Where should we base our judgement if this was good or bad?
...
I hate this argument. The "If there is no god, how do we know what's right and wrong?"
Do you really believe that prior to Mt. Sinai, people ran around thinking rape and murder were okay? That they stood around cooing in amazement and wonder when Moses brought the commandments down?
No.
Morals are innate.
Every culture on Earth has developed a similar moral code, many without ever hearing the word "Jesus".
There are people without morals, and we call them psychopaths.
You have equal chances of being one or the other. I didn't realize the site was running low on forum real estate. That's probably the reason why you never did address them.
1.You get offended quite easily. .I'm so glad you give me credit for having at least some intelligence. :) 2."discussing aspects about it to you would be a waste of my time" is a phrase used by very many pretentious people/egomaniacs. It just shows how little faith you have in your argument. You obviously didn't think it was a waste of your time to bother replying considering that the internet forum affords you all the time to think about and create a reply at your leisure.
1. Im not offended in the slightest , but I do find your lack of reasoning to be disturbing. Like your comment "If you haven't seen god's penis, then you can't really be sure "he" is the correct pronoun to use." reveals all about how you think
2. You want me to get started on evolution and ask you questions concerning it?. Haha, no you [really] dont. I dont want to be responsible for proving to you how little you know about the theory(or most scientists). But if you really want to go there, we can.
I hate this argument. The "If there is no god, how do we know what's right and wrong?"
Do you really believe that prior to Mt. Sinai, people ran around thinking rape and murder were okay? That they stood around cooing in amazement and wonder when Moses brought the commandments down?
I think I understand the point you're trying to make, but... yes? The further we go back in history the more we see violence become normal. 20th century: violence against women was 'understandable'. 18th-19th century: violence against blacks was 'understandable'. 17th-16th-15th century: raping your enemies' women was understandable. Jump back to the roman ages and slavery was acceptable, as was forcing these slaves to fight to their deaths. I'm not sure how innate our morals are, to be fair. I don't think per se that today's man is morally better than yesterday's man, but it does seem pretty clear that excessive violence, slavery, sexual abuse and similar acts become both more common and more accepted as you look further back in time.
I think I understand the point you're trying to make, but... yes? The further we go back in history the more we see violence become normal. 20th century: violence against women was 'understandable'. 18th-19th century: violence against blacks was 'understandable'. 17th-16th-15th century: raping your enemies' women was understandable. Jump back to the roman ages and slavery was acceptable, as was forcing these slaves to fight to their deaths. I'm not sure how innate our morals are, to be fair. I don't think per se that today's man is morally better than yesterday's man, but it does seem pretty clear that excessive violence, slavery, sexual abuse and similar acts become both more common and more accepted as you look further back in time.
So. With the continuing pattern, all that's going to be left of the future is a world full of morals and laws, the remaining restaurant will be taco bell, and a cop and a psychopath locked in an ice freezer? (see where i'm getting here) But honestly, I think our morals are going to go downhill again from here.
That they won't continue to 'rise' is a point of view I can understand, but why would you say they'd go downhill?
That said: I have no idea what's going to happen to our morals in the future. I'm not even sure if they have been rising. All I know is that brutality has lowered, overall. I guess you could argue very well that they have risen if you pick extremes; overall, the average man seems to feel a lot worse about the idea of rape than the average man 2000+ years ago. I won't go as far as to make any claims on the subject, though - I'm just observing.
I think I understand the point you're trying to make, but... yes? The further we go back in history the more we see violence become normal. 20th century: violence against women was 'understandable'. 18th-19th century: violence against blacks was 'understandable'. 17th-16th-15th century: raping your enemies' women was understandable. Jump back to the roman ages and slavery was acceptable, as was forcing these slaves to fight to their deaths. I'm not sure how innate our morals are, to be fair. I don't think per se that today's man is morally better than yesterday's man, but it does seem pretty clear that excessive violence, slavery, sexual abuse and similar acts become both more common and more accepted as you look further back in time.
I don't understand what point you're trying to make, so I can't give much of a reply. However, here are a few random facts that I feel are relevant;
The bible contains specific instructions on who and what you can keep as slaves, how far you can go with their punishments and the terms of their slavery.
It wasn't religion that abolished slavery. Far from it. It was by secular means that slavery is now taboo. Given that, I can safely state that;
I am more moral than the god of the bible. And so are you.
I'm pretty sure the lessening of world violence is more to do with the threat of mutual destruction with today's weaponry, alongside better communication and world trade, making many countries rely on each other and less willing to go to war. Nothing at all related to Mt. Sinai or the 10 commandments.
TL:DR:
Bible is an immoral book. What little morals it contains are obvious even to people who've never heard of Jesus.
That they won't continue to 'rise' is a point of view I can understand, but why would you say they'd go downhill?
That said: I have no idea what's going to happen to our morals in the future. I'm not even sure if they have been rising. All I know is that brutality has lowered, overall. I guess you could argue very well that they have risen if you pick extremes; overall, the average man seems to feel a lot worse about the idea of rape than the average man 2000+ years ago. I won't go as far as to make any claims on the subject, though - I'm just observing.
Yeah, that's fine. Don't wonna start another argument.
@madlibrarian: Go
TL:DR:
Bible is an immoral book. What little morals it contains are obvious even to people who've never heard of Jesus.
Nope. You`re just an ignorant. Morals are `nice and all`, and can mostly be deduced from human reasoning but the Commandments are a more perfect reality, and its not open to choice by the individual. You are commanded to obey it(Including YOU). The New testament takes it much deeper.
3.I hate this argument. The "If there is no god, how do we know what's right and wrong?"
Do you really believe that prior to Mt. Sinai, people ran around thinking rape and murder were okay? That they stood around cooing in amazement and wonder when Moses brought the commandments down?
No.
1.Morals are innate.
2.Every culture on Earth has developed a similar moral code,
There are people without morals, and we call them psychopaths.
1 and 2 are but a contradiction. Morals are indeed innate. but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.(Genesis 2:17)
Thats where it all began.
3. The argument is flawed. Because the latter is dependent on the former to exist.
But as to your point, No where does it stay morality came into existence at Mt.Sinai!. We were just made more conscious of it, and got the exact details from God Himself.
@EternalWraith: Go
Christians: "my faith in the evidence proves that my religion is the best"
 Jews: "my faith in the evidence proves that my religion is the best"
 Sikhs: "my faith in the evidence proves that my religion is the best"
 Hindus: "my faith in the evidence proves that my religion is the best"
 Muslims: "my faith in the evidence proves that my religion is the best"Â
I'll keep it short because this thread is rapidly turning into an incomprehensible mass of text.
Muslims say the same about the Quran. Jews say the same about the Torah. Hindus say the same about the Bhagavad Gita, and Sikhs, well, I don't know anything about Sikhs, but I'd wager they say the exact same thing. Furthermore, you would be saying this exact paragraph about the Quran if you were born in Saudi Arabia.
How can you be so sure that you're not simply indoctrinated?
Atheists "my faith in the evidence proves that my religion is the best"
Forgot that one.
Your evidence, God does not reveal himself.
Our evidence, God reveals himself.
Oh and I was not born a Christian, mentioned that before(If this was addressed at me?)
Commandments 1 through 4 have as much of an importance in the real world as what color socks I want to wear today. There is more important stuff to worry about than these petty trivialities. 5 through 10 should be obvious to any decent human being and not need any religion to "make us more conscious of it".
There is nothing that any holy man or holy book has ever said that wasn't either:
A) Wrong or just plain silly
B) Immediately obvious
If you got rid of science we'd all be living in the stone age, but what value does religion have on our knowledge & morals? You could get rid of all the knowledge of all the religions combined, and nobody would notice or care.
Atheists "my faith in the evidence proves that my religion is the best"
Forgot that one.
Your evidence, God does not reveal himself.
Our evidence, God reveals himself.
Is bald a hair color? Is off a TV channel? Is non-belief a belief? Our position is simple: God has as much evidence for his existence as Thor, Zeus & Wotan. Therefore they can all be dismissed until someone has real proof.
Quote:
Oh and I was not born a Christian, mentioned that before(If this was addressed at me?)
The act of switching from one fictional myth to another "superior" fictional myth only served to strengthen your indoctrination.
Atheists "my faith in the evidence proves that my religion is the best"
I was waiting for someone to say that. It's the clearest indication that the person who said it doesn't understand the meaning of "atheism".
Atheism = "A-" + "-theos", or "without god". It doesn't mean "with no god". An atheist(well, most atheists) believes equally in the existence of god as in the non-existence of God, from a purely evidence-based standpoint. There are some atheists who believe there is no god, called "hard atheists", but they are very few. The vast majority of atheists are agnostic. There is no evidence to have faith in, nor is there any proof of anything. And especially, there is no religion. The correct blanket statement for an atheist would be "Your lack of evidence justifies my lack of faith in your religion."
"God does not reveal himself" is not evidence in favor of atheism, it's lack of evidence in favor of religion. When you say "God reveals himself", the obvious reply that comes to mind is "Demonstrate/explain this." I'll believe it when I see it. My thoughts alone cannot produce any meaningful evidence of the existence of anything. I have to detect it with my senses.
I am still awaiting your explanation of evolution from your point of view.
Also, what is your view of homosexuality, since it doesn't seem to be stated on the picture of the ten commandments that you have posted.
1.I am still awaiting your explanation of evolution from your point of view. 2.Also, what is your view of homosexuality, since it doesn't seem to be stated on the picture of the ten commandments that you have posted.
1. I still owe a post to someone else. TLBarrin or something like that(Cant recall the name). Wait.
2. It is a law stated in Leviticus. Unnatural act. My personal view?, I agree, but I dont `mind` gay people or hate them or anything. Their business is their own.
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.(Leviticus 18:22)
You seem really ... 'defensive'? Confident? Not sure what the right word is. Yet you do seem to say that overall you don't judge others but simply think god will do so in the end. While it's obviously your choice if you want to enter in the debate here... why would you want to if your main attitude is that you do not care? I can't mingle those two.
Nope. You`re just an ignorant. Morals are `nice and all`, and can mostly be deduced from human reasoning but the Commandments are a more perfect reality, and its not open to choice by the individual. You are commanded to obey it(Including YOU). The New testament takes it much deeper.
I'm beginning to think that I'm being Poed, but whatever, I'll bite.
4 of the 10 commandments are useless.
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Yeah okay. Not a moral statement.
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.
Also not a moral statement and I have a graven image of Jesus, who is supposedly God, to my left. I bet you do too.
Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
Also not a moral statement.
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
And the 4th of the "pointless" commandments.
I'm not obliged to obey these ones, and I think they're stupid. Most Christians don't hold the "no graven images" one very highly either.
1 and 2 are but a contradiction. Morals are indeed innate.
but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die. (Genesis 2:17)
Thats where it all began.
3. The argument is flawed. Because the latter is dependent on the former to exist.
But as to your point, No where does it stay morality came into existence at Mt.Sinai!. We were just made more conscious of it, and got the exact details from God Himself.
I must have not communicated properly, my apologies. It wasn't an argument, but two points I wanted to state.
We, as a species, wouldn't have gotten very far if we didn't have major reservations about killing our own kind.
So, food for thought. Why would God choose the Israelites to dispense this knowledge to? A scared, backwards, illiterate group of people, rather than the literate, capable Chinese?
Atheists "my faith in the evidence proves that my religion is the best"
Forgot that one.
Your evidence, God does not reveal himself.
Our evidence, God reveals himself.
Oh and I was not born a Christian, mentioned that before(If this was addressed at me?)
Faith, by definition, is believing something without evidence.
You can't have "faith in evidence". It's not evidence if it requires faith to believe it.
It's not that we have evidence to disprove God. We don't, and never will. "There is no God" is simply the default standpoint to take until proven otherwise, in the same way "There are no invisible unicorns" is the default stance to take until also proven otherwise.
I would, in a heartbeat, believe in God, Vishnu, Thor, Odin, whatever God you like, if presented with rational and independently verified evidence and would proudly proclaim "I was wrong".
I hate this argument. The "If there is no god, how do we know what's right and wrong?"
Do you really believe that prior to Mt. Sinai, people ran around thinking rape and murder were okay? That they stood around cooing in amazement and wonder when Moses brought the commandments down?
No.
Morals are innate.
Every culture on Earth has developed a similar moral code, many without ever hearing the word "Jesus".
There are people without morals, and we call them psychopaths.
@Eiviyn: Go
You have equal chances of being one or the other. I didn't realize the site was running low on forum real estate. That's probably the reason why you never did address them.
1. Im not offended in the slightest , but I do find your lack of reasoning to be disturbing. Like your comment "If you haven't seen god's penis, then you can't really be sure "he" is the correct pronoun to use." reveals all about how you think
2. You want me to get started on evolution and ask you questions concerning it?. Haha, no you [really] dont. I dont want to be responsible for proving to you how little you know about the theory(or most scientists). But if you really want to go there, we can.
@EternalWraith: Go
You don't seem to detect the slightest hints of satire? Even Rosie O'Donnell can have "manly" attributes.
"I dont want to be responsible for proving to you how little you know about the theory(or most scientists)" - Pretentious? Hubris?
First, you tell me what you believe you know about evolution and then we'll go from there.
@Eiviyn: Go
You do know what 'innate' means right?
It's really unfashionable to be a "bible-thumper" now, but being a too-smug atheist should be just as bad and probably will be soon.
I think I understand the point you're trying to make, but... yes? The further we go back in history the more we see violence become normal. 20th century: violence against women was 'understandable'. 18th-19th century: violence against blacks was 'understandable'. 17th-16th-15th century: raping your enemies' women was understandable. Jump back to the roman ages and slavery was acceptable, as was forcing these slaves to fight to their deaths. I'm not sure how innate our morals are, to be fair. I don't think per se that today's man is morally better than yesterday's man, but it does seem pretty clear that excessive violence, slavery, sexual abuse and similar acts become both more common and more accepted as you look further back in time.
So. With the continuing pattern, all that's going to be left of the future is a world full of morals and laws, the remaining restaurant will be taco bell, and a cop and a psychopath locked in an ice freezer? (see where i'm getting here) But honestly, I think our morals are going to go downhill again from here.
@Doubleclick123: Go
That they won't continue to 'rise' is a point of view I can understand, but why would you say they'd go downhill?
That said: I have no idea what's going to happen to our morals in the future. I'm not even sure if they have been rising. All I know is that brutality has lowered, overall. I guess you could argue very well that they have risen if you pick extremes; overall, the average man seems to feel a lot worse about the idea of rape than the average man 2000+ years ago. I won't go as far as to make any claims on the subject, though - I'm just observing.
Yes.
I don't understand what point you're trying to make, so I can't give much of a reply. However, here are a few random facts that I feel are relevant;
The bible contains specific instructions on who and what you can keep as slaves, how far you can go with their punishments and the terms of their slavery.
Leviticus 25:44-46
Exodus 21:2-6
Exodus 21:7-11
Exodus 21:20-21
Ephesians 6:5
Luke 12:47-48
It wasn't religion that abolished slavery. Far from it. It was by secular means that slavery is now taboo. Given that, I can safely state that;
I am more moral than the god of the bible. And so are you.
I'm pretty sure the lessening of world violence is more to do with the threat of mutual destruction with today's weaponry, alongside better communication and world trade, making many countries rely on each other and less willing to go to war. Nothing at all related to Mt. Sinai or the 10 commandments.
TL:DR:
Bible is an immoral book. What little morals it contains are obvious even to people who've never heard of Jesus.
Yeah, that's fine. Don't wonna start another argument.
"For god's sake man, put some fuc*ing clothes on.
Nope. You`re just an ignorant. Morals are `nice and all`, and can mostly be deduced from human reasoning but the Commandments are a more perfect reality, and its not open to choice by the individual. You are commanded to obey it(Including YOU). The New testament takes it much deeper.
1 and 2 are but a contradiction. Morals are indeed innate.
but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die. (Genesis 2:17)
Thats where it all began.
3. The argument is flawed. Because the latter is dependent on the former to exist.
But as to your point, No where does it stay morality came into existence at Mt.Sinai!. We were just made more conscious of it, and got the exact details from God Himself.
Atheists "my faith in the evidence proves that my religion is the best"
Forgot that one.
Your evidence, God does not reveal himself.
Our evidence, God reveals himself.
Oh and I was not born a Christian, mentioned that before(If this was addressed at me?)
Commandments 1 through 4 have as much of an importance in the real world as what color socks I want to wear today. There is more important stuff to worry about than these petty trivialities. 5 through 10 should be obvious to any decent human being and not need any religion to "make us more conscious of it".
There is nothing that any holy man or holy book has ever said that wasn't either:
A) Wrong or just plain silly
B) Immediately obvious
If you got rid of science we'd all be living in the stone age, but what value does religion have on our knowledge & morals? You could get rid of all the knowledge of all the religions combined, and nobody would notice or care.
Is bald a hair color? Is off a TV channel? Is non-belief a belief? Our position is simple: God has as much evidence for his existence as Thor, Zeus & Wotan. Therefore they can all be dismissed until someone has real proof.
The act of switching from one fictional myth to another "superior" fictional myth only served to strengthen your indoctrination.
I was waiting for someone to say that. It's the clearest indication that the person who said it doesn't understand the meaning of "atheism".
Atheism = "A-" + "-theos", or "without god". It doesn't mean "with no god". An atheist(well, most atheists) believes equally in the existence of god as in the non-existence of God, from a purely evidence-based standpoint. There are some atheists who believe there is no god, called "hard atheists", but they are very few. The vast majority of atheists are agnostic. There is no evidence to have faith in, nor is there any proof of anything. And especially, there is no religion. The correct blanket statement for an atheist would be "Your lack of evidence justifies my lack of faith in your religion."
"God does not reveal himself" is not evidence in favor of atheism, it's lack of evidence in favor of religion. When you say "God reveals himself", the obvious reply that comes to mind is "Demonstrate/explain this." I'll believe it when I see it. My thoughts alone cannot produce any meaningful evidence of the existence of anything. I have to detect it with my senses.
@Saltpeter: Go
And/or with the use of measuring devices.
@EternalWraith: Go
I am still awaiting your explanation of evolution from your point of view. Also, what is your view of homosexuality, since it doesn't seem to be stated on the picture of the ten commandments that you have posted.
1. I still owe a post to someone else. TLBarrin or something like that(Cant recall the name). Wait.
2. It is a law stated in Leviticus. Unnatural act. My personal view?, I agree, but I dont `mind` gay people or hate them or anything. Their business is their own.
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)
@FDFederation: Go
Measuring instruments are still interpreted through the senses, but they certainly help with the oh-so-important repeatability.
@EternalWraith: Go
You seem really ... 'defensive'? Confident? Not sure what the right word is. Yet you do seem to say that overall you don't judge others but simply think god will do so in the end. While it's obviously your choice if you want to enter in the debate here... why would you want to if your main attitude is that you do not care? I can't mingle those two.
I'm beginning to think that I'm being Poed, but whatever, I'll bite.
4 of the 10 commandments are useless.
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Yeah okay. Not a moral statement.
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.
Also not a moral statement and I have a graven image of Jesus, who is supposedly God, to my left. I bet you do too.
Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
Also not a moral statement.
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
And the 4th of the "pointless" commandments.
I'm not obliged to obey these ones, and I think they're stupid. Most Christians don't hold the "no graven images" one very highly either.
I must have not communicated properly, my apologies. It wasn't an argument, but two points I wanted to state.
We, as a species, wouldn't have gotten very far if we didn't have major reservations about killing our own kind.
So, food for thought. Why would God choose the Israelites to dispense this knowledge to? A scared, backwards, illiterate group of people, rather than the literate, capable Chinese?
Faith, by definition, is believing something without evidence.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/faith
You can't have "faith in evidence". It's not evidence if it requires faith to believe it.
It's not that we have evidence to disprove God. We don't, and never will. "There is no God" is simply the default standpoint to take until proven otherwise, in the same way "There are no invisible unicorns" is the default stance to take until also proven otherwise.
I would, in a heartbeat, believe in God, Vishnu, Thor, Odin, whatever God you like, if presented with rational and independently verified evidence and would proudly proclaim "I was wrong".