ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
Re: questions religion raise that aren't raised outside religion?
I honestly despise people like you.
the slow death of religion
- Thread starter youngbiologist
- Start date
Re: Re: questions religion raise that aren't raised outside religion?
That is something I strive for, to bring the painful truth to those who reject it.
_______________________________
Tolerence: the accepting of error
Truth is never tolerated, it is either acepted or rejected.
That is something I strive for, to bring the painful truth to those who reject it.
_______________________________
Tolerence: the accepting of error
Truth is never tolerated, it is either acepted or rejected.
Re: Re: questions religion raise that aren't raised outside religion?
Laws are only as good as they are enforced. Ethics are only as good as the enforcement that upholds them.
Originally posted by Jaxom
Nice to see we can null and void any ethics that doesn't include some overseer. Thanks for clarifying that...
Laws are only as good as they are enforced. Ethics are only as good as the enforcement that upholds them.
So it's true that Christians only do good because of the threatening hand of God over them? Wow...
How about some backing up of the arguments then...do you want to try and show that only relgious people do good deeds, or maybe take the angle of proving that all atheists are evil doers?
How about some backing up of the arguments then...do you want to try and show that only relgious people do good deeds, or maybe take the angle of proving that all atheists are evil doers?
Morals demand a god
When you say there is evil, aren't you admitting there is good? When you accept the existence of goodness, you must affirm a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. But when you admit to a moral law, you must posit a moral lawgiver ... For if there is no moral lawgiver, there is no moral law. If there is no moral law, there is no good. If there is no good, there is no evil.
-- Ravi Zacharias
When you say there is evil, aren't you admitting there is good? When you accept the existence of goodness, you must affirm a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. But when you admit to a moral law, you must posit a moral lawgiver ... For if there is no moral lawgiver, there is no moral law. If there is no moral law, there is no good. If there is no good, there is no evil.
-- Ravi Zacharias
Because there is a god, it is not okay to __________.
If there was no god, it would be okay to __________.
Please tell me that you would not fill in these blanks with the same things. If you would, then I'm glad you think there's a god keeping you in check. And don't piddle around with junk like "not go to church" or crap, you know what types of items I'm talking about.
What in the hell do you think keeps atheists in check, if it's not our own self guidance through morality? It certainly isn't belief in some punishment in an afterlife...
If there was no god, it would be okay to __________.
Please tell me that you would not fill in these blanks with the same things. If you would, then I'm glad you think there's a god keeping you in check. And don't piddle around with junk like "not go to church" or crap, you know what types of items I'm talking about.
What in the hell do you think keeps atheists in check, if it's not our own self guidance through morality? It certainly isn't belief in some punishment in an afterlife...
biblthmp,
The concept of 'survival of the fittest' operates by blind individual instinct within the animal kingdom. The higher intelligence and self-awareness of humans create a qualitatively different paradigm to that of the animal kingdom. Humans have the intellectual ability to understand the bigger picture and are able to reason that the survival of the species depends on cooperation and compassion between individuals. This has resulted in what we know as modern civilization, which is infinitely more capable of ensuring the survival of the species than cave living. A god is clearly not required for humans to reason in this manner.
In a theist paradigm morality is based on the hypocritical expectation of reward (heaven) or punishment (hell), and is subsequently devoid of integrity or honesty.
The concept of 'survival of the fittest' operates by blind individual instinct within the animal kingdom. The higher intelligence and self-awareness of humans create a qualitatively different paradigm to that of the animal kingdom. Humans have the intellectual ability to understand the bigger picture and are able to reason that the survival of the species depends on cooperation and compassion between individuals. This has resulted in what we know as modern civilization, which is infinitely more capable of ensuring the survival of the species than cave living. A god is clearly not required for humans to reason in this manner.
Religion dying?
I think not, recently the rate of conversions to Christianity has surpassed the worlds birth rate, due to the working of the Charismatic and Pentecostal Christian churches in South America, Africa, and China.
When people get to see and experience the miraculous power of God in Jesus name first hand, their unbelief quickly disappears.
Only Europe, and the United States are being left behind, as the hot-beds of atheism.
I think not, recently the rate of conversions to Christianity has surpassed the worlds birth rate, due to the working of the Charismatic and Pentecostal Christian churches in South America, Africa, and China.
When people get to see and experience the miraculous power of God in Jesus name first hand, their unbelief quickly disappears.
Only Europe, and the United States are being left behind, as the hot-beds of atheism.
biblethmp,
From Webster:
hedonism =
1 : the doctrine that pleasure or happiness is the sole or chief good in life.
2 : a way of life based on or suggesting the principles of hedonism.
And the opposite of hedonism is -
ascetic =
1 : practicing strict self-denial as a measure of personal and especially spiritual discipline
2 : austere in appearance, manner, or attitude
So exactly what is wrong with hedonism? Isn't the dream of every Christian a desire to achieve the absolute in hedonism, a perfect paradise where love and happiness are eternal?
So you would consider the American Constitution a poor standard for morals and ethics, since it makes no reference to a god or a supreme being.
From Webster:
hedonism =
1 : the doctrine that pleasure or happiness is the sole or chief good in life.
2 : a way of life based on or suggesting the principles of hedonism.
And the opposite of hedonism is -
ascetic =
1 : practicing strict self-denial as a measure of personal and especially spiritual discipline
2 : austere in appearance, manner, or attitude
So exactly what is wrong with hedonism? Isn't the dream of every Christian a desire to achieve the absolute in hedonism, a perfect paradise where love and happiness are eternal?
biblthmp,
Low education standards and high levels of ignorance lead to significant gullibility and leave such people open to the indoctrination by unscrupulous Christian brainwashing techniques. Taking advantage of unprepared and ill-informed people is probably one of the most abhorrent and evil practices imaginable.
Of course there is also a direct correlation with the conversions in those countries to their generally very low level of education compared to Europe and the USA.
Low education standards and high levels of ignorance lead to significant gullibility and leave such people open to the indoctrination by unscrupulous Christian brainwashing techniques. Taking advantage of unprepared and ill-informed people is probably one of the most abhorrent and evil practices imaginable.
Not going to answer my question, are you?
Okay, we'll if you've seen miracles, then it must be true, despite the lack of evidence that can be shared with the public. And therefore your eyewitness proves there's a creator of the universe.
Wish you had posted that earlier...would have saved a lot of debating and arguing...
Okay, we'll if you've seen miracles, then it must be true, despite the lack of evidence that can be shared with the public. And therefore your eyewitness proves there's a creator of the universe.
Wish you had posted that earlier...would have saved a lot of debating and arguing...
First hand evidence would go a long way to help convince the skeptics.
Oh, testimony...which is it, demonstration of the healing and the person before/after, or testimony of people who saw someone get healed miraculously?
Big difference, and you'd convert a lot of people if it was good footage of the former and it got on the web.
Well, maybe not convert, but at least you'd do better than anyone else has thus far in supporting the theist case with hard facts. Up to you...
So...would you fill in those blanks with the same things...?
I hate jumping from topic to topic...
Oh, testimony...which is it, demonstration of the healing and the person before/after, or testimony of people who saw someone get healed miraculously?
Big difference, and you'd convert a lot of people if it was good footage of the former and it got on the web.
Well, maybe not convert, but at least you'd do better than anyone else has thus far in supporting the theist case with hard facts. Up to you...
So...would you fill in those blanks with the same things...?
I hate jumping from topic to topic...
biblthmp,
Firstly the blind weren't truly blind, just nearly blind and under intense brainwashing in an emotional atmosphere the so-called blind eventually admits that he can see a little better than before. The minister of course claims a miracle and we have the extraordinary claim that a blind man can now see by the grace of the Lord. But an objective medical test shows no measurable difference.
The same stories occur with the deaf and those that are apparently crippled, etc.
These are all fraudulent claims.
There are many links on the web exposing such frauds. Here is one fairly good quality site I picked at random.
http://www.youngskeptics.org/library/detail.asp?Num=131
Now if you can show several miracles that occurred under strict objective scientific conditions and where independent scientists in peer reviews confirmed the results, then you stand some chance of credibility.
Your clearly biased opinions hardly count as objective.
Yes I have seen such claims before and seen the closer analysis. There have even been some good TV documentaries exposing these frauds.
Firstly the blind weren't truly blind, just nearly blind and under intense brainwashing in an emotional atmosphere the so-called blind eventually admits that he can see a little better than before. The minister of course claims a miracle and we have the extraordinary claim that a blind man can now see by the grace of the Lord. But an objective medical test shows no measurable difference.
The same stories occur with the deaf and those that are apparently crippled, etc.
These are all fraudulent claims.
There are many links on the web exposing such frauds. Here is one fairly good quality site I picked at random.
http://www.youngskeptics.org/library/detail.asp?Num=131
Now if you can show several miracles that occurred under strict objective scientific conditions and where independent scientists in peer reviews confirmed the results, then you stand some chance of credibility.
Your clearly biased opinions hardly count as objective.