People grow up and stop believing in Santa Claus

[Hayabusa Rider]

If xtrians were merciful they would have raptured themselves ages ago so we dont have to listen to their superstitious crap or tolerate their condescending sociopathic morality from some old musty book written by desert bums.

troll thread will troll on.

Says the condescending sociopathic troll

I figure that religion vs atheism isn't really at work in these threads. It's assholes vs. everyone else, and the former may not be infallible, but they are just about as perfect as can be.

 

[Zebo]

/facepalm

I thought you claimed to be a student before you comment. You need to study Islam, read Koran and read statements from from imams of all four schools of Islamic Jurisprudence, watch actions by those with Koran in hand like AQ or hundreds or groups like them, have a look at fate of adherents of other religions in places like Iraq, Egypt, Iran or anywhere else Islam dominates.. Only then will that universalism bullshit will leave you mind forever.

 

[Zebo]

Man Zebo there is way more to you than I thought . But would you expand on the above. Whats your thoughts on lieing killing ect ect of nonbelievers.

Islam is the perfect religion as religions go. Kill those who leave. Make infidels pay taxes, give them second class status, and other economic hardship as an impetus to join. That's why it's spread so fast.

Keep in my first opinon on religion: "Religion serves a practical application: societal order, blue print of life, and answering some very basic questions the human mind has awareness of. e.g. Why am I here? What's purpose of life?"

Islam applies this in spades and eliminates the competition. Something no other religion thought of. Mohammad was a genius.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Interesting Vic , But history is teacher , History shows us that ROME set up the New testament . There is no denying this . Its well documented by the HOLY ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. So Christians believe what ROME dictatated as Trueth . If that Trueth is a LIE . Everthing we believe about it is a lie . There fore none can no the trueth except threw self. Therefor a lie to chtistians may very well be the trueth. So it becomes abstract . Like Modern art. Trueth is hidden from those who except the lie.

There is NO authority on earth . There is No Judge on earth . There is only law . and the living word which Christians try to base there BS beliefs on did say . Make no laws least ye be bound buy them.

YOU must remember that THE Living Word was fullfillment . He did not come to change the law but to fulfill it.

 

[ebaycj]

So what does constitute as a act of kindness or act of evil?

You have a pretty simple mind if you can't figure this out for yourself without any external guidance.

 

[ebaycj]

I do not believe in a "God" or any higher power. Does this make me an amoral sociopath without conscience? No.

I consider myself to be a moral person based on the simple idea that I treat others as how I wish to be treated, and would like others to do the same. My belief is that doing so will generally make our lives more pleasant than if we didn't. And self-interest is definitely rational.

You fail because you cannot see outside your own belief.

This.

 

[ebaycj]

I think you missed my point. Your sole reason for not misbehaving is because of the consequences of being caught. what if you won't get caught?

That is not the sole reason.

I don't kill others, because:
(a) I myself would not like to be killed.
(b) I have people that I care about, that I would not like to see killed.
(c) I don't want to cause unnecessary pain to the families of others.

 

[ebaycj]

Why does this matter? Why does the progression of humanity matter?
So? Why does it matter if it's ideal? Ideal according to who? The universe and everything else doesn't care what is ideal for humanity or not.
See above. Does not matter if any of these things happen or not. They are nice for us, but whether or not our species survives does not matter. There is no evolutionary need for us to survive. Our need to survive is assumed. To pass on our genes, to reproduce-- why does it matter if we reproduce or not, if we survive? It doesn't.
No deity required to act this way but there _IS_ a deity required to explain why we prefer it to be this way and why we consistently choose to erect societies where these morals are upheld. Survival of the society is not an explanation, because as I have already shown, survival of society does not matter to the universe or anything for that matter. There is no need for us to survive that evolution can fill/meet in an atheistic worldview.

What you all will no doubt realize is that in spite of these arguments, you still prefer a world without God. This is our sin, that we prefer to make our own way; when God has shown a path to life and meaning and fullness of joy that is freely offered to all if we will admit our rebellion, repent, and ask for forgiveness.

The survival of society doesn't need to "matter".

The fact that the individuals in society collectively recognize that they are alive and self-aware, and that they collectively enjoy being alive and self-aware, is reason enough for the society to desire to continue on. (Hence, the reason for murder/theft/rape/fraud laws, etc...).

I think, though, that you are somewhat conflating atheism with nihilism. And they are not the same at all.

Theism = god exists and matters. society exists and matters because god says so.

Atheism = god doesn't exist and therefore doesn't matter.. society exists and matters because individuals enjoy being alive and being good to other people, and would like to collectively continue to do so.

Nihilism = nothing matters, fuck it all.

 

[ShawnD1]

Atheism = god doesn't exist and therefore doesn't matter.. society exists and matters because individuals enjoy being alive and being good to other people, and would like to collectively continue to do so.

Not that I agree with what you're saying, but my friend said something similar to this a few days ago. When talking about a powerplant in my city that was apparently built on top of some burial ground, he noted that it was interesting how society places the value of dead people above that of living people. Healthcare? Go die in a hole, scumbag. Cemetary? Holy shit don't move those around!! Dead people will get upset!

 

[theflyingpig]

Not that I agree with what you're saying, but my friend said something similar to this a few days ago. When talking about a powerplant in my city that was apparently built on top of some burial ground, he noted that it was interesting how society places the value of dead people above that of living people. Healthcare? Go die in a hole, scumbag. Cemetary? Holy shit don't move those around!! Dead people will get upset!

What about taking the organs of the dead? There was a thread about how Israel used to do it, and people were up in arms about it. I have no problem with harvesting organs from the dead, as long as the body remains in a viewable condition so that the family can grieve properly. What are your thoughts on this matter, ShawnD1? I'm interested to know.

 

[ebaycj]

What about taking the organs of the dead? There was a thread about how Israel used to do it, and people were up in arms about it. I have no problem with harvesting organs from the dead, as long as the body remains in a viewable condition so that the family can grieve properly. What are your thoughts on this matter, ShawnD1? I'm interested to know.

Even though I'm not ShawnD1, and even though you are an insufferable jerk most of the time, I still agree with this. Once an individual is dead, any good their organs can do for others, should be done, family's preferences be damned. As you said, there should be a provision for keeping the body as intact as possible for grieving purposes. Maybe they could do the removals through the back or something. Removing the requirement to resuscitate the person after organ removal surgery (since they're dead already) should lead to some interesting compromises in surgical procedure.

 

[Jeff7]

Not that I agree with what you're saying, but my friend said something similar to this a few days ago. When talking about a powerplant in my city that was apparently built on top of some burial ground, he noted that it was interesting how society places the value of dead people above that of living people. Healthcare? Go die in a hole, scumbag. Cemetary? Holy shit don't move those around!! Dead people will get upset!

Yeah, we've got some weird rituals concerning dead people.
Preserve them? If you feel a need to have your body preserved after death, that seems to me like a sign that you feel that your life was so unmemorable that you need a pristine corpse left behind to remind people of you.
"Death is the state in which we exist in the memory of those we leave behind." Or something to that effect, I might be mixing two quotes there.
That, or else you've just got some kind of inflated ego problem, that you believe you are too awesome to let something like death stand in the way of people stroking your zombie ego.

The Universe existed just fine before you ever existed, it'll do just fine once you've completely decomposed. So please, stop getting in the way of that, and stop occupying land with the memorials. (Seriously, if you want some sort of a memorial or small engraved stone tablet or something, let your family hang onto it, on their own property somewhere.)

 

[MikeMike]

no matter what, people must believe in something... the ever present degredation of cultural religion is being replaced by belief in government.

 

[ebaycj]

no matter what, people must believe in something... the ever present degredation of cultural religion is being replaced by belief in government.

... A welcome change, since we at least have a say (by democratic process) of how government works.

 

[Zorkorist]

Government is a harsh mistress.

 

[ericlp]

I'd rather believe in Santa then religion or a republican or a democrat.

 

[Zorkorist]

You shouldn't believe in anything.

People like the OP want you to accept being a Janitor.

That is probably unacceptable to you.

 

[ShawnD1]

What about taking the organs of the dead?

Default status is "yes, donate organs" unless you file the paperwork to not have your body salvaged for parts. This doesn't stomp on anyone's rights because you could still opt out, but most people won't opt out if it means filling out a single sheet of paper and paying a $10 fee.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Not that I agree with what you're saying, but my friend said something similar to this a few days ago. When talking about a powerplant in my city that was apparently built on top of some burial ground, he noted that it was interesting how society places the value of dead people above that of living people. Healthcare? Go die in a hole, scumbag. Cemetary? Holy shit don't move those around!! Dead people will get upset!

I understand your reasoning here . But . Inorder to have a successful future we need to learn from the Past . Holding human life above other life forms , Also requires that you respect the dead. You married. Got kids . If so your a goat Lol . Just kidding . If you had a child and it died , and you buried that Child , How would ya feel about me pissing or shitting on its grave. Don't even say it wouldn't hurt . Because it would. Because that Child meant alot to yourself . That doesn't change after your dead. Its a continuation of respect from future generations on how they feel about lost ones they have . Its all about respect. Nothing more. It is a crime tho that a decent burial is $15,ooo .

 

[soccerballtux]

How do you know God is good? How do you know the path God's set out.
It says so in the Bible.
(Which, interestingly enough, why would you need evidence to support your faith-based belief?)

How can you trust what's in the Bible?
The Bible says it's valid.

Everyone assumes something. All that you say is fine and good, but the second you make a claim to being in the right over Mussolini or Mao or condemning them for their actions, you become inconsistent.
Humanity on the whole assumes it's better that Mao and Mussolini not do the things they do. But the second they say anything more than "it's my preference that they do this and I have no right to condemn their actions or keep them from doing them to other humans", they become inconsistent with their worldview.

The Bible provides a rational basis for morality-- morality flows out of God's character. If the Bible is from God, then we can believe it and trust what it says.
I can logically condemn Mao and Mussolini as being wrong, because as morality flows out of God's character, and since God is the ultimate and supreme good, everything he says is the best way of doing it. Specifically in this case, these leaders were wrong because humans being made in the image of God have worth and value and thus are not to be mistreated.

The atheist cannot condemn these rulers and be consistent with his atheism beyond saying "I personally prefer that they not do these things". This is all I am trying to show.

 

[Jeff7]

Everyone assumes something. All that you say is fine and good, but the second you make a claim to being in the right over Mussolini or Mao or condemning them for their actions, you become inconsistent.

Inconsistent? Howso?

The Bible provides a rational basis for morality-- morality flows out of God's character. If the Bible is from God, then we can believe it and trust what it says.

Yes. "IF" the Bible is from God.
How do you know it is though?

The atheist cannot condemn these rulers and be consistent with his atheism beyond saying "I personally prefer that they not do these things". This is all I am trying to show.

And again, why is this inconsistent? What is this "atheism" I have to be consistent with? The context it's being used in is a bit odd.

Atheism = It's the same atheism you have toward all gods that aren't yours. Mine is just more inclusive, it includes all gods. That's pretty much it. There's no atheist dogma or anything like that that has to be adhered to.



Oh, and be careful when using the word "logic" with religion.
I shall thusly cite words from the Church of the Invisible Pink Unicorn:
"Invisible Pink Unicorns are beings of great spiritual power. We know this because they are capable of being invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them."

It's as valid an argument as any I've heard to show the validity of any "real" religion. It incorporates both faith and logic. What more could you want?

 

[ShawnD1]

How would ya feel about me pissing or shitting on its grave. Don't even say it wouldn't hurt . Because it would.

My family is roman catholic and we believe that your soul, if it exists, is not attached to your body. People involved in things like Hiroshima can have their body completely destroyed, but their soul can still go to heaven. My grandmother was incinerated and her ashes are somewhere downstairs because we know that what happens to her body really doesn't matter.
Those plots of land set aside for cemeteries do nothing for the dead and I don't mind seeing them destroyed because they shouldn't exist in the first place. If we had a grave for each of the billions of people who have died, earth would be nothing but graves. From god's perspective, it would probably look like Sim City 3000 when you put a block of residential and the asshole sims put up a bunch of abandoned buildings instead of houses.

The Bible provides a rational basis for morality

Catholics ignore most of the old testament because it has morals that no longer apply to us. It literally says that wool and linen cloth should not be blended together (ie your shirt is 70% cotton 30% polyester, that kind of blending). It literally says that you're not allowed to eat most of what is served at Red Lobster because things like lobsters and crabs do not have scales or fins. We accept that morality changes over time. Eating a pig may have been illegal 2000 years ago, but nowadays we don't care. Similarly, owning a slave in the US 200 years ago was perfectly legal, but now it's not (damn liberals).

I can logically condemn Mao and Mussolini as being wrong, because as morality flows out of God's character, and since God is the ultimate and supreme good, everything he says is the best way of doing it. Specifically in this case, these leaders were wrong because humans being made in the image of God have worth and value and thus are not to be mistreated.

I take it you haven't read the bible before.

King James Bible, Samuel 1, Page 15:

15:1 Samuel also said unto Saul, The LORD sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the LORD.

15:2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.

15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

15:4 And Saul gathered the people together, and numbered them in Telaim, two hundred thousand footmen, and ten thousand men of Judah.

15:5 And Saul came to a city of Amalek, and laid wait in the valley.

15:6 And Saul said unto the Kenites, Go, depart, get you down from among the Amalekites, lest I destroy you with them: for ye shewed kindness to all the children of Israel, when they came up out of Egypt. So the Kenites departed from among the Amalekites.

15:7 And Saul smote the Amalekites from Havilah until thou comest to Shur, that is over against Egypt.

15:8 And he took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword.

God explicitly told them to destroy Amalek. Kill all men, kill all women, kill all children, kill all of their animals. Spare nothing.

 

[Nemesis 1]

I am not going to school you on religion , That time is long past. But to reject the old testment goes against Catholic doctrin or dogma if you preferr.

 

[soccerballtux]

My family is roman catholic and we believe that your soul, if it exists, is not attached to your body. People involved in things like Hiroshima can have their body completely destroyed, but their soul can still go to heaven. My grandmother was incinerated and her ashes are somewhere downstairs because we know that what happens to her body really doesn't matter.
Those plots of land set aside for cemeteries do nothing for the dead and I don't mind seeing them destroyed because they shouldn't exist in the first place. If we had a grave for each of the billions of people who have died, earth would be nothing but graves. From god's perspective, it would probably look like Sim City 3000 when you put a block of residential and the asshole sims put up a bunch of abandoned buildings instead of houses.


Catholics ignore most of the old testament because it has morals that no longer apply to us. It literally says that wool and linen cloth should not be blended together (ie your shirt is 70% cotton 30% polyester, that kind of blending). It literally says that you're not allowed to eat most of what is served at Red Lobster because things like lobsters and crabs do not have scales or fins. We accept that morality changes over time. Eating a pig may have been illegal 2000 years ago, but nowadays we don't care. Similarly, owning a slave in the US 200 years ago was perfectly legal, but now it's not (damn liberals).


I take it you haven't read the bible before.

King James Bible, Samuel 1, Page 15:

God explicitly told them to destroy Amalek. Kill all men, kill all women, kill all children, kill all of their animals. Spare nothing.

Missing the point of all that. Those crazy specific codes/rules were given to show us that God requires perfection, and the kind of perfection he requires is not attainable by us.
Same with the Amalek thing. Why do you think he told them to spare nothing? Because he requires purity. This is also why they had to sacrifice for all their sins-- so that it would be ingrained into their lives and minds that sin requires a payment-- a heft one-- the giving of life. It had to be a spotless lamb sacrificed to signify the need for a perfect sacrifice that could cover not itself but someone who had sinned, if the sinner's life was to continue and the sinner was to be in a relationship with God.

 

[soccerballtux]

And again, why is this inconsistent? What is this "atheism" I have to be consistent with? The context it's being used in is a bit odd.

re-read my post and previous posts, I've explained the inconsistency a few times.