Which religion(s) do you have a problem with?

[This_person]

You must be a talented interrogator, of just too hardheaded to accept the fact that people can be good, just to be good. They don't need to be blackmailed or extorted, or threatened to do it, they just do it.

Forget God,

Just be good for goodness sake.

What's "good"? What standard should we go by?

 

[mAlice]

I am a talented debater, as I dialogued with Atheists for over a decade at one point in time. I could take your good just to be good without God comment, strip it down to it's bare essentials, and rationally run it in the ground, but somd.com is not a good venue for that. You sure you don't wanna go for that long couple cups of coffee? I'm not out to convert you, just merely get you to be reasonable.

And hey, I'm just telling you what all true Atheists have told me, I can't help it if you don't it when I'm being informative. :shrug:

You may be a talented debater, and I know I'm a terrible debater, but this is an old discussion on these forums. I have presented arguments, with historical documentation to support my argument, and it has not gained me, or any other athiest, any more respect than what is typically posted towards us here on the forums. It would be a complete and total waste of my time, as well as yours, to attempt to get a bunch of forum noobs to understand.

This is why I rarely post in the warm, wonderful religion forums anymore.

Perhaps if christians didn't have so much disdain for athiests, we'd have less disdain for christians.

 

[Radiant1]

I'd say 'good to be good' is pretty bare bones ....

You can't call the purposes of pleasure synapses (endorphines or what have you) morality - unless you want to conveniently change the definition of morality. Anyone who does something good for their own physical pleasure is not doing a moral act.

There is no morality without the belief in a Higher Power or at least living with the conditioning of such a belief. Anyone who does something good because they think or feel it's the right thing to do is doing a moral act and thereby is a believer in one shape, form or another, or influenced (known or unknown) by believers.

 

[mAlice]

There is no morality without the belief in a Higher Power or at least living with the conditioning of such a belief. Anyone who does something good because they think or feel it's the right thing to do is doing a moral act and thereby is a believer in one shape, form or another, or influenced (known or unknown) by believers.

I bet the cults love you.

 

[Xaquin44]

You can't call the purposes of pleasure synapses (endorphines or what have you) morality - unless you want to conveniently change the definition of morality. Anyone who does something good for their own physical pleasure is not doing a moral act.

There is no morality without the belief in a Higher Power or at least living with the conditioning of such a belief. Anyone who does something good because they think or feel it's the right thing to do is doing a moral act and thereby is a believer in one shape, form or another, or influenced (known or unknown) by believers.

except people who did so before organized religion .... apparently they don't count?

also, what about kids? My kid doesn't know about god or higher powers (being three) but he'll do nice things all the time.

 

[itsbob]

You can't call the purposes of pleasure synapses (endorphines or what have you) morality - unless you want to conveniently change the definition of morality. Anyone who does something good for their own physical pleasure is not doing a moral act.

There is no morality without the belief in a Higher Power or at least living with the conditioning of such a belief. Anyone who does something good because they think or feel it's the right thing to do is doing a moral act and thereby is a believer in one shape, form or another, or influenced (known or unknown) by believers.

The brainwashing is almost complete in this one..

 

[Radiant1]

I bet the cults love you.

Probably. Christianity was a "cult" at one time too. :shrug:

except people who did so before organized religion .... apparently they don't count?

also, what about kids? My kid doesn't know about god or higher powers (being three) but he'll do nice things all the time.

Forget about organized religion, I'm not even talking about that. When it comes to this conversation of Atheists and morality think God or no God simply put.

Sure your kid will and why do you suppose that is? Because either you teach him too or because he was born with a soul made by God. I'm surprised you so easily walked into that.

 

[sunmoonstars]

It's not counfusing to understand that you believe what you were told. You believe your churches interpretation of the Bible. Others believe their churches interpretation as told to them by their church. Chrisitans can't even agree as to what to believe in, and they all read the same book!!
There is no "oneness" of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit.. but niether is there oneness between Hermione and Harry.
Show me in the scruiptures where it says this.

With Pleasure..
John 10:30..
King James Version, New American Standard Bible, and New Living Translation and 21st Century King James Version
and do me a favor find the word Trinity in the Bible..
thanks..

 

[mAlice]

Probably. Christianity was a "cult" at one time too. :shrug:

It's still a cult.

 

[Snake_Plissken]

I don't have a problem with religions at all, I have a problem with religious extremists of all types. Atheists, that means you too.

I also happen to have a problem with drastic misinformation. Allow me to correct a few things:

Atheists do not believe themselves to be and worship themselves as gods - that's LaVey Satanism. The idea behind that is that gods are merely inventions of man, and therefore worship of man is more direct and logical, preferably oneself. They allow personal indulgence so long as it does not hurt others.

Jehovah's Witnesses do drink alcohol, but they do not promote overindulgence, as basically any religion does. The big points for them are that they do not believe in blood transfusions, holidays, religious statues, or voting.

I would also like to point out last of all that lack of evidence does not prove nonexistence - there's really no way to disprove God, but there's no way to prove him either. That aside you really won't change anybody's mind in the long run - that takes a personal revelation. Argument over petty things as such is irrelevant. And have some respect for people - calling one's deep personal belief a "fairy tale" or their sacred book a "work of fiction" is immature, obnoxious and childish.

As for itsbob, it's widely acknowledge by secular scholars EVERYWHERE that there are MANY factual events depicted in the Bible that are corroborated by other period-specific documents. Even those with minimalist views regarding biblical historicity submit that events after a certain date are pretty spot-on. You can't write it off as a work of fiction because you don't necessarily agree with what it says. The major difference as well between Jehovah's Witnesses and other forms of Christianity is that they decided to modernize their translation and cross-reference it with newly-discovered documents rather than continue to use a hundreds-years-old King James translation. Pull your head out of your ass.

Morals also, believe it or not, can be exclusive from one's religion. Atheists have morals too, and there certainly are self-proclaimed Christians that totally lack morals. Perhaps history's most famous example is that of Father Grigori Rasputin, the drunkard, womanizing "holy man" attached to the last Czarina of Russia. Don't judge a religion on the basis of its members.

And for the record I'm deist.

 

[itsbob]

When did science prove God doesn't exist?

When did anyone prove He did??

Let's see.. the world is only 6000 years old.. Check. God got that one right.


man walked with the Dinosaurs.. Another check in the God column.. he got that one right..

Eve was made from Adam's rib.. but WAIT.. they both have the same amount of ribs.. But we'll give God that one too.. because we're good people after all.

The normal life span of a man during the dinosaur years was >600 years..

Bushes talked.. and people listened..

The world flooded, but there is no evidence.. there was an Ark with every animal on the planet on it... but no evidence of a monstorus ship EVER being built, or even the logistics of it EVER working out.

Yep, you got me, God exists, I had it wrong, just waaaay too much evidence to think otherwise.

 

[mAlice]

because he was born with a soul made by God.

And this is the problem with trying to have a discussion with christians. They are incapable of being objective.

 

[Xaquin44]

Probably. Christianity was a "cult" at one time too. :shrug:

all of them were ....

Forget about organized religion, I'm not even talking about that. When it comes to this conversation of Atheists and morality think God or no God simply put.

let me ask you this then. Why would existence of a god bring morals?

Example: People living in the wilds of Australia love and care for their children and give gifts and aid to friends when they need it and vice versa. They have neither heard nor care about god. For them, there is no god. Yet, they manage as a civilization. Are they immoral?

Sure your kid will and why do you suppose that is? Because either you teach him too or because he was born with a soul made by God. I'm surprised you so easily walked into that.

I teach him to be nice sure, but I don't worship any gods .... so 'god' has nothing to do with it.

Also, a soul made by god is born sinful (I don't believe this at all, but it's been told to me numerous times by the denizens of this forum) so I'd wager that has nothing to do with the price of tea in china.

 

[itsbob]

As for itsbob, it's widely acknowledge by secular scholars EVERYWHERE that there are MANY factual events depicted in the Bible that are corroborated by other period-specific documents. Even those with minimalist views regarding biblical historicity submit that events after a certain date are pretty spot-on. You can't write it off as a work of fiction because you don't necessarily agree with what it says. The major difference as well between Jehovah's Witnesses and other forms of Christianity is that they decided to modernize their translation and cross-reference it with newly-discovered documents rather than continue to use a hundreds-years-old King James translation. Pull your head out of your ass.

Stephen King has the same writing style.. Actual places and events worked into his manuscripts.. he even includes REAL people.. though I don't think any of his live to the ripe old age of 600, or walk on water.

So the Shining must be true??

to think, in 2000 years humans maybe gathering to pray to the God Cujo!!

 

[sunmoonstars]

And when Jesus had been baptized, just as he came up from the water, suddenly the heavens were opened to him and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him.Anda voice from heaven said, "This is mySon, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased." (Matthew 3:13-17)

Granted he's God, but it seems to me here that he is two seperate entities.. One in the water (Jesus) getting baptized and one (God) above proclaiming that it was his Son in the water getting baptized.
What you got?

Revelation 20:4And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
OH one more..
Deuteronomy 6:4-Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD
Oh wait one more..
Acts 2:38-Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost
Wow...is this another..

Matthew 1:23
Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us

 

[Radiant1]

except people who did so before organized religion .... apparently they don't count?

And yeah, let's talk about these people because they count!

Let's go back to cavemen.

Caveman Xaquin finds a woman and thinks she's beautiful, far more than that hag in the cave next door, ug ug this is beauty! From where this concept of beauty?

Caveman Xaquin finds that his beautiful woman gives him little peeps, ug ug peeps good! From where this concept of good?

Caveman Xaquin finds that he has these heart felt feelings for his woman and his peeps, ug ug this is love! From where this concept love?

Caveman Xaquin is sure that the sun is necessary for life, even though the retard in the cave next door says it's the moon, ug ug this is truth! From where this concept of truth?

Silly example I know but you get the point, yes? Truth, goodness, beauty, love - until someone can prove these things like this have evolved then mankind will continue to believe in a Higher Power.

 

[itsbob]

With Pleasure..
John 10:30..
King James Version, New American Standard Bible, and New Living Translation and 21st Century King James Version
and do me a favor find the word Trinity in the Bible..
thanks..

Check your translation history for John 10:30 and you'll find the correct term was "I and the Father"... Tricky translations get you every time.

1) There is one God: Deuteronomy 6:4; 1 Corinthians 8:4; Galatians 3:20; 1 Timothy 2:5.

2) The Trinity consists of three Persons: Genesis 1:1; 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Isaiah 6:8; 48:16; 61:1; Matthew 3:16-17; Matt 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14. In the passages in the Old Testament, a knowledge of Hebrew is helpful. In Genesis 1:1, the plural noun "Elohim" is used. In Genesis 1:26; 3:22; 11:7 and Isaiah 6:8, the plural pronoun for "us" is used. That "Elohim" and "us" refer to more than two is WITHOUT question. In English, you only have two forms, singular and plural. In Hebrew, you have three forms: singular, dual, and plural. Dual is for two ONLY. In Hebrew, the dual form is used for things that come in pairs like eyes, ears, and hands. The word "Elohim" and the pronoun "us" are plural forms - definitely more than two - and must be referring to three or more (Father, Son, Holy Spirit).

In Isaiah 48:16 and 61:1, the Son is speaking while making reference to the Father and the Holy Spirit. Compare Isaiah 61:1 to Luke 4:14-19 to see that it is the Son speaking. Matthew 3:16-17 describes the event of Jesus' baptism. Seen in this is God the Holy Spirit descending on God the Son while God the Father proclaims His pleasure in the Son. Matthew 28:19 and 2 Corinthians 13:14 are examples of 3 distinct persons in the Trinity.

3) The members of the Trinity are distinguished one from another in various passages: In the Old Testament, "LORD" is distinguished from "Lord" (Genesis 19:24; Hosea 1:4). The "LORD" has a "Son" (Psalm 2:7, 12; Proverbs 30:2-4). Spirit is distinguished from the "LORD" (Numbers 27:18) and from "God" (Psalm 51:10-12). God the Son is distinguished from God the Father (Psalm 45:6-7; Hebrews 1:8-9). In the New Testament, John 14:16-17 is where Jesus speaks to the Father about sending a Helper, the Holy Spirit. This shows that Jesus did not consider Himself to be the Father or the Holy Spirit. Consider also all of the other times in the Gospels where Jesus speaks to the Father. Was He speaking to Himself? No. He spoke to another person in the Trinity - the Father.

 

[Snake_Plissken]

Stephen King has the same writing style.. Actual places and events worked into his manuscripts.. he even includes REAL people.. though I don't think any of his live to the ripe old age of 600, or walk on water.

So the Shining must be true??

to think, in 2000 years humans maybe gathering to pray to the God Cujo!!

The primary difference, of course, being that Stephen King is one man and that the Bible was written by many people, all of whom somewhat kept to reasonably the same continuity that's also dictated elsewhere. Although we might qualify Stephen King's work as a whole as fiction, if it does indeed contain true events then they themselves are true. The fictional part of it does not unconditionally invalidate the rest of the work - that's absolutely foolish. Don't try to twist my words around.

I stand by what I said before - unless you can ABSOLUTELY PROVE OTHERWISE that anything in the Bible did not happen, you have no case. Period. You can disagree with it all you want and cite implausibility, but the honest truth is that nobody truly knows, so we're all just as right as one another. Get off your high horse.

I might also add that it is entirely plausible that man lived longer years ago, given that genetic impurities that started out as mutations have now spread throughout the entire human race, not to mention that our atmosphere and planetary conditions have certainly changed in the past couple millenia.

 

[sunmoonstars]

When did anyone prove He did??
The world flooded, but there is no evidence.. there was an Ark with every animal on the planet on it... but no evidence of a monstorus ship EVER being built, or even the logistics of it EVER working out.

QUOTE]

CNN.com - Satellite closes in on Noah's Ark mystery - Mar 13, 2006
it's on CNN..does that make it true?? People seem to think everything else on there is...

 

[itsbob]

Revelation 20:4And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
OH one more..
Deuteronomy 6:4-Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD
Oh wait one more..
Acts 2:38-Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost
Wow...is this another..

Matthew 1:23
Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us

Notice the difference between LORD and Lord, when speaking of God and Jesus?

Don't quite understand what other point you were trying to make above.