this Religion invented it.
"The Aztecs practiced human sacrifice. Do you think society thought it to be immoral?"
In which of my sentences did i gave the indications that ANY Religion has an Copyright on morals?
"Hindus and Buddhists have been exterminating each other in india for centuries now. Not to mention neither of those faiths have any kind of proselytism. Buddhists Monks in fact are known for isolating themselves from the rest of the world aren't they? This isn't about who did it first, it is about how it because widespread. Christianity is the only large faith with an active form of proselytism, virtually worldwide mission destinations."
1. Just like Christians and Muslims.
2. Proselytism is an 2 sided sword, it´s after all often violently in it´s process, causing one civilization to give up it´s ideas.
3. They are also respecting anyones beliefs and do not invade them.
4. Again, proselytism is often not an good think when we consider morals from an perspectiv of free will, be forcing your will onto other civilizations you go against this morals, from which you said are an deep part of said Religion.
"Ok, so you mean the Jews."
I mean all abrahamic religions. Each of them though they are the true one even though they pray to the same god, discriminaiting each other, killing each other, calling for war against each other. It´s not even an war between religions of different gods, it´s conflicts between religions who belief in the SAME god. Also calling the jews as absolut innocent is a bit to far taken, their were reasons many civilizations discriminaited them, alone for their inner working.
" ******* greek civilization that is your argument? That's sad. I guess if we all want to aspire to be warring citystates that hate each other controlled by a handful or wealthy aristocrats..... You clearly don't understand my point, or why I made it. Nice try though."
Not like they had the first sort of Democracy or somethin~
"It's not about who was first, it's about who spread the most. No pagan cultures held beliefs of equality, especially for strangers. Christianity went around the world."
Is cancer good because it spreeds indefinetly regardless of what the Body Needs? No? Was it good what cristianity did? Invading in cultures and forcing their ideas open them for the sake of spreading? Questionble.
Also it is even more questionble that christianity did it on their own. After all europe was nations of EXPLORERS, the reason it went so far around the world was, because the europens went all around the world.
The vikings just raided or stayed at their home. No time to spread their religions in this raids i guess.
The greecs had already Problems uniting themself, not even considering spreading their beliefs to other lands.
The romans gods were wide spreaded all over europe befor christianity, why? because romans where spreaded all over europe.
Where germanic beliefs spreaded all over europe? Yes indeed, why? Because they travelled around europe and settled in many places all over it.
Theirfore it´s questionble if it was christinaity who spreaded itself, or if it was Europe spreading cristianity all over the world.
#16 to #2
-
misternobodie (12/23/2015) [-] '' The morals of religion were the first claiming that despite differences of action, opinion, race, creed, etc all people should be accepted and treated as equal. ''
THIS IS TRUE. But, the aim in that was to UNITE and CONQUER together. If you cant / dont figure that out, you don't know **** , I'm sorry. Just look into Islam and how they got united so well at first, and got divided right after the first few caliphs.....
Also, you talked about the foundations of good moral obligations' origins, in society, and thats fair, BUT, think about American Natives man, or Amazonian - South American tribes they were mostly in harmony with each other, and with nature. They had no religious power centers anywhere. I think you get my point.
THIS IS TRUE. But, the aim in that was to UNITE and CONQUER together. If you cant / dont figure that out, you don't know **** , I'm sorry. Just look into Islam and how they got united so well at first, and got divided right after the first few caliphs.....
Also, you talked about the foundations of good moral obligations' origins, in society, and thats fair, BUT, think about American Natives man, or Amazonian - South American tribes they were mostly in harmony with each other, and with nature. They had no religious power centers anywhere. I think you get my point.
#233 to #16
-
lean (12/23/2015) [-] The **** if they were... Native peoples in North America were some of the most brutal and warlike in the world. They measured themselves as men by things like stealing from another village, killing animals unarmed etc. That ****** a joke. Just because they live in nature doesn't mean they were peaceful. Ask General Custer about the peaceful tribes.
#47 to #16
-
sgtmajjohnson ONLINE (12/23/2015) [-] Are you referring to the South/Central American tribes who ripped peoples' hearts out as a sacrifice to the sun god or the North American marauding warrior tribes? The same marauding tribes who drove almost all American megafauna to extinction? I don't necessarily disagree with your main point, but it's a complete myth that New World tribes coexisted with each other and nature.
#255 to #47
-
misternobodie (12/23/2015) [-] I said Amazonian, not Central Americas theres a ******* of difference.
#232 to #34
-
lean (12/23/2015) [-] What group or order has done more to spread the fundamentals of the golden rule around the globe? Not to mention that it basically only meant your neighbors, not the warring factions you were trying to conquer at the time. Unified, dude. Nothing else did it. The Abrahamics are the only ones that don't condemn non believers and whose code applies to all despite belief.
Or do you think the golden rule didn't have to apply to the slave trade? maybe slaves aren't real people.....
Or do you think the golden rule didn't have to apply to the slave trade? maybe slaves aren't real people.....
#13 to #2
-
anon (12/23/2015) [-] I do not wanna say if what you said is right or wrong but your point of view is kinda narrow and focused on western ideals and religion(s). For example Confucius had lots of ideas how to be nice to others and how to be part of the society. I give you that Confucius´ said things like you have to obey the emperor (but emperor has to rightful to his people). So maybe not 100% equal but Jesus also said that you should give (Roman) Emperor what belongs to him. There is lots of common stuff between Confucianism and Christianity.(and other religions as well) Confucius also lived before Jesus. I also remind you that Confucianism is not a religion since it has no higher power nor god(s), it is a form of philosophy.
#257 to #234
-
anon (12/23/2015) [-]
Confucianism highly affects the moral codes and normative behaviour patterns in most modern Asian cultures. China, Japan and Korea for example. So even if confucianism does not have as many followers as Christianity its teachings still affects to lives of billions of people.
#5 to #2
-
anon (12/22/2015) [-]
These ideals could be found in the vast majority of religions that have existed and the vast majority of not so religious factions. The idea of "treat others nicely and get on with one another" is an idea that comes from common sense. If you treat others like **** , people aren't going to like you very much. In a large society that **** is very important. Hell, these ideas can even be found among a lot of animals as well, especially intelligent ones.
Also, the reason Christianity teaches that poor people are as good as rich people is because the Romans didn't want people rebelling, by giving them the belief that they would go to heaven if they lived with less wealth, or if they gave up their wealth to the community. That's what religions do. It doesn't mean these morals come from religion, it means that religions are designed to take advantage of peoples inbuilt desires of creating a good community.
Also, the reason Christianity teaches that poor people are as good as rich people is because the Romans didn't want people rebelling, by giving them the belief that they would go to heaven if they lived with less wealth, or if they gave up their wealth to the community. That's what religions do. It doesn't mean these morals come from religion, it means that religions are designed to take advantage of peoples inbuilt desires of creating a good community.
#33
-
Vandeekree (12/23/2015) [-] But if he is to be commended for doing what he feels is right then anyone who does what they feel is right to be commended. If someone feels it's right to murder those of a different race then should they be applauded for following their moral compass?
#37 to #35
-
Vandeekree (12/23/2015) [-] That's what I mean. What if the murderer truly thinks it's best for those he kills.
#39 to #38
-
Vandeekree (12/23/2015) [-] Aligned with what? With the Christian version of morality? The Christian version of morality says you must do good for the glory of God. But he is doing it without God in mind and so not following what is right in Christian morality. So he is to be commended for doing part of what is right even though it won't count?
#40 to #39
-
admiralen ONLINE (12/23/2015) [-] Aligned with being nice
Its really not that foreign a concept, you know, do unto others what you want them to do to you?
Being selfless and helping others is a pretty good moral to have
It doesnt really have anything to do with christianity, its just them praising people for being nice without being threatened to go to hell if they arent
Its really not that foreign a concept, you know, do unto others what you want them to do to you?
Being selfless and helping others is a pretty good moral to have
It doesnt really have anything to do with christianity, its just them praising people for being nice without being threatened to go to hell if they arent
#43 to #40
-
Vandeekree (12/23/2015) [-] So then we are back to my original question. What makes it nice and right? How do you define good and where does that definition come from.
#46 to #45
-
Vandeekree (12/23/2015) [-] Considered a good act to whom? Our society? What happens if society decides something new like good means getting rid of people who live undesirable lives? It's all relative is it not?
#53 to #48
-
Vandeekree (12/23/2015) [-] Others can certainly judge you. The judicial system is proof of that. But if you mean only in morals can no one judge you then what makes something right or wrong? That you decided it was right and wrong? Because some people think murder and even rape is right. It's all relative morality. And because of that, doing good without a purpose or the ability to tell if it's even good or not means it's not good at all. It's simply a mimicry of another moral system.
#57 to #53
-
admiralen ONLINE (12/23/2015) [-] Judging and dealing with someone isnt exactly the same thing, the judical system will deal with people who dont fit in to society
Good is an invented word though, it does have some meanings to it
Being good to others is the basics you know
And people who think murder and rape is right are pretty much insane and have a ******* up sense of empathy
Good is an invented word though, it does have some meanings to it
Being good to others is the basics you know
And people who think murder and rape is right are pretty much insane and have a ******* up sense of empathy
#77 to #57
-
breadnsteak (12/23/2015) [-] That makes no sense. Especially since your argument of "do unto others ..." is a Christian concept. But people are judged by their peers at all times and in the judicial system ... at least where I am from the jury is made up of regular people who are doing their civil duty to look at evidence and come to a conclusion (aka judge them) to decide whether what they did was (not morally but) legal or not. Now I feel what your argument is lacking is the difference between ethics and morality. An ethical norm is doing the right thing, as social beings we survive by communicating and having relationships with people who can get stuff or do stuff we need to survive and in turn we provide skills to others they need to survive. therefore doing the right thing would entail helping others. Morality on the other hand is looking at how you do what is right there are people or organizations that teach what is right and how one should act when certain situations arise, now the moral compass is only good in the sense of virtues (which are based on habit) without underlining virtues your moral compass never points in one way or the other, and often one finds themselves in the dilemma of "having to choose" what is good, where if one is grounded in a strong ethical code and has an understanding of morality then they will have strong virtues and always do what is right. For atheists who claim to be good people, that what an atheist is they are a self-theist, or their own god and from that what ever they see as reasonable is right to them, because who will tell them differently.
#69 to #57
-
Vandeekree (12/23/2015) [-] But once again you say "being good to others" as though it's universal. If fact it's different around the world. Some would saying being nice to someone is leaving them alone. Others would say you're not nice if you don't talk to them. Others would say you're not nice unless you put them out of their misery. It's all relative.
And their sense of empathy is ****** up....in your opinion. But to them, your sense of morality might be ****** up. Who's right? How do we tell which is the true "good?"
And their sense of empathy is ****** up....in your opinion. But to them, your sense of morality might be ****** up. Who's right? How do we tell which is the true "good?"
#73 to #69
-
admiralen ONLINE (12/23/2015) [-] Its more along the line of leave people alone unless they need helping
Empathy is the ability to understand and relate to other people, if a person thinks that murdering and raping is good to them then he has no ability to empathize at all, naturally his sense of good and bad is wrong
Empathy is the ability to understand and relate to other people, if a person thinks that murdering and raping is good to them then he has no ability to empathize at all, naturally his sense of good and bad is wrong
#85 to #73
-
Vandeekree (12/23/2015) [-] But if someone is about to walk out in front of a bus they don't see, would you not grab their arm even if they tell you they don't wish to be grabbed? In the same way, if you see someone who's soul is in danger of burning would you not attempt to help them?
But again, how do you define empathy? Is it not the ability to understand another person's feelings? What if their empathy tells them that these people would be happier dead and not producing offspring that will only suffer? Just because someone murders doesn't mean they have no empathy, they might simply see the world differently than you but have the same empathy.
But again, how do you define empathy? Is it not the ability to understand another person's feelings? What if their empathy tells them that these people would be happier dead and not producing offspring that will only suffer? Just because someone murders doesn't mean they have no empathy, they might simply see the world differently than you but have the same empathy.
#105 to #85
-
admiralen ONLINE (12/23/2015) [-] Its a poor choice of analogy since i would save them to make the busdriver not have to experience indirectly killing someone
Not understanding other people is the basics of having no empathy, and thinking they would be happier dead kind of proves that you have no empathy
Not understanding other people is the basics of having no empathy, and thinking they would be happier dead kind of proves that you have no empathy
#108 to #105
-
Vandeekree (12/23/2015) [-] You would save the guy walking into the street for the sake of the bus driver?
#52 to #46
-
popeflatus (12/23/2015) [-] Humans are a social species that evolved traits that allow them to function co-cooperatively in groups. Long before there was the Christian religion and even the first Israelites we had societies like Ancient Egypt that flourished because they invented legal systems to codify, modify and uphold these evolved morals
#54 to #52
-
Vandeekree (12/23/2015) [-] Of course but we're not talking about social structure, we're talking about morality. The Roman social structure of expanding on all sides to sustain the power and empire of the Roman elite was a very functional social system, but would you call it moral?
#59 to #54
-
popeflatus (12/23/2015) [-] It was a mixture of moral and immoral, to be glib. Would you call the Christian religion expanding on all sides to spread as far as it could , often unwantedly, a moral decision?
#67 to #59
-
Vandeekree (12/23/2015) [-] Well the difference is that Christianity spread as an idea. I'm not saying there weren't Christian kings expanding their land but that's not why Christianity expanded. It expanded from missionaries and converts. So yes. It was a very moral act. Regardless if you think that Christianity is right or wrong, the motives of those preaching Christians was to save the people they converted. They were acting morally, not for self gain. And instead of deciding that was right because they felt it, they got their moral law from a deity.
#68 to #67
-
popeflatus (12/23/2015) [-] The deity is just a character in a book though. It could be said that it is immoral to indoctrinate people using a combination of imaginary love and fear to get them to behave as you have decided.
#70 to #68
-
Vandeekree (12/23/2015) [-] But that's what the post is saying. That atheist was told what is right and wrong. So at the very least he is following what someone convinced him is right through love and fear. So even if we assume Christianity is made up, then it's simply another way to get to the same thing the atheist did. So should no one ever tell anyone else that something is right or wrong?
After all, that would be an indoctrination into a school of thought and you seem to think that is immoral. But in telling me that, are you not trying to indoctrinate me into your way of thinking?
After all, that would be an indoctrination into a school of thought and you seem to think that is immoral. But in telling me that, are you not trying to indoctrinate me into your way of thinking?
#72 to #70
-
popeflatus (12/23/2015) [-] The point is that there is no need to believe in deities to be good. When you look at how immoral the Bible is in many places, it's obvious that it's a bronze and iron age text like many from around the world at the time. It's wise to be reasonable before you think about what is moral.
#83 to #72
-
Vandeekree (12/23/2015) [-] But there are because without a deity, all morality is relative, and thus all that seems to be required is that you think you are doing good, even if you think good means murder, rape, or stealing. So if you're not getting your morality from a deity then you are literally making it up based on your gut feeling.
And yes, the texts are very old, but please don't assume that I'm being unreasonable here. I've done much study and put many hours into figuring out if there's anything to those texts or any others including the philosophies of atheism. So you can be sure that I am using sound reasoning here, just as I am sure you are doing the same.
And yes, the texts are very old, but please don't assume that I'm being unreasonable here. I've done much study and put many hours into figuring out if there's anything to those texts or any others including the philosophies of atheism. So you can be sure that I am using sound reasoning here, just as I am sure you are doing the same.
#87 to #83
-
popeflatus (12/23/2015) [-] 
But there are many deities that each have different standards of morality, each of which has zero evidence in support of them so its irrational to rely on the stories attributed to them. Morality in the modern Western World is something that changes as time goes on. Things like witch burning were considered moral at the time based on how the Bible was interpreted, yet today that behavior is widely agreed upon to be immoral.
#97 to #87
-
Vandeekree (12/23/2015) [-] I agree that people don't follow the bible correctly most of the time. But that's kind of the point. All humans fall short of the glory of God.
As for having no evidence, I don't think you have studied up much on the subject if you can say that. I invite you to google about biblical prophesy, the accuracy of the bible, and the infallibility of the bible. If you'll take the time to study these subjects, I think you'll find why the bible stands head and shoulder above other holy texts.
As for having no evidence, I don't think you have studied up much on the subject if you can say that. I invite you to google about biblical prophesy, the accuracy of the bible, and the infallibility of the bible. If you'll take the time to study these subjects, I think you'll find why the bible stands head and shoulder above other holy texts.
#130 to #97
-
popeflatus (12/23/2015) [-] The Bible makes makes claims but those claim are not evidence. Just because a book says something is true does not mean that it is true! Obviously anyone can write a book about magic and monsters and claim it is true. That is no different than what you're saying about the Bible.
I've shown clearly already how Adam and Eve are fictitious. The genetics do not support it. The origin of the story does not support it. No science or scientific evidence supports it. It's a myth.
As I've shown numerous times already today, the Bible is not historically accurate. All of these grandiose claims do not have evidence. As We've seen, a claim is not evidence.
The science shows that you are very wrong, friend. Religion, be it Christianity, Islam, Hinduism or many others has a way of programming people to think along rigid lines.This often forces people to not accept facts that contradict the version of reality that their particular religion teaches. More and more people are leaving religion, especially among young people.
I've shown clearly already how Adam and Eve are fictitious. The genetics do not support it. The origin of the story does not support it. No science or scientific evidence supports it. It's a myth.
As I've shown numerous times already today, the Bible is not historically accurate. All of these grandiose claims do not have evidence. As We've seen, a claim is not evidence.
The science shows that you are very wrong, friend. Religion, be it Christianity, Islam, Hinduism or many others has a way of programming people to think along rigid lines.This often forces people to not accept facts that contradict the version of reality that their particular religion teaches. More and more people are leaving religion, especially among young people.
#111 to #97
-
popeflatus (12/23/2015) [-] In fact I have done more research into the Bible than most Christians have.
Just because we are made from the elements that existed on Earth before there was life does not mean that a god did it. You're completely missing the point that you need evidence to believe that something is true, not just old stories. Even the Genesis creation myth was taken from Babylon as well.
Did you not read any of those links that show that the Bible is not an historically accurate document at all?
Genesis 1:14
And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
Here we can see that the sun and the stars were made after the creation of the Earth. It's simply scientifically wrong.
You're wrong about the flood being local as well. Here it clearly says that he will wipe from the face of the Earth I've ever made.
Genesis 7
7 The Lord then said to Noah, “Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. 2 Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. 4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.”
And here it says that the Earth was covered up to it's highest mountains and again reaffirming that God was going to kill everything.
Genesis 7
19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits.[a][b] 21 Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.
About the Babylonians. Did you read that article about the origin of the Israelites? They emerged 1000 years before the Israelites did. This is where many of the stories in the Old Testament came from. The archaeological evidence proves this. We can say that the Babylonians wrote it first because we can date the tablets that there are written on and see that they were made hundreds of years before there was even such a thing as an Israelite. This is how historical research works: You look at the evidence and follow where it leads and not assume the answer before you even ask the questions, like you have. You have assumed that these stories were written in the way and time that someone else has taught you and will refuse to budge despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Please go through all those links I posted earlier.
And since you're claiming all of these amazing prophecies, there should be an amazing amount of evidence to substantiate it. Yet the billions of followers of Jesus have never been able to write a clear document that is accepted by science and historians.
Just because we are made from the elements that existed on Earth before there was life does not mean that a god did it. You're completely missing the point that you need evidence to believe that something is true, not just old stories. Even the Genesis creation myth was taken from Babylon as well.
Did you not read any of those links that show that the Bible is not an historically accurate document at all?
Genesis 1:14
And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
Here we can see that the sun and the stars were made after the creation of the Earth. It's simply scientifically wrong.
You're wrong about the flood being local as well. Here it clearly says that he will wipe from the face of the Earth I've ever made.
Genesis 7
7 The Lord then said to Noah, “Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. 2 Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. 4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.”
And here it says that the Earth was covered up to it's highest mountains and again reaffirming that God was going to kill everything.
Genesis 7
19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits.[a][b] 21 Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.
About the Babylonians. Did you read that article about the origin of the Israelites? They emerged 1000 years before the Israelites did. This is where many of the stories in the Old Testament came from. The archaeological evidence proves this. We can say that the Babylonians wrote it first because we can date the tablets that there are written on and see that they were made hundreds of years before there was even such a thing as an Israelite. This is how historical research works: You look at the evidence and follow where it leads and not assume the answer before you even ask the questions, like you have. You have assumed that these stories were written in the way and time that someone else has taught you and will refuse to budge despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Please go through all those links I posted earlier.
And since you're claiming all of these amazing prophecies, there should be an amazing amount of evidence to substantiate it. Yet the billions of followers of Jesus have never been able to write a clear document that is accepted by science and historians.
#129 to #111
-
Vandeekree (12/23/2015) [-] I see, it seems you don't understand what evidence is. Lets go with the google definition.
"the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."
What do we have as "facts or information" There's the bible, which is both a fact and information. I assume you won't contest that the bible is real and even that it can be proven to be very old. Within the bible is information, claims of events that happened. This is evidence by definition. There is also supporting evidence such as the historical accuracy of the places and people mentioned inside. Now whether you believe the parts that can't be proven is up to you. But it remains that this is evidence even if its not proof enough for you.
And of course that we are made from elements doesn't mean God did it. That wasn't what we were talking about. We were talking about how the bible says we are made from dirt which is true.
I will have to tackle the rest of your post tomorrow sense I have to go to bed but I greatly enjoyed this conversation. Talk to you again soon.
"the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."
What do we have as "facts or information" There's the bible, which is both a fact and information. I assume you won't contest that the bible is real and even that it can be proven to be very old. Within the bible is information, claims of events that happened. This is evidence by definition. There is also supporting evidence such as the historical accuracy of the places and people mentioned inside. Now whether you believe the parts that can't be proven is up to you. But it remains that this is evidence even if its not proof enough for you.
And of course that we are made from elements doesn't mean God did it. That wasn't what we were talking about. We were talking about how the bible says we are made from dirt which is true.
I will have to tackle the rest of your post tomorrow sense I have to go to bed but I greatly enjoyed this conversation. Talk to you again soon.
#99 to #97
-
popeflatus (12/23/2015) [-] There are over 40,000 different variations of Christianity with most of them claiming to have the correct 'truth'. This has never been demonstrated of course firstly dur to the lack of evidence.
And it is indeed a lack of evidence. The Bible says that Man was created from dirt and that women came from him taking a rib from Adam, the first man. This is scientifically just untrue. Humans have evolved in Africa 200,000 years ago from earlier primates. So the Bible is wrong right at the start.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution
It says that the Earth was created before the stars, which again is completely wrong as the universe has had stars for about 9 billion(!) years before our solar system formed.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe
The Bible claims that there was a world wide flood that happened with all humans coming from the 8 people that were on the Ark. This is ridiculous for many reasons.
There is no geological evidence for any great flood whatsoever. The story is based on an actual localized flood in the region that happened about 2900-3000 BCE: 1600 years before the Israelites emerged from Canaan.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_myth#Claims_of_historicity
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israelites
These facts, coupled with the complete lack of a genetic bottle-neck at the time of this alleged flood proves conclusively that this story is fictitious. Hell, the Babylonians wrote the original story that the Israelites later claimed as their own!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh
As for the so-called prophecies, well, they've been debunked so many times.
rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_prophecies
So, we can see that the Bible does not at all stand on evidential grounds and is just mythology like that produced by hundreds of other cultures throughout history.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible
Lastly, Jesus. If someone says that you have to worship him or his dad is going to burn you forever, then that is the opposite of why people without faith do 'good things'. That sort of coercion is as barbarous as can be.
And it is indeed a lack of evidence. The Bible says that Man was created from dirt and that women came from him taking a rib from Adam, the first man. This is scientifically just untrue. Humans have evolved in Africa 200,000 years ago from earlier primates. So the Bible is wrong right at the start.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution
It says that the Earth was created before the stars, which again is completely wrong as the universe has had stars for about 9 billion(!) years before our solar system formed.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe
The Bible claims that there was a world wide flood that happened with all humans coming from the 8 people that were on the Ark. This is ridiculous for many reasons.
There is no geological evidence for any great flood whatsoever. The story is based on an actual localized flood in the region that happened about 2900-3000 BCE: 1600 years before the Israelites emerged from Canaan.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_myth#Claims_of_historicity
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israelites
These facts, coupled with the complete lack of a genetic bottle-neck at the time of this alleged flood proves conclusively that this story is fictitious. Hell, the Babylonians wrote the original story that the Israelites later claimed as their own!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh
As for the so-called prophecies, well, they've been debunked so many times.
rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_prophecies
So, we can see that the Bible does not at all stand on evidential grounds and is just mythology like that produced by hundreds of other cultures throughout history.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible
Lastly, Jesus. If someone says that you have to worship him or his dad is going to burn you forever, then that is the opposite of why people without faith do 'good things'. That sort of coercion is as barbarous as can be.
#196 to #99
-
breadnsteak (12/23/2015) [-] So a few points that you have stated that I would have to disagree with but one in particular that makes your argument invalid
>"Just because a book says something is true does not mean that it is true! Obviously anyone can write a book about magic and monsters and claim it is true. That is no different than what you're saying about the Bible." Therefore, anything I read in any book, and articles no matter how creditable their sources it is not true, Therefore all I have learned my life is a lie, makes sense.
The next issue is that I would like to know who says the Bible is a historically accurate book. From the Catholic perspective there are many theologians that would flat out tell your there are many books of the Bible that are from a writers perspective and they worked with the knowledge they have, Read the books of Maccabees, that is probably the most historically accurate of all the books. As for your creation story stuff, if you have read the Bible you would know there are two separate creation accounts in Genesis and two destruction accounts in Revelations. If you would read the Bible Theologically like it is supposed to be read then you would also know that many theologians have comment on the first day of creation foreshadowing the fourth; the second the fifth, and third the sixth. Anyone can take quotes from the Bible and argue how wrong it is or how inaccurate it is but when you read the Bible as a whole it brings everything into perspective.
Next issue is comparing stories of the Bible to Science. This is a flaw that many people like to bring up, but when you go to say a calculus class do you bring your English textbook? NO because they are two different subjects, to understand what the Bible is saying don't read Nietzsche, Kant, Richard Dawkins, Bill Maher etc. Read someone who has spent their life reading the WHOLE text and contemporary text of the Biblical stories. People such as Thomas Aquinas, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Bernard of Clairvaux, John Paul II. Quit having your unqualified teachers teach you about something they are not experienced in.
Just remember if you want to build a house you don't ask your plumber to do the electrical work.
>"Just because a book says something is true does not mean that it is true! Obviously anyone can write a book about magic and monsters and claim it is true. That is no different than what you're saying about the Bible." Therefore, anything I read in any book, and articles no matter how creditable their sources it is not true, Therefore all I have learned my life is a lie, makes sense.
The next issue is that I would like to know who says the Bible is a historically accurate book. From the Catholic perspective there are many theologians that would flat out tell your there are many books of the Bible that are from a writers perspective and they worked with the knowledge they have, Read the books of Maccabees, that is probably the most historically accurate of all the books. As for your creation story stuff, if you have read the Bible you would know there are two separate creation accounts in Genesis and two destruction accounts in Revelations. If you would read the Bible Theologically like it is supposed to be read then you would also know that many theologians have comment on the first day of creation foreshadowing the fourth; the second the fifth, and third the sixth. Anyone can take quotes from the Bible and argue how wrong it is or how inaccurate it is but when you read the Bible as a whole it brings everything into perspective.
Next issue is comparing stories of the Bible to Science. This is a flaw that many people like to bring up, but when you go to say a calculus class do you bring your English textbook? NO because they are two different subjects, to understand what the Bible is saying don't read Nietzsche, Kant, Richard Dawkins, Bill Maher etc. Read someone who has spent their life reading the WHOLE text and contemporary text of the Biblical stories. People such as Thomas Aquinas, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Bernard of Clairvaux, John Paul II. Quit having your unqualified teachers teach you about something they are not experienced in.
Just remember if you want to build a house you don't ask your plumber to do the electrical work.
#269 to #99
-
breadnsteak (12/24/2015) [-] I understand what you are saying about all of this,
There are many theological works that go through the same scrutiny that other scientific works go through. You can get peer reviewed theological works ... because believe it or not theology is a science, therefore the people who study it have to take great precautions when making a statement because if it is proved wrong then it is heretical.
Going back to interpreting the Bible, its great for all people to read the stories but who has the authority to interpret it. Same as in all the other sciences you don't have regular Joe Schmoe on the street writing up laws and formulas, you leave it to the people who know what they are doing and know what to look for.
Now for looking at the 2000 year tradition of the Catholic Church there has been a lot that has changed, there has been new discoveries, new prayers, new people, and new new terms etc. to come from it. They did not change the foundations of the faith, they have never changed their understanding of God through tradition. The Church is a living and evolving being. It has not been perfected, just like the rest of the sciences, they are always pushing the limits and discovering new things and developing more efficient ways to practice their field. They have a basis in some foundation that is the source and summit of this development. For Christian Theology it is the Bible. The Catholic Church has many traditions, feasts, and practices that cannot be found in the scriptures.
The idea of taking texts from other cultures is true, I am not going to deny that. Looking back at modern science, what if you are told you can only use theories and inventions your culture has founded. you are not allowed to tell stories of cultures before you or from parts of the world you are not an ethnicity to. Ancient civilizations told stories to put into context what is going on then each culture tweeked them to make them sound like it was them who was affected. It still happens in our modern stories and movies.
Yes there are many stupid people out there that have no concept of the Magisterium (Church's teaching authority) There are thousands of Christian denominations and you just have to remember that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have been studying this stuff for 2000 years based on works that are another 5000 or so years older and some protestant churches last 2 or 3 generations at most. The Luther Schism is coming up to its 500 year anniversary and many of the mainline protestant groups are stubborn and try to find ways to teach the "truth" by doing the opposite of what the 'Papists' are doing.
The Catholic Church for a short time might have preached the world was created in 7 days, the world is an spot of land between 2 seas, that Enoch lived to be 365 years old. They taught these to put the world into perspective. There are Greek Scholars from before the Church's founding that had already disproved the theory of Adam and Eve. Aristotle for one talks about the world being round and orbiting the sun (he does not agree with it but he says it is possible), (If you want to talk about Galileo the response to that is that he was really good friends Pope Urban VIII who discredited his work etc. ... Well the reason it was discredited was because he did not give credit where credit was due, he lacked citations and then pissed off one of his great friends because the thought the Pope would let it slide and Pope Urban didn't so he sought out vengeance on the Church because the Church refused to publish his works for 300 years).
In the end there is not much difference between the empirical sciences and theology as a science. If you want to see or read about proof, a fun place to start is C.S. Lewis, then read people like Scott Hahn or Matthew Kelley these are basic understanding of how and what the Church teaches for for regular person, after you get a grasp on that or find it too basic then work on Ratzinger or JPII or Thomas Aquinas
There are many theological works that go through the same scrutiny that other scientific works go through. You can get peer reviewed theological works ... because believe it or not theology is a science, therefore the people who study it have to take great precautions when making a statement because if it is proved wrong then it is heretical.
Going back to interpreting the Bible, its great for all people to read the stories but who has the authority to interpret it. Same as in all the other sciences you don't have regular Joe Schmoe on the street writing up laws and formulas, you leave it to the people who know what they are doing and know what to look for.
Now for looking at the 2000 year tradition of the Catholic Church there has been a lot that has changed, there has been new discoveries, new prayers, new people, and new new terms etc. to come from it. They did not change the foundations of the faith, they have never changed their understanding of God through tradition. The Church is a living and evolving being. It has not been perfected, just like the rest of the sciences, they are always pushing the limits and discovering new things and developing more efficient ways to practice their field. They have a basis in some foundation that is the source and summit of this development. For Christian Theology it is the Bible. The Catholic Church has many traditions, feasts, and practices that cannot be found in the scriptures.
The idea of taking texts from other cultures is true, I am not going to deny that. Looking back at modern science, what if you are told you can only use theories and inventions your culture has founded. you are not allowed to tell stories of cultures before you or from parts of the world you are not an ethnicity to. Ancient civilizations told stories to put into context what is going on then each culture tweeked them to make them sound like it was them who was affected. It still happens in our modern stories and movies.
Yes there are many stupid people out there that have no concept of the Magisterium (Church's teaching authority) There are thousands of Christian denominations and you just have to remember that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have been studying this stuff for 2000 years based on works that are another 5000 or so years older and some protestant churches last 2 or 3 generations at most. The Luther Schism is coming up to its 500 year anniversary and many of the mainline protestant groups are stubborn and try to find ways to teach the "truth" by doing the opposite of what the 'Papists' are doing.
The Catholic Church for a short time might have preached the world was created in 7 days, the world is an spot of land between 2 seas, that Enoch lived to be 365 years old. They taught these to put the world into perspective. There are Greek Scholars from before the Church's founding that had already disproved the theory of Adam and Eve. Aristotle for one talks about the world being round and orbiting the sun (he does not agree with it but he says it is possible), (If you want to talk about Galileo the response to that is that he was really good friends Pope Urban VIII who discredited his work etc. ... Well the reason it was discredited was because he did not give credit where credit was due, he lacked citations and then pissed off one of his great friends because the thought the Pope would let it slide and Pope Urban didn't so he sought out vengeance on the Church because the Church refused to publish his works for 300 years).
In the end there is not much difference between the empirical sciences and theology as a science. If you want to see or read about proof, a fun place to start is C.S. Lewis, then read people like Scott Hahn or Matthew Kelley these are basic understanding of how and what the Church teaches for for regular person, after you get a grasp on that or find it too basic then work on Ratzinger or JPII or Thomas Aquinas
#267 to #99
-
popeflatus (12/24/2015) [-] breadnsteak
Thread limit!
Hold on.
"Therefore, anything I read in any book, and articles no matter how creditable their sources it is not true, Therefore all I have learned my life is a lie, makes sense."
This is not how knowledge works. When you read a scientific paper for example we know that the work is true because of the rigorous peer review system. We can test things to see if they are true or not and we can communicate this knowledge so the experiments can be repeated independently. This is how we know that things are true in science and can trust the papers.
When you have a claim in any book it needs to be verified by evidence for it to be accepted as "true". The Bible makes many claims that both science and historical research have found are false as I've oulined throughout this thread. Therefore we know that the stories are not true as they are presented in the Bible and so we know that it cannot be accepted as factual or evidential.
Many people think the Bible is an historically accurate book. I'm assuming that you're Catholic but you must be aware that you only make up about half of all Christians worldwide. Many different denominations such as the Jehovah's Witnesses and many Baptist and evangelical groups think that the Bible is true from cover to cover.
You claim also that the Bible is "supposed" to be read in a particular way. Says who? Who can say how a book from 2000 years ago is meant to be read? Just because you have a catechism for your church does not mean that every Christian agrees with it.
You can't separate your religion from science in the way that you're attempting. If you think that your god can actively affect the universe then we can test for that. Thousands of different religions all claim that their gods are able to intervene in this universe yet there is never a single shred of evidence of this happening ever.
When the Bible makes claims about the universe we can check if they are true or not. So far there is a giant disparity between what the Bible says and what we know about the universe through science.
Remember, there are 100s of ancient religious texts that humans have written, many of them before the Bible with stories taken from various religions and cultures that pre-date the first Israelites. There are a few links through the thread that can start you out on learning the truth about your religion and how we know it.
Thread limit!
Hold on.
"Therefore, anything I read in any book, and articles no matter how creditable their sources it is not true, Therefore all I have learned my life is a lie, makes sense."
This is not how knowledge works. When you read a scientific paper for example we know that the work is true because of the rigorous peer review system. We can test things to see if they are true or not and we can communicate this knowledge so the experiments can be repeated independently. This is how we know that things are true in science and can trust the papers.
When you have a claim in any book it needs to be verified by evidence for it to be accepted as "true". The Bible makes many claims that both science and historical research have found are false as I've oulined throughout this thread. Therefore we know that the stories are not true as they are presented in the Bible and so we know that it cannot be accepted as factual or evidential.
Many people think the Bible is an historically accurate book. I'm assuming that you're Catholic but you must be aware that you only make up about half of all Christians worldwide. Many different denominations such as the Jehovah's Witnesses and many Baptist and evangelical groups think that the Bible is true from cover to cover.
You claim also that the Bible is "supposed" to be read in a particular way. Says who? Who can say how a book from 2000 years ago is meant to be read? Just because you have a catechism for your church does not mean that every Christian agrees with it.
You can't separate your religion from science in the way that you're attempting. If you think that your god can actively affect the universe then we can test for that. Thousands of different religions all claim that their gods are able to intervene in this universe yet there is never a single shred of evidence of this happening ever.
When the Bible makes claims about the universe we can check if they are true or not. So far there is a giant disparity between what the Bible says and what we know about the universe through science.
Remember, there are 100s of ancient religious texts that humans have written, many of them before the Bible with stories taken from various religions and cultures that pre-date the first Israelites. There are a few links through the thread that can start you out on learning the truth about your religion and how we know it.
#107 to #99
-
Vandeekree (12/23/2015) [-] I agree, the bible can be interpreted different ways. But you see, the only thing required to get into heaven is to believe in Jesus, which all Christian secs agree on. So while there are arguments about the small outlying subjects, the core of Christianity is rarely debated.
The rest of this shows you haven't done much studying into the actual bible and while I have limited time, I'll try to explain why and how you can get more information on these topics.
We are dirt. We are made out of the minerals and organic matter that makes up dirt. As for the rib, even if you don't read this story as metaphorical, then how can you say it's demonstrably impossible for a god to make a woman from a rib? And who's to say that Adam wasn't simply the first prehuman to be born with enough brain power to be considered a modern human? You say that it's proven wrong and yet I think what you mean is "It's hard for me to imagine so it didn't happen."
As for the Earth before the stars, you're really going to have to show me the verse. I can't find a place where that is suggested. I've heard the "How can there be light before the sun" argument but never the Earth before the stars one.
The bible does not claim there was a world wide flood. Only a great flood. The world used to describe the area flooded was "eret kol" which means "land" "country" or "area" but is never used in any other context to describe the world as a whole. It's a popular misnomer that it was a world wide flood, similar to how people call the forbidden fruit and apple even though it was never referred to as an apple.
And the Babylonians are the oldest record of those stories we have. That doesn't mean they were the first you see. It means that record survived. But those stories were around long before those surviving records so that's a poor point to assert that the Babylonians wrote it first. You might want to brush up on hos historical science works.
As for the prophesies, that sight seems simply wrong. It sites prophesies that either did come true and says they didn't, or picks ones that are hard to tell if they happened sense they were so long ago and says they definitely didn't. I really think you should do research on each prophesy it lists. Just going down the list of the first few you can problems like the desolation of Egypt one which certainly did happen, all you have to do is look at the historic record of Egypt, as far back as we can see it has been a weak nation, never again an Empire and most often held by another nation. As for the 40 years of being baron, that's hard to say sense it happened so long ago and yet that site just decides it didn't happen because they say so. Hardly scientific. I'll have to go down that list when I have more time but so far it's not looking good.
I think you need to do more research on your own instead of just googling atheist sites and taking what they say as gospel.
But don't misunderstand. God is not bound by the morals of humans. He made us and he is not in the wrong when he tells us to obey him. Now if a human did it to another human, yes, it would be wrong. But who better to set moral laws than the all knowing creator?
The rest of this shows you haven't done much studying into the actual bible and while I have limited time, I'll try to explain why and how you can get more information on these topics.
We are dirt. We are made out of the minerals and organic matter that makes up dirt. As for the rib, even if you don't read this story as metaphorical, then how can you say it's demonstrably impossible for a god to make a woman from a rib? And who's to say that Adam wasn't simply the first prehuman to be born with enough brain power to be considered a modern human? You say that it's proven wrong and yet I think what you mean is "It's hard for me to imagine so it didn't happen."
As for the Earth before the stars, you're really going to have to show me the verse. I can't find a place where that is suggested. I've heard the "How can there be light before the sun" argument but never the Earth before the stars one.
The bible does not claim there was a world wide flood. Only a great flood. The world used to describe the area flooded was "eret kol" which means "land" "country" or "area" but is never used in any other context to describe the world as a whole. It's a popular misnomer that it was a world wide flood, similar to how people call the forbidden fruit and apple even though it was never referred to as an apple.
And the Babylonians are the oldest record of those stories we have. That doesn't mean they were the first you see. It means that record survived. But those stories were around long before those surviving records so that's a poor point to assert that the Babylonians wrote it first. You might want to brush up on hos historical science works.
As for the prophesies, that sight seems simply wrong. It sites prophesies that either did come true and says they didn't, or picks ones that are hard to tell if they happened sense they were so long ago and says they definitely didn't. I really think you should do research on each prophesy it lists. Just going down the list of the first few you can problems like the desolation of Egypt one which certainly did happen, all you have to do is look at the historic record of Egypt, as far back as we can see it has been a weak nation, never again an Empire and most often held by another nation. As for the 40 years of being baron, that's hard to say sense it happened so long ago and yet that site just decides it didn't happen because they say so. Hardly scientific. I'll have to go down that list when I have more time but so far it's not looking good.
I think you need to do more research on your own instead of just googling atheist sites and taking what they say as gospel.
But don't misunderstand. God is not bound by the morals of humans. He made us and he is not in the wrong when he tells us to obey him. Now if a human did it to another human, yes, it would be wrong. But who better to set moral laws than the all knowing creator?
#222
-
rundas (12/23/2015) [-] You're not special if you're atheist and have some morals. It means you're ******* normal. Stop trying to give yourself moral superiority just because you don't believe in something. For people that supposedly don't believe in religion you sure do preach a lot.
#151
-
ciacheczko (12/23/2015) [-] I feel like, if you look at it the right way, atheism is closer to religion than it seems.
Overall, we don't know if there's any celestial being, or whatever people want to call it. It's a huge question mark. By picking either "yes" or "no" as answer, you already base your decision on something that has no proof. Because there's no proof there is anything, just as there is no proof there isn't anything.
Therefore, atheism is basically a "religion", understood in a very metaphorical way, where people have faith - faith there's nothing there.
Just to be on safe side: Don't get too upset over this, it's just a bunch of thoughts and ideas, not a firm belief, nor a wish to start a **** storm. Merely a theory figured out in spare time.
Overall, we don't know if there's any celestial being, or whatever people want to call it. It's a huge question mark. By picking either "yes" or "no" as answer, you already base your decision on something that has no proof. Because there's no proof there is anything, just as there is no proof there isn't anything.
Therefore, atheism is basically a "religion", understood in a very metaphorical way, where people have faith - faith there's nothing there.
Just to be on safe side: Don't get too upset over this, it's just a bunch of thoughts and ideas, not a firm belief, nor a wish to start a **** storm. Merely a theory figured out in spare time.
#156 to #152
-
ciacheczko (12/23/2015) [-] Contemplation alone is not going to harm anyone. If anything, it can at the very least lead you to some interesting conclusions. I find it better than not caring at all.
#195 to #151
-
improbablyyourdad (12/23/2015) [-] So the wrong way then?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lwX8p8jpzs
www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lwX8p8jpzs
#201 to #151
-
nimba (12/23/2015) [-] lmgtfy.com/?q=define+religion
Trying to call atheism religion is one of the oldest apologetics in the book; for one thing, it's obviously not. There is no organised structure of requisite rules to being an atheist - there is only one condition. Belief or no belief. If you argue that no belief is the same as belief and then wrongly calling that a religion then your disbelief in leprechauns is also a religion. Your belief that 2+2=4 would also be a religion. That would mean that a religion is so laughably broad that it means nothing at all.
A more interesting question would be what do the people doing these mental gymnastics, such as yourself, stand to gain by claiming that atheism is also a religion? It seems like an admission that arguing from religion is almost definitively shaky ground, but if you can pull the other side down to the same quagmire of inventing logic from belief a problem as old as religion then that's almost as good as being right? Right? Yeah...
Trying to call atheism religion is one of the oldest apologetics in the book; for one thing, it's obviously not. There is no organised structure of requisite rules to being an atheist - there is only one condition. Belief or no belief. If you argue that no belief is the same as belief and then wrongly calling that a religion then your disbelief in leprechauns is also a religion. Your belief that 2+2=4 would also be a religion. That would mean that a religion is so laughably broad that it means nothing at all.
A more interesting question would be what do the people doing these mental gymnastics, such as yourself, stand to gain by claiming that atheism is also a religion? It seems like an admission that arguing from religion is almost definitively shaky ground, but if you can pull the other side down to the same quagmire of inventing logic from belief a problem as old as religion then that's almost as good as being right? Right? Yeah...
#218 to #213
-
nimba (12/23/2015) [-] There are things called churches such as the sunday assembly but the name church is only given by the press and people making this apologetic. Thing about atheism is that there is no unified morality or protocol - I don't feel any special connection to other atheists.
Pastafarianism is a parody religion, which some atheists "adhere" to as an argument ad absurdum.
Damn them and their accursed facts! How inconvenient that they should have tested their claims.
If you know, or believe something so, potentially, fundamentally important then it would be your moral duty to convince any person you care for the same thing. That is why I don't necessarily get annoyed when mormons try to convert me in the street or when the church tries to bring people into the fold while giving them charity. If the worst thing about atheism is that they try to convince people they are right, then that's a lot less harm than most religions can claim to, which do that and incite violence, stupidity and hatred.
Pastafarianism is a parody religion, which some atheists "adhere" to as an argument ad absurdum.
Damn them and their accursed facts! How inconvenient that they should have tested their claims.
If you know, or believe something so, potentially, fundamentally important then it would be your moral duty to convince any person you care for the same thing. That is why I don't necessarily get annoyed when mormons try to convert me in the street or when the church tries to bring people into the fold while giving them charity. If the worst thing about atheism is that they try to convince people they are right, then that's a lot less harm than most religions can claim to, which do that and incite violence, stupidity and hatred.
#157 to #151
-
jonluw (12/23/2015) [-] Atheism isn't a "no" answer to "are there any divine beings" though.
There's a distinction between strong, or positive, atheism, in which you claim there are no gods, and weak, or negative, atheism, in which you do not claim there are any gods.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism
Even still it's hard to consider strong atheism a religion. It lacks organization and orthopraxy, and its only orthodoxy is the claim that there is no god.
There's a distinction between strong, or positive, atheism, in which you claim there are no gods, and weak, or negative, atheism, in which you do not claim there are any gods.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism
Even still it's hard to consider strong atheism a religion. It lacks organization and orthopraxy, and its only orthodoxy is the claim that there is no god.
#158 to #157
-
ciacheczko (12/23/2015) [-] In all honesty... That sounds just about as forced, as the idea of gender identity.
What people made up to be a "negative atheism" is basically agnosticism.
What people made up to be a "negative atheism" is basically agnosticism.
#160 to #158
-
jonluw (12/23/2015) [-] Agnosticism isn't a spiritual position. It requires a qualifier to be complete. The common use of the word "agnostic" is a mangling of the philosophical term. You can be an agnostic Christian, or an agnostic atheist. This is in contrast to being a gnostic Christian or a gnostic atheist, not to be confused with gnosticism.
2.bp.blogspot.com/_MDZPs8ROJXE/TNx7UFqbaII/AAAAAAAAB9M/XDfxPwyBVpA/s1600/Gnostic_Agnostic_Atheist.png
A newborn baby isn't agnostic. To be agnostic it would need to have considered the question "is there a god" and decided on the answer "I don't know". By virtue of not having considered the question, the baby is a weak atheist.
2.bp.blogspot.com/_MDZPs8ROJXE/TNx7UFqbaII/AAAAAAAAB9M/XDfxPwyBVpA/s1600/Gnostic_Agnostic_Atheist.png
A newborn baby isn't agnostic. To be agnostic it would need to have considered the question "is there a god" and decided on the answer "I don't know". By virtue of not having considered the question, the baby is a weak atheist.
#165 to #160
-
ciacheczko (12/23/2015) [-] That sounds really, really forced. Like some people were so invested into overthinking religion, they simply had to categorise everything, including newborn babies, and make up an incredible amount of terms to summarise every single form of overthinking they've created.
Just so I make it clear: I fully understand these differences, I know why they have separate names and combinations, I know what they mean and why. I just find it overly and unnecessarily complex.
I'm a simple person. Or at least one that prefers simple solutions - that's more accurate. To me a newborn baby should just be a newborn baby, and that's it.
Just so I make it clear: I fully understand these differences, I know why they have separate names and combinations, I know what they mean and why. I just find it overly and unnecessarily complex.
I'm a simple person. Or at least one that prefers simple solutions - that's more accurate. To me a newborn baby should just be a newborn baby, and that's it.
#171 to #165
-
jonluw (12/23/2015) [-] Jeez. Weak atheism wasn't created to describe babies. Babies are just used as an example of someone who will hold that position by default. There are adults who are weak atheists, but there are no organized groups we can refer to, so we give the example of infants.
Never get into philosophy. Metaphysics is a complicated field, and it's important to make distinctions between views with fine differences.
The simple fact is that there are many kinds of atheism, and if you're too simple to deal with that, that's your problem.
If you want to make the claim that strong atheism could be called a religion, go ahead. But if you want to make the claim that atheism period is a religion, you need to inform whomever you're talking to that you're using your own definition of atheism.
And as I've said, the claim that strong atheism is a religion is fairly weak, since there's only one piece of orthodoxy, no orthopraxy, and no organization.
Never get into philosophy. Metaphysics is a complicated field, and it's important to make distinctions between views with fine differences.
The simple fact is that there are many kinds of atheism, and if you're too simple to deal with that, that's your problem.
If you want to make the claim that strong atheism could be called a religion, go ahead. But if you want to make the claim that atheism period is a religion, you need to inform whomever you're talking to that you're using your own definition of atheism.
And as I've said, the claim that strong atheism is a religion is fairly weak, since there's only one piece of orthodoxy, no orthopraxy, and no organization.
#167 to #151
-
roninneko (12/23/2015) [-]
Well, such an argument can be made; however, if one considers Occam's Razor in conjunction with a distinct effort to avoid Argument from Ignorance, one will note that atheism is the superior choice of the two.
Avoiding an Argument from Ignorance requires recognizing that a lack of negative evidence (evidence proving that something isn't present) is not sufficient to support the validity of an assertion. There are any number of things you could claim purely on the basis of no one ever having proven them to not exist! I can claim there is a teapot orbiting Jupiter, but cannot take your lack of negative proof against it in place of positive proof in favour.
Now, one applies Occam's Razor: in a situation with two possible conclusions, the one that makes the least number of unfounded assumptions is logically the superior conclusion (for as long as its conclusions remain the ones with the most empirical support). "God did it" is possibly the biggest, most overarching assumption imaginable, because there is a total lack of positive evidence in its favour.
Therefore, if one accepts that lack of negative proof is not an acceptable substitute for the presence of positive proof, and that Occam's Razor leads one to accept the most logical and well-supported out of all possible conclusions, one must conclude that it is not reasonable to assume the positive existence of a divine being or beings.
Avoiding an Argument from Ignorance requires recognizing that a lack of negative evidence (evidence proving that something isn't present) is not sufficient to support the validity of an assertion. There are any number of things you could claim purely on the basis of no one ever having proven them to not exist! I can claim there is a teapot orbiting Jupiter, but cannot take your lack of negative proof against it in place of positive proof in favour.
Now, one applies Occam's Razor: in a situation with two possible conclusions, the one that makes the least number of unfounded assumptions is logically the superior conclusion (for as long as its conclusions remain the ones with the most empirical support). "God did it" is possibly the biggest, most overarching assumption imaginable, because there is a total lack of positive evidence in its favour.
Therefore, if one accepts that lack of negative proof is not an acceptable substitute for the presence of positive proof, and that Occam's Razor leads one to accept the most logical and well-supported out of all possible conclusions, one must conclude that it is not reasonable to assume the positive existence of a divine being or beings.
#110
-
dangler (12/23/2015) [-] An atheist can do nice things to make themselves look good just as easily as a religious person can do nice things because God said so.
Just because a person wasn't told to do something kind doesn't necessarily mean they're more noble for it.
Just because a person wasn't told to do something kind doesn't necessarily mean they're more noble for it.
#162 to #110
-
thechosentroll (12/23/2015) [-] Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is still the right thing. A homeless person doesn't give a **** if you gave them 10$ out of kindness or to look good in front of your friends.
#44
-
deroderpderp (12/23/2015) [-] Im christian.
You honestly couldn't tell from the **** I say and the sites I go to.
But I am.
I honestly believe that God doesn't just want believers to be in heaven, but good people.
Example: You did great good in life, fought many battles for the right side, but didn't believe in god, you go to heaven. You did great evil in life, but believes in god, you go to hell.
I think everyone can be a good person if they just try. Have a blessed day.
You honestly couldn't tell from the **** I say and the sites I go to.
But I am.
I honestly believe that God doesn't just want believers to be in heaven, but good people.
Example: You did great good in life, fought many battles for the right side, but didn't believe in god, you go to heaven. You did great evil in life, but believes in god, you go to hell.
I think everyone can be a good person if they just try. Have a blessed day.
#51 to #44
-
anon (12/23/2015) [-]
in my opinion, any god worth worshiping cares more for the person than their faith. It's why I believe there is a god but am not a part of any religion, whichever religion is right doesn't matter, either god judges me by my actions or he really isn't worth worshiping.
#79
-
totallytito (12/23/2015) [-] If he exists,
I will fight him,
and I will lose.
I will die once more with a smile on my face, knowing that my actions went in vain, but that I had conveyed my own wrath in its purest form.
I will never forgive that bastard for taking my loved ones away for any kind of sadistic "plan" of his. How can one create and destroy an entire universe, develop biological nanotechnology, yet still have the nerve to kill off innocent people and give newborn infants bone cancer?
No number of blessings will ever right these wrongs.
I will fight him,
and I will lose.
I will die once more with a smile on my face, knowing that my actions went in vain, but that I had conveyed my own wrath in its purest form.
I will never forgive that bastard for taking my loved ones away for any kind of sadistic "plan" of his. How can one create and destroy an entire universe, develop biological nanotechnology, yet still have the nerve to kill off innocent people and give newborn infants bone cancer?
No number of blessings will ever right these wrongs.
#148 to #79
-
improbable (12/23/2015) [-] hard to take you seriously since you probably are pro-choice which means that you would be fine with killing the baby before it even got bone cancer inside the womb
#261 to #79
-
buddywuggle (12/24/2015) [-] This is probably the first time I've seen tito down voted.
#262 to #261
-
totallytito (12/24/2015) [-] Well, some people are okay with not being angry at a self-absorbed sociopath with worse planning skills than a teenager proposing for marriage at 18 years of age.
#263 to #262
-
buddywuggle (12/24/2015) [-] True.
Though, if it's not bothersome, maybe I could give my uneducated guess on the topic. Maybe god sees humans as a threat the the ecosystem or something.
Though, if it's not bothersome, maybe I could give my uneducated guess on the topic. Maybe god sees humans as a threat the the ecosystem or something.
#265 to #263
-
buddywuggle (12/24/2015) [-] Are you making a big response or did my response rub you the wrong way? My brain is doing that thing where waiting for a response causes sweating.
#88 to #79
-
totallytito (12/23/2015) [-] "Ow the edge"
"Tips fedora"
I don't give a **** .
Deep down I'm glad that he doesn't exist because
I would be spending every day of my life being furious at someone responsible for all of these preventable, terrible things that are related to his 'intelligent design'.
Don't get me wrong, I'm okay with religion and people having beliefs,
I just feel that if a there were someone responsible for all of these terrible things, I would have no ability to suppress my anger.
Thankfully, all of the wrongs in the world are unrelated individual forces that happen either through coincidence, accidents, misunderstandings, miscommunication, and a solidified misguided world view caused by all of the above.
I have no individual force or person to be angry at,
**** just happens on its own without an intention, and that's okay with me.
This is why i'm chill, **** just happens,
"Tips fedora"
I don't give a **** .
Deep down I'm glad that he doesn't exist because
I would be spending every day of my life being furious at someone responsible for all of these preventable, terrible things that are related to his 'intelligent design'.
Don't get me wrong, I'm okay with religion and people having beliefs,
I just feel that if a there were someone responsible for all of these terrible things, I would have no ability to suppress my anger.
Thankfully, all of the wrongs in the world are unrelated individual forces that happen either through coincidence, accidents, misunderstandings, miscommunication, and a solidified misguided world view caused by all of the above.
I have no individual force or person to be angry at,
**** just happens on its own without an intention, and that's okay with me.
This is why i'm chill, **** just happens,
#124 to #122
-
totallytito (12/23/2015) [-] Actually, I still believe in the volcano gods of Honolulu and make annual sacrifices for the lava pit.
#172
-
alphagex (12/23/2015) [-] There is a loophole in this story can't a christian be both? do good things out of good will also?
#204 to #172
-
iqequalzero (12/23/2015) [-] In a sense, but theres always that background reasoning of "I do this cause god told me and so I go to heaven."
There is no expected reward for the atheist.
There is no expected reward for the atheist.
#259 to #204
-
alphagex (12/23/2015) [-] Or maybe a christian can also do that out of good will? i so hate post like this that try to do ********** .
#10
-
csgtsheep (12/23/2015) [-] But then whats the point to praying to this god? I mean hes obviously not going to help these people in anyway since hes left it to his disciples and followers, is it like paying an insurance company? You just keep telling him you love him and occasionally giving his dedicated followers some money to ensure your chances of a blessed afterlife? Well just some thoughts anyway.
#174
-
kingofthedragonmen (12/23/2015) [-] Maybe because he was tired of his followers dick riding him all the himself damn time.
#104
-
alfonshister (12/23/2015) [-] Freedom of will
Atheists use it in the by viewpoint of religion in a partially wrong way
I think that question is pretty simple
Atheists use it in the by viewpoint of religion in a partially wrong way
I think that question is pretty simple
#153 to #147
-
alfonshister (12/23/2015) [-] That's just because you go by definition and not by what it's in real life
Don't tell me you can't choose wether you want to buy pepsi or cola or you can't choose NOT to kill your parents
Don't tell me you can't choose wether you want to buy pepsi or cola or you can't choose NOT to kill your parents
#154 to #153
-
vladhellsing (12/23/2015) [-] Put that way, of course I have free will. I have no choice.
#206 to #154
-
unbelievable (12/23/2015) [-] You do have a choice. You have a choice in regards to everything that is humanly possible. The problem with that is that what is humanly possible seems insufficient to us.
