Do you only think that because I said it FOR you, or do you REALLY believe that? Of course, you'll say you really believe that...But I believe that if I never said that, you wouldn't have said it. I believe you to be bearing false witness currently. ;)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i really have no idea what you mean by that. sorry. :-k

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

plz explain.

really? let me think, theres like 100000 laws in the united states that all just enforce 10 things. know what they are? the ten commandments. id say that if everyone followed them the world would be BETTER not worse?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rubbish. An atheist could draw up an equally valid set of basic rules with no reference to God that work just as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A sample:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Do not do to others what you would not want them to do you.

 

 

 

2. In all things, strive to cause no harm.

 

 

 

3. Treat your fellow human beings, your fellow living things, and the world in general with love, honesty, faithfulness and respect.

 

 

 

4. Do not overlook evil or shrink from administering justice, but always be ready to forgive wrongdoing freely admitted and honestly regretted.

 

 

 

5. Live life with a sense of joy and wonder.

 

 

 

6. Always seek to learn something new.

 

 

 

7. Test all things; always check your ideas against the facts, and be ready to discard even a cherished belief if it does not conform to them.

 

 

 

8. Never seek to censor or cut yourself off from dissent; always respect the right of others to disagree with you.

 

 

 

9. Form independent opinions on the basis of your own reason and experience; do not allow yourself to be led blindly by others.

 

 

 

10. Question everything.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is no religious basis for that lot, quite the opposite, so don't give me that "the decalogue is a great way to live", because that sample above looks to me to be a far better way of living than an ancient tablet.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think Richard Dawkins is a mouth-breathing butt-muncher, but that's just me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I've read segments of his book and have seen him do interviews, and nothing he says is new or revolutionary...I've seen better debate here, infact. Plus, he over-does it on the anti-God rhetoric. I remember one particular quote where he went on for like 20 words describing how God acted in the bible using words like "Malevolent", "dangerous", "racist" (umm?), "ethnic cleanser" (again, umm?), etc etc etc. He just kept going...For like 20 some words. Maybe more. I was like "Okay, I get the point. God isn't very pleasant..." only to be slammed in the head with MORE hateful words...I mean, a couple would have done it justice, but the way he did it just made him seem like an some dude with an anti-religion agenda, no matter how right his statements were.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I believe that any "disproving" of the Bible and/or God should be done without bias...I mean, it's quite simple to do when you use simple common sense. You don't need to use hate to do it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, I thought you might have that kind of view of him.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I've actually seen the man speak and he is very articulate and clearly incredibly intelligent. His ideas may not be revolutionary, but that's not the point, the point is that they are out there and should be taken serious note of.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you're curious:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"racist" (umm?)

"The chosen people", God ordered his chosen people to kill other tribes early on in the old testament, and to mix the race of the chosen ones with others was a sin, normally punishable by death.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"ethnic cleanser" (again, umm?)

Oh that's easy, Noah's ark is just one example of many, but one that we teach to our children as some kind of heartwarming tale.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I suggest you read all of the book, not just segments, it's honestly very interesting.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He may have an anti-religion agenda, but it's not some kind of prejudice, it's based on reason, fact and logic, and out of a genuine concern for fellow humans who are harmed by religion in one way or another. Besides, his agenda is only words and reasoned debate, not like the many death threats he's received.

There is no religious basis for that lot, quite the opposite, so don't give me that "the decalogue is a great way to live", because that sample above looks to me to be a far better way of living than an ancient tablet.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're right. But that's also coming from someone who has grown up in a society that has been controlled by Judeo/Christian beliefs for over a thousand years. Where/why do you think you have come up with those ideas?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Everyone here agrees that you shouldn't harm other people because everyone here grew up in a culture dominated by Judeo/Christian values. Elsewhere in the world where other values dominate the culture (sometimes similar, sometimes not) that is different.

 

 

 

Everyone here agrees that you shouldn't harm other people because everyone here grew up in a culture dominated by Judeo/Christian values. Elsewhere in the world where other values dominate the culture (sometimes similar, sometimes not) that is different.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Asian cultures and countries have much less hate crimes and criminal activity in general than western countries and their culture barely even knows the judeochristian values.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Moral values aren't exclusive to any one religion. Most "moral values" are common sense and are practised everywhere.

Asian cultures and countries have much less hate crimes and criminal activity in general than western countries and their culture barely even knows the judeochristian values.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nor did I deny that some values are apparent in other cultures - but those values still come from something that is typically non-secular.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Moral values aren't exclusive to any one religion. Most "moral values" are common sense and are practised everywhere.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I didn't say they were - you're misquoting me. I very clearly said that moral values can be the same in other cultures. However - not a single moral value transcends EVERY culture and the root of moral values is almost always some form of religion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My point was that his list of "secular" values is only the product of his Judeo/Christian upbringing for over a 1000 years. I NEVER said that ALL values come from Judeo/Christian beliefs and I don't appreciate you insinuating that I did.

Rubbish. An atheist could draw up an equally valid set of basic rules with no reference to God that work just as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A sample:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Do not do to others what you would not want them to do you.

 

 

 

2. In all things, strive to cause no harm.

 

 

 

3. Treat your fellow human beings, your fellow living things, and the world in general with love, honesty, faithfulness and respect.

 

 

 

4. Do not overlook evil or shrink from administering justice, but always be ready to forgive wrongdoing freely admitted and honestly regretted.

 

 

 

5. Live life with a sense of joy and wonder.

 

 

 

6. Always seek to learn something new.

 

 

 

7. Test all things; always check your ideas against the facts, and be ready to discard even a cherished belief if it does not conform to them.

 

 

 

8. Never seek to censor or cut yourself off from dissent; always respect the right of others to disagree with you.

 

 

 

9. Form independent opinions on the basis of your own reason and experience; do not allow yourself to be led blindly by others.

 

 

 

10. Question everything.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is no religious basis for that lot, quite the opposite, so don't give me that "the decalogue is a great way to live", because that sample above looks to me to be a far better way of living than an ancient tablet.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's a fine set of rules, but what reason do you have to follow them? I mean, you have your set of morals, and I believe that you'll follow your morals because you want to follow them, and because you're a moral person. But I see no reason why you should have a binding commitment to a set of morals that have no justification other than your choice to follow them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What basis do you have for saying those things are good? Are they good because you say they are good? Do you have any right to criticise those who follow a different set of moral guidelines?

 

There is no religious basis for that lot, quite the opposite, so don't give me that "the decalogue is a great way to live", because that sample above looks to me to be a far better way of living than an ancient tablet.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're right. But that's also coming from someone who has grown up in a society that has been controlled by Judeo/Christian beliefs for over a thousand years. Where/why do you think you have come up with those ideas?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Everyone here agrees that you shouldn't harm other people because everyone here grew up in a culture dominated by Judeo/Christian values. Elsewhere in the world where other values dominate the culture (sometimes similar, sometimes not) that is different.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Partly true, but the roots of morality are not exclusive to religion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Various studies and tests (the details of which I can give you) have been conducted on non-religious tribal groups in various countries, with little to no contact with the western world and religious groups in western society. When it came to making some kind of choice to do with saving someone's life, the religious groups and the non-religious groups had similar results.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Morality has it's roots in Darwinism, and you don't need religion at any point to be have a moral concept.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Indeed, morals change over time. Pioneers of morality in their time (Lincoln) were actually semi-racists. Morals advance and change over time, religion is holding them back in many cases.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's a fine set of rules, but what reason do you have to follow them? I mean, you have your set of morals, and I believe that you'll follow your morals because you want to follow them, and because you're a moral person. But I see no reason why you should have a binding commitment to a set of morals that have no justification other than your choice to follow them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What basis do you have for saying those things are good? Are they good because you say they are good? Do you have any right to criticise those who follow a different set of moral guidelines?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are you saying that we should only follow rules because there's a God to punish us if we don't? Are you saying in an atheist society there would be anarchy and riots, with no reason for the law to exist?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm an atheist, but i'm not a nihilist. If morality is rooted in Darwinsism, clearly the next step up from that. Our morals are not purely for the basis of the survival of the fittest, yet we're beyond that. It's pretty obvious really, animals have a sense of morality to further their species, but we don't need to do that anymore, so our morals have evolved beyond that stage, into a more abstract sense.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I can't explain it as well as i'd like, but I can refer you to:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why Good Is Good, by Robert Hinde

 

 

 

The Science of Good and Evil by Michael Shermer and Robert Buckman's Can We Be Good Without God? for a far better explanation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But if you're honestly saying that in the absence of a God you'd commit rape, robbery and murder, then i'm worried. :P

Partly true, but the roots of morality are not exclusive to religion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Various studies and tests (the details of which I can give you) have been conducted on non-religious tribal groups in various countries, with little to no contact with the western world and religious groups in western society. When it came to making some kind of choice to do with saving someone's life, the religious groups and the non-religious groups had similar results.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Morality has it's roots in Darwinism, and you don't need religion at any point to be have a moral concept.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Indeed, morals change over time. Pioneers of morality in their time (Lincoln) were actually semi-racists. Morals advance and change over time, religion is holding them back in many cases.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm interested in these groups who have no spiritual beliefs at all, yet remain so primitive. Can you PM me the information?

What basis do you have for saying those things are good? Are they good because you say they are good? Do you have any right to criticise those who follow a different set of moral guidelines?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh God no...please not again...

 

"ethnic cleanser" (again, umm?)

Oh that's easy, Noah's ark is just one example of many, but one that we teach to our children as some kind of heartwarming tale.

 

 

 

Hey, we teach our kids Ring around the Posie too. Not like anyone thinks that's evil.

 

Rubbish. An atheist could draw up an equally valid set of basic rules with no reference to God that work just as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A sample:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Do not do to others what you would not want them to do you.

 

 

 

2. In all things, strive to cause no harm.

 

 

 

3. Treat your fellow human beings, your fellow living things, and the world in general with love, honesty, faithfulness and respect.

 

 

 

4. Do not overlook evil or shrink from administering justice, but always be ready to forgive wrongdoing freely admitted and honestly regretted.

 

 

 

5. Live life with a sense of joy and wonder.

 

 

 

6. Always seek to learn something new.

 

 

 

7. Test all things; always check your ideas against the facts, and be ready to discard even a cherished belief if it does not conform to them.

 

 

 

8. Never seek to censor or cut yourself off from dissent; always respect the right of others to disagree with you.

 

 

 

9. Form independent opinions on the basis of your own reason and experience; do not allow yourself to be led blindly by others.

 

 

 

10. Question everything.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is no religious basis for that lot, quite the opposite, so don't give me that "the decalogue is a great way to live", because that sample above looks to me to be a far better way of living than an ancient tablet.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's a fine set of rules, but what reason do you have to follow them? I mean, you have your set of morals, and I believe that you'll follow your morals because you want to follow them, and because you're a moral person. But I see no reason why you should have a binding commitment to a set of morals that have no justification other than your choice to follow them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What basis do you have for saying those things are good? Are they good because you say they are good? Do you have any right to criticise those who follow a different set of moral guidelines?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXACTLY! WHY DO IT IT DOESNT REALLY MATTER IF YOU DO IT OR NOT!

 

 

Rubbish. An atheist could draw up an equally valid set of basic rules with no reference to God that work just as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A sample:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Do not do to others what you would not want them to do you.

 

 

 

2. In all things, strive to cause no harm.

 

 

 

3. Treat your fellow human beings, your fellow living things, and the world in general with love, honesty, faithfulness and respect.

 

 

 

4. Do not overlook evil or shrink from administering justice, but always be ready to forgive wrongdoing freely admitted and honestly regretted.

 

 

 

5. Live life with a sense of joy and wonder.

 

 

 

6. Always seek to learn something new.

 

 

 

7. Test all things; always check your ideas against the facts, and be ready to discard even a cherished belief if it does not conform to them.

 

 

 

8. Never seek to censor or cut yourself off from dissent; always respect the right of others to disagree with you.

 

 

 

9. Form independent opinions on the basis of your own reason and experience; do not allow yourself to be led blindly by others.

 

 

 

10. Question everything.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is no religious basis for that lot, quite the opposite, so don't give me that "the decalogue is a great way to live", because that sample above looks to me to be a far better way of living than an ancient tablet.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's a fine set of rules, but what reason do you have to follow them? I mean, you have your set of morals, and I believe that you'll follow your morals because you want to follow them, and because you're a moral person. But I see no reason why you should have a binding commitment to a set of morals that have no justification other than your choice to follow them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What basis do you have for saying those things are good? Are they good because you say they are good? Do you have any right to criticise those who follow a different set of moral guidelines?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXACTLY! WHY DO IT IT DOESNT REALLY MATTER IF YOU DO IT OR NOT!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

yeh exactly, atheists only dont kill other ppl because their afraid of getting caught by the police. if it wasnt for living in a society with laws they would have no one they r accountable to and so they could just kill ppl as and when they wanted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

god is the only reason to be good. atheists only have those morals because of god and growing up in a society which god rules over.

 

 

Rubbish. An atheist could draw up an equally valid set of basic rules with no reference to God that work just as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A sample:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Do not do to others what you would not want them to do you.

 

 

 

2. In all things, strive to cause no harm.

 

 

 

3. Treat your fellow human beings, your fellow living things, and the world in general with love, honesty, faithfulness and respect.

 

 

 

4. Do not overlook evil or shrink from administering justice, but always be ready to forgive wrongdoing freely admitted and honestly regretted.

 

 

 

5. Live life with a sense of joy and wonder.

 

 

 

6. Always seek to learn something new.

 

 

 

7. Test all things; always check your ideas against the facts, and be ready to discard even a cherished belief if it does not conform to them.

 

 

 

8. Never seek to censor or cut yourself off from dissent; always respect the right of others to disagree with you.

 

 

 

9. Form independent opinions on the basis of your own reason and experience; do not allow yourself to be led blindly by others.

 

 

 

10. Question everything.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is no religious basis for that lot, quite the opposite, so don't give me that "the decalogue is a great way to live", because that sample above looks to me to be a far better way of living than an ancient tablet.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's a fine set of rules, but what reason do you have to follow them? I mean, you have your set of morals, and I believe that you'll follow your morals because you want to follow them, and because you're a moral person. But I see no reason why you should have a binding commitment to a set of morals that have no justification other than your choice to follow them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What basis do you have for saying those things are good? Are they good because you say they are good? Do you have any right to criticise those who follow a different set of moral guidelines?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXACTLY! WHY DO IT IT DOESNT REALLY MATTER IF YOU DO IT OR NOT!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Uhh, same reason you guys follow yours...To not be a jerk. Or are you out-right admitted that the only reason you follow them is because you want your reward from God? Seems rather selfish. Have fun not getting it, if that's the case.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And I don't think Noah's Ark is a story of "ethnic cleansing". I do believe it's written that *everyone* was being evil, thus...They were all killed, 'cept the one guy and his family. It never says God killed anyone because of race, and it never says he picked Noah due to race.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Granted, I think Noah's Ark is a load of bull, but still.

Ignore Carlin. Please.

 

 

 

 

EXACTLY! WHY DO IT IT DOESNT REALLY MATTER IF YOU DO IT OR NOT!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

yeh exactly, atheists only dont kill other ppl because their afraid of getting caught by the police. if it wasnt for living in a society with laws they would have no one they r accountable to and so they could just kill ppl as and when they wanted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

god is the only reason to be good. atheists only have those morals because of god and growing up in a society which god rules over.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read my response to Astraline's comment, but i'll highlight the main point.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you're honestly saying that in the absence of a God you'd commit [assault], robbery and murder, then i'm worried, for all of us.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's funny really, of the 25 most dangerous states in America, 76% are religiously active, fundamentalist Christian states. Three of the five most dangerous cities in the US are in Texas, the twelve states with the highest rates of burglary are deeply religious, and of the twenty two states with the highest rates of muder, seventeen are renowed for being religious.

 

[quote name="splatmster24

 

 

 

EXACTLY! WHY DO IT IT DOESNT REALLY MATTER IF YOU DO IT OR NOT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Uhh' date=' same reason you guys follow yours...To not be a jerk. Or are you out-right admitted that the only reason you follow them is because you want your reward from God? Seems rather selfish. Have fun not getting it, if that's the case.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And I don't think Noah's Ark is a story of "ethnic cleansing". I do believe it's written that *everyone* was being evil, thus...They were all killed, 'cept the one guy and his family. It never says God killed anyone because of race, and it never says he picked Noah due to race.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Granted, I think Noah's Ark is a load of bull, but still.[/quote]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lol, i see where you coming from, but i to my beliefs in the simplest terms possible, better safe than sorry. AKA better to live a good life and maybe go to heaven than live a bad one and maybe burn in hell.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I KNOW im going to heaven when i die, you guys dont. why should it make any difference what i believe if it is something that doesnt affect you at all. dont flame me for believing it and i wont flame you.

yeh exactly, atheists only dont kill other ppl because their afraid of getting caught by the police. if it wasnt for living in a society with laws they would have no one they r accountable to and so they could just kill ppl as and when they wanted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

god is the only reason to be good. atheists only have those morals because of god and growing up in a society which god rules over.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They always taught me, out of respect for His awesome being, He or His name should be capitalised.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyways, I've always found the Hammurabi codex a pretty interesting relic from the past. It's a stone tablet from a Babylonian (Mesopotamia) king, dating back to around 1800 BC which is reputed to have a big influence on Mosaian law (10 commandments, ca 1200 BC). The codex already described subjects such as murder/manslaughter/theft/marital rights to name a few.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lol, i see where you coming from, but i to my beliefs in the simplest terms possible, better safe than sorry. AKA better to live a good life and maybe go to heaven than live a bad one and maybe burn in hell.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ah yes, the old Pascal's wager theory. Honestly, I think it's sad that people who follow that principle believe in a God who doesn't reward questioning, or reason, or logical. Merealy blind faith to cover one's own backside. Please, please, please, don't go down that road. Live a full, rich and happy life. It's what you deserve as a human being, follow the rules of the law and surely, any God worth his salt would reward you for that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I KNOW im going to heaven when i die, you guys dont. why should it make any difference what i believe if it is something that doesnt affect you at all. dont flame me for believing it and i wont flame you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ever worked on a Sunday? Then you're going to hell. Oh, any by the way, I suppose in a sense i'm trying to convert you to atheism, betraying your God. According to the Old Testament, you should kill me. Haven't done that yet? Oh dear it's hell for you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Don't ever worry about going to hell, worry about going to jail. One is real, the other isn't.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The point is though, that your beliefs and dogma, do effect me, and so many others.

Are you saying that we should only follow rules because there's a God to punish us if we don't? Are you saying in an atheist society there would be anarchy and riots, with no reason for the law to exist?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I never said either of those things. I'm saying that in Christianity, morality is real - the unchanging character of an eternal God is the standard of what is good and what is evil. Good doesn't just mean "what I think is good"; it means "what really is good based on God's character." Evil doesn't just mean "what I think is wrong"; it means "what really violates God's character." There is a real reason to do what is good, because good really is real.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Whereas in your system, good is not really real. It is merely what you say it is, and anybody else can say that you are wrong based on their morals. There is no real morality by which our subjective morals can be measured, so you are just as good and just as evil as anybody else, depending on whose eyes you're looking through. So being 'good' really doesn't mean anything.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does that mean an atheist can't be moral? Not at all. I know plenty of atheists who are moral people, yourself included. My point is merely that if your system is true, you are not really 'good', and you have no right to criticise what I view as 'good'. You're only doing what you call good, so just let me go and do what I call good.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Would there be a reason for the law to exist in an atheistic society? I believe so. There would still be a law to keep order, because humans generally believe order to be good. (I do believe that God has instilled a sense of morality in all human beings, though it may become twisted, or even forgotten, over time. But because of this sense of morality, even those who don't believe in God will view certain things as good and evil. However, they no longer have a philosophical basis for saying that those things are really good and evil. They try to keep the fruit of the moral law, while cutting up the root of the moral law. Though eventually, separated from the root, the fruit will whither.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I would guess that if there is no strong, unifying power in this atheistic society (such as Stalin's regime in the U.S.S.R.), that there would be riots and anarchy. There has to be something to hold a society together, whether it be a common morality, a strong government, or even mutual economic goals. (For example, the Netherlands avoiding much of the strife of the religious wars in the 1700s because they were so prosperous that beliefs weren't a divisive factor; their desire for profit held the society together.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ok, I probably went off on a tangent or two there, so if you would, please argue with my main points, and kindly point out where I went off topic so I can stay on topic better. :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you're honestly saying that in the absence of a God you'd commit [assault], robbery and murder, then i'm worried, for all of us.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Would I? No, because I believe those things to be wrong. But in the absence of a God, if a man believes those things to be good, what right do you have to stop him?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lol, i see where you coming from, but i to my beliefs in the simplest terms possible, better safe than sorry. AKA better to live a good life and maybe go to heaven than live a bad one and maybe burn in hell.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ah yes, the old Pascal's wager theory. Honestly, I think it's sad that people who follow that principle believe in a God who doesn't reward questioning, or reason, or logical. Merealy blind faith to cover one's own backside. Please, please, please, don't go down that road. Live a full, rich and happy life. It's what you deserve as a human being, follow the rules of the law and surely, any God worth his salt would reward you for that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I KNOW im going to heaven when i die, you guys dont. why should it make any difference what i believe if it is something that doesnt affect you at all. dont flame me for believing it and i wont flame you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ever worked on a Sunday? Then you're going to hell. Oh, any by the way, I suppose in a sense i'm trying to convert you to atheism, betraying your God. According to the Old Testament, you should kill me. Haven't done that yet? Oh dear it's hell for you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Don't ever worry about going to hell, worry about going to jail. One is real, the other isn't.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The point is though, that your beliefs and dogma, do effect me, and so many others.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My backside is well covered.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I will live a full, rich, and happy life knowing i get to go to heaven

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Old Testament buddy, a couple of things have happened since then, namely jesus :?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i dont see how living a good pure life without adultary or lying will be a terrible thing.

Would I? No, because I believe those things to be wrong. But in the absence of a God, if a man believes those things to be good, what right do you have to stop him?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is absolutely key.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Without a standard of right and wrong, better or worse - you have no right to tell anyone that their view that murder is good is unacceptable.

 

Would I? No, because I believe those things to be wrong. But in the absence of a God, if a man believes those things to be good, what right do you have to stop him?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is absolutely key.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Without a standard of right and wrong, better or worse - you have no right to tell anyone that their view that murder is good is unacceptable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

precisly.

I find the mere suggestion that Christianity = Morality to be rather insulting not only to myself, but to everyone to have ever lived BEFORE Christianity, or even Judaism, even came to be. There were several religions BEFORE Judaism, and there have been many after. Each one of those people had their own morals to follow, and even those of us who are not religious know that, hey...Stabbing someone in the face is probably not cool.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You should feel as if you're insulting yourself aswell, by implying that you're too stupid NOT to kill someone without God telling you it's wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's pretty baffling that you guys think Jewish/Christian laws have = absolutely morality since the beginning of time, when infact, they were even AROUND back then and people STILL knew it was wrong to do such things. I've said it before, but it seems you all like to ignore it...Take Egypt for an example. When someone stole, they'd remove their hand. When someone murdered, they were delt with. Did Egyptians follow your morals? No. Infact, they enslaved Jews. Obviously they didn't need the Bible to tell them what was right or wrong, did they?

I find the mere suggestion that Christianity = Morality to be rather insulting not only to myself, but to everyone to have ever lived BEFORE Christianity, or even Judaism, even came to be. There were several religions BEFORE Judaism, and there have been many after. Each one of those people had their own morals to follow, and even those of us who are not religious know that, hey...Stabbing someone in the face is probably not cool.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You should feel as if you're insulting yourself aswell, by implying that you're too stupid NOT to kill someone without God telling you it's wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's pretty baffling that you guys think Juwish/Christian laws have = absolutely morality since the beginning of time, when infact, they were even AROUND back then and people STILL knew it was wrong to do such things. I've said it before, but it seems you all like to ignore it...Take Egypt for an example. When someone stole, they'd remove their hand. When someone murdered, they were delt with. Did Egyptians follow your morals? No. Infact, they enslaved Jews. Obviously they didn't need the Bible to tell them what was right or wrong, did they?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're missing the ENTIRE point.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We're not saying Christianity/Judaism are the basis for every form of morality that has come up. In fact, we've said multiple times that it is blatantly untrue to even suggest that. The commentary about Judeo/Christian values is that they have shaped the Western world, and forms of morality found elsewhere in the world also have religious roots. Not Christian roots - religious roots. Whether that be Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, or any other religion or indigenous belief.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You are grossly misrepresenting our point. You should be ashamed of yourself for such blatant intellectual dishonesty.

 

I find the mere suggestion that Christianity = Morality to be rather insulting not only to myself, but to everyone to have ever lived BEFORE Christianity, or even Judaism, even came to be. There were several religions BEFORE Judaism, and there have been many after. Each one of those people had their own morals to follow, and even those of us who are not religious know that, hey...Stabbing someone in the face is probably not cool.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You should feel as if you're insulting yourself aswell, by implying that you're too stupid NOT to kill someone without God telling you it's wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's pretty baffling that you guys think Juwish/Christian laws have = absolutely morality since the beginning of time, when infact, they were even AROUND back then and people STILL knew it was wrong to do such things. I've said it before, but it seems you all like to ignore it...Take Egypt for an example. When someone stole, they'd remove their hand. When someone murdered, they were delt with. Did Egyptians follow your morals? No. Infact, they enslaved Jews. Obviously they didn't need the Bible to tell them what was right or wrong, did they?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're missing the ENTIRE point.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We're not saying Christianity/Judaism are the basis for every form of morality that has come up. In fact, we've said multiple times that it is blatantly untrue to even suggest that. The commentary about Judeo/Christian values is that they have shaped the Western world, and forms of morality found elsewhere in the world also have religious roots. Not Christian roots - religious roots. Whether that be Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, or any other religion or indigenous belief.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You are grossly misquoting our point. You should be ashamed of yourself for such blatant intellectual dishonesty.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My intellectual dishonesty? You guys are the ones suggesting that if the Bible was never written, we'd all be a bunch of mad savages.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, the Bible shaped Western Society...Okay. And what did it shape it with? Our laws? Okay. And what does that mean, that if they didn't shape our laws, that the laws wouldn't be there and we'd all be murderous crazy people?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're not saying it directly, but it's fully implied. You just won't SAY it because you know how stupid it sounds, but even when you disect what you ARE saying, it comes out as that. There's no other way to slice it.