I disagree. Because religious beliefs are fanciful, they require no actual understanding of reality. Secular understanding require real knowledge of the working of the world.
Religious Philosophy's Greatest.....
- Thread starter PsychoticEpisode
- Start date
I disagree. Because religious beliefs are fanciful, they require no actual understanding of reality. Secular understanding require real knowledge of the working of the world.
What came first:
A God who decrees murder is wrong or the secular understanding that murder is unacceptable to the community?
I just felt it needed to be mentioned and in all honesty I hesitated before putting fingers to keyboard but the desired effect was achieved, good reaction. Knew I had to get some human emotion in there somewhere. Just trying to perpetuate the myth.
Most theists CAN'T imagine no god, CAN'T imagine morals without religion & CAN'T see that civilization would've come about with or without religion or that any good that's come from religion could've been done without it & religion has done much more harm than good.
Most people CAN'T even theorize outside their beliefs objectively.
Stranger : Jews believe the Messiah is yet to come while Christians assert otherwise. A truly objective observer would guess that Jews are better fit to judge whether their Messiah has come or not.
Stranger's Brother : But the Jews aren't fit to determine that because they deny Jesus.
What came first:
A God who decrees murder is wrong yet kills & commands others to kill at its whim or the secular understanding that murder is unacceptable to the community?
That quote is 1 good example of his bullshit.
1111
Most people CAN'T even theorize outside their beliefs objectively.
Stranger : Jews believe the Messiah is yet to come while Christians assert otherwise. A truly objective observer would guess that Jews are better fit to judge whether their Messiah has come or not.
Stranger's Brother : But the Jews aren't fit to determine that because they deny Jesus.
What came first:
A God who decrees murder is wrong yet kills & commands others to kill at its whim or the secular understanding that murder is unacceptable to the community?
That quote is 1 good example of his bullshit.
1111
Last edited by a moderator:
Psychotic episode
successfully applied religious principles requires that one give up pride ..... if you think however that this means that they should agree with the conclusions of atheists or fools you are gravely mistaken.
actually you are right.
successfully applied religious principles requires that one give up pride ..... if you think however that this means that they should agree with the conclusions of atheists or fools you are gravely mistaken.
imagining the non-existence of anything is incredibly easier - working the other way is where you tend to encounter obstacles
I can imagine these things
the problem is however that they exist completely within one's imagination
hehe
please tell us how we can operate outside an ideology
:worship:
and splitting ecclesiatical hairs is supposed to prove what?
Its a good example of how atheists insist on working with a mundane conception of god to bolster their arguments.
Even in the ordinary sense, we see that a government has the capacity to over ride standard issues of morality (like killing people in war). Yet somehow you expect an omnipotent personality who can not only direct the appearance of a living entity (before they take birth and after they die) to be less empowered than any government on the planet.
sheesh ...
Which supports your original statement: which I didn't dispute.
It's the conclusion that you made that I'm disputing.
Significance junkies can see anything they want in any sequence of events or non-events.
Er no I didn't take it seriously - it wasn't possible for me to take it seriously since I haven't read it.
Can't know anything if I rely on scientific proof?
Okay, what can I know if I don't?
The thing is that pride - or vanity - can take on many forms, some of them are such that pride or vanity pose as "humility" or "hurt" or "righteous indignation" so they don't look like pride or vanity at all. As such, they can easily mislead a person into thinking he or she is simply being humble, honest, decent, while underneath, they continue to pull the strings in the person's mind.
When one is feeling humble, hurt, righteously indignated - chances are that pride or vanity are lurking underneath.
there is a saying something like "seeing the value of humility's cloak, pride sometimes borrows it"
Even makes good satire
It is easier to fantasize about gods than it is to understand abstract concepts like "murder is unacceptable to the community."
But without simple cooperation, we never would have evolved enough to get to the point of such abstract thoughts.
its chasing rainbows and everything beyond that, i feel religion based philosophy opens doors, and beyond. if you seek, and what your seeking is found, then patience is key, understanding things arent shallow is hard for most people, you were given a brain for a reason, us humans obviously can obtain information better than any other animal on this planet, our minds can be endless, mathematics at its greatest. i know you cant find a fucking leprechaun at the end of the rainbow on this planet, thats just ignorant on your behalf, open mindedness is key, being shallow is nothing.
like god_raven is saying above me, fantasize? you fantasize about what your doing tomorrow the only reason you feel see and touch the next is because its concrete, its bound to happen...not only are minds just as powerful as our instincts we feel emotion and if another human being killed someone you loved it would hurt you, you feel the pain, the grief. we have emotion, you cherish your own live and feel the need to protect your people. so your comparing to totally different things i want to hear a better example. beyond this flesh is something know one can imagine. except that.
murder is a society based thing. i can murder someone in the right context, but society will doom me. its up to the superiors to punish the criminals. society is very base line and easily understood, thats why majority people choose society over single entity.
But we aren't talking about simple cooperation. You said: "murder is unacceptable to the community." Something people still have trouble with to this day.
There has been god for as long as some one couldn't stomach saying "I don't know."
Of course they do.
They also have trouble with "Thou Shalt not Kill".
Regardless it is a basis of morality.
If you have people killing each other wantonly, we never would have built a community.
Without a community we would not have evolved.
Long before that, we had rules of interraction - regardless of whether they were written down.
How can it be a basis if it cannot be understood by all?
We evolved communities long before we had the capacity to understand anything about them.
The concept of actual laws prohibiting actions, instead of just customs, is fairly new. Sure people have an instinctual level of cooperation as social animals, but I feel that is distinct from abstracting those into statutes. To use the bible as a fanciful example, it isn't until Moses that any one thinks that there should be a written law, but they have god back to the "beginning."