My work here is done for the moment, also, gonna put that Twain quote into my siggy, thanks for showing me!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let me sum up what you said I just said, I'm right your wrong, nyah nyah

makes perfect sence, if man kind really needed religion to survive they would have been extinct long time ago since religion is only a few thousand years old, and if you weren't an idiot you would have realized I wasn't providing a fact when I said "500 million", it's something called a hyperbole.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It doesn't make sense because religion has existed for as long as mankind as existed. You just don't have your facts correct.

My work here is done 4 teh moment, also, gonna put that Twain quote into my siggy, thanks 4 showing me!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let me sum up what you said I just said, I'm right your wrong, nyah nyah

 

 

 

Ugh -.- . I never tried to say your belief was wrong, I was just stating my opinion about what happens when we die :| .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fine, I'll break up your first argument for you:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now 4 Rebdragon. If there is a universal spirit energy, wouldn't we sense it all teh time were conscious? I mean, if its everywhere and in everything

 

 

 

I already mentioned how our attachment to these bodies detaches us from that energy, dulling our senses towards it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Just so you know, teh universal spirit thingy is in everything, God is not, that is teh difference, among others)

 

 

 

God's omnipresent dude.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

shouldn't I be able to at least sense it?

 

 

 

See above.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, teh Christians (including moi) have a very personal, loving God who made us after his image during Creation. teh universal spirit thing is very impersonal, it does not seem to feel or love or care.

 

 

 

Who's to say whether this energy think, loves, or cares, or not?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, teh light at teh end of teh tunnel thing is nonsense, I don't see how people could see teh supposed light of God (/heaven/hell) when they are going back anyways.

 

 

 

Huh?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also... one last thing... teh valid opinions, no one has ever died in western society to my knowledge 4 using that belief. Yet people in religions (Christianity teh most) have died 4 it in horrible ways... even teh cross (shudders... worst punishment ever) so, something must be going on there.

 

 

 

That doesn't prove your belief in any way. It just proved that Christianity got lots of power and expanded very far.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A question, your end result, what ever it is, where did you first hear of it?

 

 

 

Personal opinion. I don't need to conform to someone elses belief to have an opinion.

 

 

 

Starting with Warrior's answer, it is not a non-theist, its atheist, just so you know, don' want your fellows to look at you weird. Anyway, all people follow something, what do you follow? do you follow teh Anarchistic morals of teh atheist or do you follow someone else's set of rules?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I know perfectly well that a non-theist is the same thing as an atheist, I just don't like the negative connotaitions associated with it and am more inclined towards science. The supposed supernatural isn't interesting to me as the people who have faith in certain things have it all wrong in my opinion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Come to think of it, I don't really care what people think of the title of my belief (or lack thereof). Ok, I'll call myself an atheist again, although it really dosen't make a difference.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As a response to your comments on an atheists morals being 'anarchist', that is a really stupid thing to say as I could assure you atheists don't automatically revert to anarchism if they have no belief in a deity. Take the law, for example. As for what I follow, I'm assuming you mean morals, right? I follow my own, which have been influenced by my parents. No theistic musings, just simple logic and 'laws of biology' if you like (i.e. don't kill, mainly).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please, try not to label people who have a lack of belief in your god as anarchists as if we are anamalistic savages, it really is quite annoying.

Please, try not to label people who have a lack of belief in your god as anarchists as if we are anamalistic savages, it really is quite annoying.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Isn't it consistent with non-theism to assume non-morality? I mean, without a God, where is your moral standard coming from? If it is coming from yourself, then you can do whatever the hell you want and still be "moral". It would be inconsistent to see humans as moral beings without an absolute standard of morality, no?

 

Please, try not to label people who have a lack of belief in your god as anarchists as if we are anamalistic savages, it really is quite annoying.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Isn't it consistent with non-theism to assume non-morality? I mean, without a God, where is your moral standard coming from? If it is coming from yourself, then you can do whatever the hell you want and still be "moral". It would be inconsistent to see humans as moral beings without an absolute standard of morality, no?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Silence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assume with me, for a second, if you can (you probably can't), that there is no God, and humans wrote the 10 commandments themselves as laws.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your point, therefore, would be utterly destroyed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Noone has observed God. We don't know these morals came from God. They could have came from humans, period.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And besides that...People who DIDN'T follow the Bible's teachings (Egyptians and many other civilizations) all had their own morals and ways of dealing with people who did bad things. Steal something? Say goodbye to le' hand. Murder someone? Say goodbye to le' head, or hello to prison, whichever.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

People know what is wrong and what's right. You continuing to argue that God somehow invented morality and struck it down on a rock and then we were all changed from animals into sentient beings is ridiculous. It just so happens that the morals from the Bible made their way into our laws today in America. Woo-hoo.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You people really need to get over this crap. There are far more important things to worry about. Are you aware that currently, in the USA and Britian, Islamic groups are trying to make Shariah Law prominent and above OUR own laws? AKA, they wish to stone adulterous people and murder Christians. WORRY ABOUT THAT.

 

 

Please, try not to label people who have a lack of belief in your god as anarchists as if we are anamalistic savages, it really is quite annoying.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Isn't it consistent with non-theism to assume non-morality? I mean, without a God, where is your moral standard coming from? If it is coming from yourself, then you can do whatever the hell you want and still be "moral". It would be inconsistent to see humans as moral beings without an absolute standard of morality, no?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Silence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assume with me, for a second, if you can (you probably can't), that there is no God, and humans wrote the 10 commandments themselves as laws.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your point, therefore, would be utterly destroyed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No it wouldn't. My point had nothing to do about where I get morality from. My point is completely irrelevant to theism. My point was simply that if you take God out of the equation, it is consistent to take morality out of it as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not to mention your argument is based on an assumption, whereas mine is not.

Take religion out of morality and you still have morality, just not divine and therefore absolute. As in, we can objectivley question what is moral and not immoral.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Which is a hell of a lot better than leaving morality down to interpretations of ancient scriptures.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Morality is not absolute even now with all the religions, if it was everyone would share the same morals or the majority would. Which is not the case.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: Morality needs to not be absolute, even christian morality has changed. Take slavery as an example. If morality stayed the same the world would be a very cruel place.

 

 

 

Please, try not to label people who have a lack of belief in your god as anarchists as if we are anamalistic savages, it really is quite annoying.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Isn't it consistent with non-theism to assume non-morality? I mean, without a God, where is your moral standard coming from? If it is coming from yourself, then you can do whatever the hell you want and still be "moral". It would be inconsistent to see humans as moral beings without an absolute standard of morality, no?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Silence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assume with me, for a second, if you can (you probably can't), that there is no God, and humans wrote the 10 commandments themselves as laws.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your point, therefore, would be utterly destroyed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No it wouldn't. My point had nothing to do about where I get morality from. My point is completely irrelevant to theism. My point was simply that if you take God out of the equation, it is consistent to take morality out of it as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not to mention your argument is based on an assumption, whereas mine is not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does anyone else seem to think that Insane here just isn't getting it? Like he doesn't even know what he's saying, or something?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My entire point was that you saying God = Morality (as you said, take God away, Morality goes away too, therefore God must = Morality to you) is wrong. Morals can exist without God. For all that you know, God currently DOES NOT exist. Or perhaps he does. YOU'RE the one assuming that he must exist, and therefore we have morals...

 

Please, try not to label people who have a lack of belief in your god as anarchists as if we are anamalistic savages, it really is quite annoying.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Isn't it consistent with non-theism to assume non-morality? I mean, without a God, where is your moral standard coming from? If it is coming from yourself, then you can do whatever the hell you want and still be "moral". It would be inconsistent to see humans as moral beings without an absolute standard of morality, no?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The bible is a good source of morality, yes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However take out the fact that god is real and what do you have? A book with a lot of good storys and tales on how to live your life well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The morals that are in the bible didn't come from god but from the idea of god as an inspiration.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The fact is if you take out the idea that god is real you still have a good standard set of morals there that don't need a 'god' to govern over them.

The bible is a good source of morality, yes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is it? Why is that?

Apparently religion teaches you this nice character trait called "arrogance", which expresses itself in that you should believe that noone else can believe in an objective morality without believing in some god.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The bible is a good source of morality, yes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The morality of the bible - and any religious book for my part - depends completely on the morality of the person reading it, considering most stories in those religious books are written in such a way that you can interpret them in a thousand ways.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In turn, this leads to people arguing about "the right" interpretation when there is no "right" interpretation of something that you can simply interpretate in a thousand ways.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If anything, religion confuses people on the topic morality. People would be best of deriving morality from simple logic. That is ensured to give the truth.

Apparently religion teaches you this nice character trait called "arrogance", which expresses itself in that you should believe that noone else can believe in an objective morality without believing in some god.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That doesn't quite fit the definition of arrogance. I know that you are trying to make a point about Christians being arrogant because it is true very often, but Insane has never conducted himself in a way someone could call arrogant - and you creating your own definition of the word is not going to work.

 

The bible is a good source of morality, yes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is it? Why is that?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I see what you're trying to steer me into.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

At any rate I probaly should have also mentioned the generaly acepted (modern) idea of it. I'm not saying it is over everything (I'm not religious) but it at least has some common ideas in there that are good, such as being kind to your neighbor / ect.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes I realized I just avoided the question. But most (note: most) of the general morals are good because they allow humanity to live together easier. If we had the idea in our head that we could kill / steal / whatever else whenever we wanted we would not progress terribly far as a whole.

 

Please, try not to label people who have a lack of belief in your god as anarchists as if we are anamalistic savages, it really is quite annoying.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Isn't it consistent with non-theism to assume non-morality? I mean, without a God, where is your moral standard coming from? If it is coming from yourself, then you can do whatever the hell you want and still be "moral". It would be inconsistent to see humans as moral beings without an absolute standard of morality, no?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Honestly, no, it's not. It's been explained but i'll explain it again; contrary to popular belief human beings as a species do not get their sense of morals from the Bible or indeed any religion. Morality is an evolutionary advantage, and in my view there isn't an absolute good or bad hanging out there somewhere to judge all our actions by. People do good things and people do bad things. Moral standards change over time, that much is clear, and what are we judging these advancing moral standards by? It certainly isn't religion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We live by the standards of the law which were laid down by (hopefully) democratically elected parties representing the views of the majority of the people. That is how we judge our moral actions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyway, all people follow something, what do you follow? do you follow the Anarchistic morals of the atheist or do you follow someone else's set of rules?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ridiculous statement.

insane claims that atheism comes with non-morality. Yes I find that arrogant AND offending. That has nothing to do with the 'definition I make up for arrogant', it has to do with the way insane claims a relation between atheism and non-morality that he cannot prove, especially since he cannot even prove his theism comes with morality.

 

Apparently religion teaches you this nice character trait called "arrogance", which expresses itself in that you should believe that noone else can believe in an objective morality without believing in some god.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That doesn't quite fit the definition of arrogance. I know that you are trying to make a point about Christians being arrogant because it is true very often, but Insane has never conducted himself in a way someone could call arrogant - and you creating your own definition of the word is not going to work.

 

 

 

I consider the view that the only real set of morals are those of Christianity to be pretty arrogant. Everyone else does have morals, and to be told that these morals don't exist or aren't objective is a pretty arrogant thing to say, in my opinion. I mean I can understand that a belief in Christianity implies that it's your way or the highway, but I don't understand why people can't rise above that. Atheists acknowledge that everyone can have different moral views. I'm Jewish and I think Christianity's morals are as valid as Jewish morals as are an atheist's morals, because I truly believe morals depend on the person. But we've had this debate a few too many times now, so if what I just said is challenged I won't reply to it because, again, we've had this same exact debate before on another thread, the issue of morality.

Morality is an evolutionary advantage

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You sure about that? Or is that an assumption you've made?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I consider the view that the only real set of morals are those of Christianity to be pretty arrogant. Everyone else does have morals, and to be told that these morals don't exist or aren't objective is a pretty arrogant thing to say, in my opinion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Under your made up definition of arrogance, it is arrogant of you tell me that my belief is wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I mean I can understand that a belief in Christianity implies that it's your way or the highway, but I don't understand why people can't rise above that. Atheists acknowledge that everyone can have different moral views.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because that is an atheist belief. Isn't it arrogant of atheists to say that "God does not exist," and that it's "their way or the highway" in terms of God's existence?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm Jewish and I think Christianity's morals are as valid as Jewish morals as are an atheist's morals, because I truly believe morals depend on the person. But we've had this debate a few too many times now, so if what I just said is challenged I won't reply to it because, again, we've had this same exact debate before on another thread, the issue of morality.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So you don't believe in objective morality? What's the point in discussing this if that is the entire premise? This isn't about subjective morality and the existence of God, it's about objective morality and the existence of God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

insane claims that atheism comes with non-morality. Yes I find that arrogant AND offending. That has nothing to do with the 'definition I make up for arrogant', it has to do with the way insane claims a relation between atheism and non-morality that he cannot prove, especially since he cannot even prove his theism comes with morality.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It has everything to do with your made up definition of arrogance. Under your definition, anyone who has an opposing belief than you is arrogant. That's silly. Now let's talk about your point about morality.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you don't believe in an absolute standard of morality then it necessarily concludes that morality is subjective. If morality is subjective it necessarily concludes that both A and -A can be moral. However, under the law of non-contradiction, you can't have both A and -A so that can't be true. Therefore, there has to be EITHER a standard of objective morality OR morality does not exist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pick your option, but you can't logically have both.

 

Morality is an evolutionary advantage

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You sure about that? Or is that an assumption you've made?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sure.

 

 

Morality is an evolutionary advantage

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You sure about that? Or is that an assumption you've made?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sure.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Would you please provide me with some biological evidence to show me what causes morality?

Under your made up definition of arrogance, it is arrogant of you tell me that my belief is wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You need to read and stop saying people are making up words just because you can't read. He nowhere said your morality is wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Isn't it arrogant of atheists to say that "God does not exist,"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes it is. Therefore I'm an agnost who considers the chance that god exists to be less than 10^-99. Now this chance doesn't anything anyway, because he either exists or he doesn't exist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

t has everything to do with your made up definition of arrogance. Under your definition, anyone who has an opposing belief than you is arrogant. That's silly. Now let's talk about your point about morality.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As I said earlier in this post already, you need to read and stop saying I make up definitions. Anyone who is claiming he and only he is right without supplying undeniable evidence for his righteousness IS arrogant. Now, I'm not going to take you serious anymore if you continue to claim I make up words.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Plus I already pointed out I believe in an absolute morality, derived from the simple rules of logic.

it is arrogant of you tell me that my belief is wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I never said your belief was wrong. I said it's arrogant to claim your belief is the only belief that is right. I'm acknowledging your belief and I'm not claiming it's wrong. I'm saying it's arrogant to claim only your own belief is right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because that is an atheist belief. Isn't it arrogant of atheists to say that "God does not exist," and that it's "their way or the highway" in terms of God's existence?

 

 

 

That's a point of view, but I'm not here to defend atheists specifically. I also find the claim that "there is no god" pretty arrogant too. That's why I find the only real objective stance is a stance of agnosticism, or at least being religious but acknowledging the possibility that there is no god.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So you don't believe in objective morality? What's the point in discussing this if that is the entire premise? This isn't about subjective morality and the existence of God, it's about objective morality and the existence of God.

 

 

 

I was just concluding that I think morality can depend on the person, and that people shouldn't be criticized or told that their morals don't exist because they weren't told specifically what they are.

You need to read and stop saying people are making up words just because you can't read. He nowhere said your morality is wrong per definition.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Absolute morality exists or it doesn't. If he does not believe in absolute morality, he believes I am wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Isn't it arrogant of atheists to say that "God does not exist,"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes it is. Therefore I'm an agnost who considers the chance that god exists to be less than 10^-99. Now this chance doesn't anything anyway, because he either exists or he doesn't exist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So it offends you when insane talks about atheists, even though you aren't one - yet at the same time you also agree that the very foundation of atheism is arrogant, and therefore offensive. That doesn't seem to make much sense to me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I never said your belief was wrong. I said it's arrogant to claim your belief is the only belief that is right. I'm acknowledging your belief and I'm not claiming it's wrong. I'm saying it's arrogant to claim only your own belief is right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So both absolute morality AND non-absolute morality exists? That's the silliest stance I've ever heard. I'm sorry - but it is NOT arrogant to believe something is true.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I was just concluding that I think morality can depend on the person, and that people shouldn't be criticized or told that their morals don't exist because they weren't told specifically what they are.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's not real morality - it's merely a whim. By saying that it depends on the person, you are acknowledging a logical contradiction (both A and -A). That's impossible.

So it offends you when insane talks about atheists, even though you aren't one - yet at the same time you also agree that the very foundation of atheism is arrogant, and therefore offensive. That doesn't seem to make much sense to me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just because the foundation of atheism is arrogant doesn't mean insane, who is a christian, should be arrogant too. We're back to primary school logic here: if I jump of a bridge, do you follow me then to?

As I said earlier in this post already, you need to read and stop saying I make up definitions. Anyone who is claiming he and only he is right without supplying undeniable evidence for his righteousness IS arrogant. Now, I'm not going to take you serious anymore if you continue to claim I make up words.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Arrogance has to do with the belief in one's self-importance, not in believing one is right. The way I know that you understand this is because you said "evidence for his righteousness." Insane never claims to be righteous (which would be an arrogant claim). You are making up your own definition for arrogance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Plus I already pointed out I believe in an absolute morality, derived from the simple rules of logic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So where did these simple rules of logic originate?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I ask you this for a simple reason: It is logically impossible to break the "is/ought gap," which you are suggesting by claiming your absolute morals come from logic. I would encourage you to reevaluate your own "absolute morality" and tell me if you ever once cross the is/ought gap. I think if you believe you don't, you will be surprised.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just because the foundation of atheism is arrogant doesn't mean insane, who is a christian, should be arrogant too. We're back to primary school logic here: if I jump of a bridge, do you follow me then to?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I wasn't justifying it. I just thought it was humorous that you were offended by one "arrogant" person showing his "arrogance" towards another "arrogant" person.