independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Mon 22nd Oct 2018 4:32pm
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > The Essay that will mow down any atheist: MLK, at age 28!
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 6 of 10 <12345678910>
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #150 posted 10/10/18 7:31pm

LadyLayla

avatar

2freaky4church1 said:

Yea, your life!! Your life! What about others? where do morals come from?

Haven't read the entire thread, but morals usually come from a communal group. Courage, honesty, kindness, empathy, responsibility, fairness, and loyalty are the usual candidates. And I stress these actions can apply to any societal group living on the planet. It is their societal or religious definitions of these actions that will come in to conflict with another societal or religious group.

Personally I don't think Christianity has the market cornered on morality (neither do I think any other religion has). Being an indoctinated Southern fried Baptist (with early parole for time served!) I can see the questionable and predatory practices of some organized religions especially with the "personal relationship with Jesus or God" line!

Like others have said earlier in the thread, believe what you want to believe if that makes your life easier as long as you are not hurting anyone in the process. Learning what others believe does not mean I have to believe as they do. My religion (or perhaps lack thereof) doesn't require prosthelytizing, testifying, witnessing, or converting anyone else to my belief. It only requires me to listen, question, discuss and sometime agree to disagree with my fellow human.

Style is the second cousin to class
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #151 posted 10/10/18 10:50pm

toejam

avatar

CherryMoon57 said:

You should read this: https://carm.org/manuscript-evidence

.

I have read this before, and none of it disagrees with the facts I put before you:

.

94% of the surviving Greek manuscripts of the New Testament are from the 9th century or later. There are NO surviving manuscripts from the 1st century, and only a handful of the tiniest of fragments from the 2nd. We start getting larger chunks in the 3rd, but it is not until the 4th century that we start getting more-or-less substantially complete New Testaments. The number of manuscripts tells us nothing about a text's historical or theological reliability. In 2,000yrs time it will not be a sign of the Koran's reliability when fragments of it are the most numerously found texts in archaeological digs. Number of manuscripts from centuries later is no guarantor of reliability. It is only evidence of the religion's spread. And we know that fake religions can and do spread.

.

Matt Slick's "99.5% textual purity" is also a misleading number because we do not have the originals of any of the New Testament texts to be be able to determine what percentage is really "textually pure". What we do know is that every single New Testament manuscript has variations. Most are minor. But many are still significant. This 99.5% figure is also misleading because it has been calculated taking into account the 94% of manuscripts from the 9th century or later, by which time the text had settled into a more consistent form. The earliest manuscripts are the most varied. Stacking the weights with manuscripts from 800+yrs later is unfair. And Slick's figure does not take into account the problem that many of the New Testament texts themselves are already likely compilations of earlier materials that have gone unattested in manuscript form, thus raising the question of what would even count as the "original" text. See, for example, the problems of determining the "original" 2 Corinthians - a text generally understood to be a composite of several Pauline epistles that no longer exist. I could go into many other examples if you wish...

.

Slick's article is actually addressing the question of textual reliability, which is not the same as historical or theological reliability. So it's kind of moot to any point.

.

Glad to hear that your partner has passed the tough 'toe-jam' reliability test and is finally considered 'worthy' of your love. What a lucky girl she must feel!

.

Yes, she tells me regularly that she feels very lucky. But believe me, I feel luckier love. And I'm generally not a hard nose. It's not tough to win my trust. But one at least has to show up to the party first, which is what I do not detect God doing. This is consistent with him being a superstition.

.

[Edited 10/10/18 23:16pm]

Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #152 posted 10/10/18 11:52pm

BombSquad

avatar

you'r really a sad, sad, saaaaaad sad fuck, if you need ancient bronze age clansmen living in tents to explain to you what love and morals mean..... yikes!


seriously. think about it, how fucked up is that??




morals, love, emapthy and all that are evolutionary traits to increase the chance for the species to survive. a fucking no-brainer.


so I'd rather flip it around:
a believer has NO morals and love actually. he is only TOLD what to do
but an atheist knows it all by himself

so I'd rather trust and hang out with atheists. cause once a believer looses his faith he might turn into a fucking unhinged monster cause his guidlines and moral compass just disappeared





[Edited 10/11/18 0:06am]

2013 Obama & Castro - "and barack has once again bowed down to a despot"
2018 Trump & Kim - "and it is happening now! after nearly 65 years and 11 presidents"
biggest fucking hypocrite around LOL only in da forum...
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #153 posted 10/11/18 1:40am

CherryMoon57

toejam said:

CherryMoon57 said:

Glad to hear that your partner has passed the tough 'toe-jam' reliability test and is finally considered 'worthy' of your love. What a lucky girl she must feel!

.

Yes, she tells me regularly that she feels very lucky. But believe me, I feel luckier love. And I'm generally not a hard nose. It's not tough to win my trust. But one at least has to show up to the party first, which is what I do not detect God doing. This is consistent with him being a superstition.


It sounds like you have both found happiness in love and that is wonderful! As for your other comment, sometimes there are so many people at a party that you don't always see immediately who you are looking for... That doesn't mean they are not there. Sometimes they have even been there, left something for you, then went off discreetly without you noticing. wink

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #154 posted 10/11/18 1:52am

IanRG

BombSquad said:

you'r really a sad, sad, saaaaaad sad fuck, if you need ancient bronze age clansmen living in tents to explain to you what love and morals mean..... yikes!


seriously. think about it, how fucked up is that??




morals, love, emapthy and all that are evolutionary traits to increase the chance for the species to survive. a fucking no-brainer.


so I'd rather flip it around:
a believer has NO morals and love actually. he is only TOLD what to do
but an atheist knows it all by himself

so I'd rather trust and hang out with atheists. cause once a believer looses his faith he might turn into a fucking unhinged monster cause his guidlines and moral compass just disappeared

.

Interesting theory - except Jesus did not live in tents and what would you call this imagined monster but an atheist.

.

But the main error is: If God exists and works though our souls to guide our conscience then there is no reason to assume God does not seek to work through Atheists. If God does not exist then believers did not get their morals from God, but from society and all they have done is got their understanding of the source wrong.

.

In my opinion, there is no reason to assume all Christians the same good and bad morals and no reason to assume all atheists have same good and bad morals and that these are different. The silliest statement is that one group of people has no love or morals, they are just doing what they are told to do - naturally this assumption of failing is applied to the other group. It is just another demonstration of "my group is better than your's" or the type of thought that leads to the basest of our actions: racism, misogyny (and misandry) and the discriminatory treatment of people with different sexual preferences and identities and for the violence and greed in political, economic and religious decisions.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #155 posted 10/11/18 1:56am

CherryMoon57

IanRG said:

God is empathy and love. If you cannot empathise with why other people may think something is racist, if you can't love someone without first having proof of their worthiness, then for all the research, you will just miss what is front of you each and every time.

That is a fair point Ian, but that also goes both ways: one must also empathise with why other people may think something is not racist. As for your comment (in italic) I agree with you. While it is easy to love our friends, it is hard to love our enemies. Yet, one needs to try to love (or at least understand) both equally, because, after all, the 'enemies' may have reasons to be the way they are. So one way or the other, love and empathy should not be restricted to those who are worthy of our love or who agree with us.

[Edited 10/11/18 3:00am]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #156 posted 10/11/18 2:35am

CherryMoon57

LadyLayla said:

2freaky4church1 said:

Yea, your life!! Your life! What about others? where do morals come from?

Haven't read the entire thread, but morals usually come from a communal group. Courage, honesty, kindness, empathy, responsibility, fairness, and loyalty are the usual candidates. And I stress these actions can apply to any societal group living on the planet. It is their societal or religious definitions of these actions that will come in to conflict with another societal or religious group.

Personally I don't think Christianity has the market cornered on morality (neither do I think any other religion has). Being an indoctinated Southern fried Baptist (with early parole for time served!) I can see the questionable and predatory practices of some organized religions especially with the "personal relationship with Jesus or God" line!

Like others have said earlier in the thread, believe what you want to believe if that makes your life easier as long as you are not hurting anyone in the process. Learning what others believe does not mean I have to believe as they do. My religion (or perhaps lack thereof) doesn't require prosthelytizing, testifying, witnessing, or converting anyone else to my belief. It only requires me to listen, question, discuss and sometime agree to disagree with my fellow human.


Hi LadyLayla! It is interesting though when you think of it that - salvation of Jesus aside - there is a lot of common ground between all the religions and societies in the world. It is almost as if all humans had a predetermined core set of moral values within themselves and the utmost need to have those values stamped by a higher spiritual authority.

As for organized religions, I have always had mixed feelings about them. I recently started attending a rural local church (Church of England) because it is the closest. As far as I am aware, they do not seek to convert anyone in there. Only sharing the Gospel message, organising seasonal events (Harvest Festival, Christmas, etc.) and creating a warm, loving community. I don't personally associate with any specific christian denomination as I have always found some positive and negative in any of them, after all they are ran by humans and humans aren't always perfect!

For me as long as the main message promoted is one that strongly resonates with what God has planted in my soul, I see no problem with any of them. God has also given me a critical mind, and nothing stops me from exercising it from time to time.

[Edited 10/11/18 3:45am]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #157 posted 10/11/18 4:05am

BombSquad

avatar

IanRG said:

BombSquad said:

you'r really a sad, sad, saaaaaad sad fuck, if you need ancient bronze age clansmen living in tents to explain to you what love and morals mean..... yikes!


seriously. think about it, how fucked up is that??




morals, love, emapthy and all that are evolutionary traits to increase the chance for the species to survive. a fucking no-brainer.


so I'd rather flip it around:
a believer has NO morals and love actually. he is only TOLD what to do
but an atheist knows it all by himself

so I'd rather trust and hang out with atheists. cause once a believer looses his faith he might turn into a fucking unhinged monster cause his guidlines and moral compass just disappeared

.

Interesting theory - except Jesus did not live in tents and what would you call this imagined monster but an atheist.

okay, so to clarify, I obviously meant STARTING from bronze age tents, but continuing many centruries over countless more authors up until the end when the last person whoever that was felt he should add his input to the "universal incorruptible word of God" which some people need to keep bad apart from good.

.

But the main error is: If God exists and works though our souls to guide our conscience then there is no reason to assume God does not seek to work through Atheists. If God does not exist then believers did not get their morals from God, but from society and all they have done is got their understanding of the source wrong.

the last one I agree with

.

In my opinion, there is no reason to assume all Christians the same good and bad morals and no reason to assume all atheists have same good and bad morals and that these are different. The silliest statement is that one group of people has no love or morals, they are just doing what they are told to do - naturally this assumption of failing is applied to the other group. It is just another demonstration of "my group is better than your's" or the type of thought that leads to the basest of our actions: racism, misogyny (and misandry) and the discriminatory treatment of people with different sexual preferences and identities and for the violence and greed in political, economic and religious decisions.

here I fully agree. if you know me you can probaly tell that I was playing devils advocate again and just flipped the coin, flipped the idiotic notion some hold that moral (or even love!) can only come from religion
morals are simply independent from religion. if you suck as a human then you just suck, no matter if or what religion you follow

2013 Obama & Castro - "and barack has once again bowed down to a despot"
2018 Trump & Kim - "and it is happening now! after nearly 65 years and 11 presidents"
biggest fucking hypocrite around LOL only in da forum...
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #158 posted 10/11/18 4:33am

toejam

avatar

CherryMoon57 said:

sometimes there are so many people at a party that you don't always see immediately who you are looking for... That doesn't mean they are not there. Sometimes they have even been there, left something for you, then went off discreetly without you noticing. wink

.

Sometimes you go to a party, specifically look for someone, check every room, and they're not found. And the reason is because they're not at the party. And there is nothing unreasonable in understanding that as the most likely scenario. Sure, one can infinitely object that one didn't check the washing machine, or maybe it's just coincidence you just keep missing him. But at some point, the balance scales tip toward the likelihood that your someone simply isn't there. God is like that. When you call the bluff on the excuses, his absense is deafening. It is not a matter of being mad at God (despite the constant accusations by believers), it's understanding that he's not even there to be mad with. Some find this deeply terrifying, others find it deeply liberating. Some, like myself, feel neutral about it because their realisation that it is a superstition occurred over an extended period of time so that when the final penny dropped it wasn't a really a big deal, emotionally.

.

As for organized religions, I have always had mixed feelings about them. I recently started attending a rural local church (Church of England) because it is the closest. As far as I am aware, they do not seek to convert anyone in there. Only sharing the Gospel message, organising seasonal events (Harvest Festival, Christmas, etc.) and creating a warm, loving community. I don't personally associate with any specific christian denomination as I have always found some positive and negative in any of them, after all they are ran by humans and humans aren't always perfect!

.

Are you aware that the two apologists you linked to - Doug Wilson and Matt Slick - are Calvinists? They believe in a literal eternal conscious torment for the unsaved. Eternal hellfire. What's worse is they believe that this fate has been predetermined by Yawheh since before the condemned were even born. This, in my opinion, is the most sick and disturbing form of Christianity around. Their "systematic theologizing" of 'the Bible' is very much an organized system of religion. I say this because this paragraph of yours makes me think you are not a Calvinist and that you were unaware of the illness of Wilson and Slick's theology.

.

[Edited 10/11/18 4:43am]

Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #159 posted 10/11/18 5:21am

CherryMoon57

toejam said:

CherryMoon57 said:

sometimes there are so many people at a party that you don't always see immediately who you are looking for... That doesn't mean they are not there. Sometimes they have even been there, left something for you, then went off discreetly without you noticing. wink

.

Sometimes you go to a party, specifically look for someone, check every room, and they're not found. And the reason is because they're not at the party. And there is nothing unreasonable in understanding that as the most likely scenario. Sure, one can infinitely object that one didn't check the washing machine, or maybe it's just coincidence you just keep missing him. But at some point, the balance scales tip toward the likelihood that your someone simply isn't there. God is like that. When you call the bluff on the excuses, his absense is deafening. It is not a matter of being mad at God (despite the constant accusations by believers), it's understanding that he's not even there to be mad with. Some find this deeply terrifying, others find it deeply liberating. Some, like myself, feel neutral about it because their realisation that it is a superstition occurred over an extended period of time so that when the final penny dropped it wasn't a really a big deal, emotionally.

.

As for organized religions, I have always had mixed feelings about them. I recently started attending a rural local church (Church of England) because it is the closest. As far as I am aware, they do not seek to convert anyone in there. Only sharing the Gospel message, organising seasonal events (Harvest Festival, Christmas, etc.) and creating a warm, loving community. I don't personally associate with any specific christian denomination as I have always found some positive and negative in any of them, after all they are ran by humans and humans aren't always perfect!

.

Are you aware that the two apologists you linked to - Doug Wilson and Matt Slick - are Calvinists? They believe in a literal eternal conscious torment for the unsaved. Eternal hellfire. What's worse is they believe that this fate has been predetermined by Yawheh since before the condemned were even born. This, in my opinion, is the most sick and disturbing form of Christianity around. Their "systematic theologizing" of 'the Bible' is very much an organized system of religion. I say this because this paragraph of yours makes me think you are not a Calvinist and that you were unaware of the illness of Wilson and Slick's theology.

.

[Edited 10/11/18 4:43am]


I am not entirely convinced about the sincerity of your search for God, especially since you have spent a lot of your study time, looking for a proof that He does not exist, or the flaws of the Bible. I was not particularly aware of Wilson or Slick's associations but as long as their message is consistent with the Bible, I have no problem with it. I too believe that the unsaved will be tormented (many already are in many aspects of their lives) and that would be a terrible tragedy for them, but you cannot blame God that He does not offer them a choice. As for you, I am not sure why that should concern you at all, since you do not believe any of this.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #160 posted 10/11/18 7:38am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

How do they know they are moral?

"My motherfucker's so cool sheep count him."
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #161 posted 10/11/18 7:52am

BombSquad

avatar

2freaky4church1 said:

How do they know they are moral?

we look in the atheist moral guidline

if it says painting your house in three different colors is bad, then it is bad

if it says painting your house in four different colors is good, then it is good

if it says giving an amount of money equal to a primary number to charity is bad, then it is bad
if it says killing little kittens is good, then it is good.

if it says raping children is fine, then it is fine.

yes, it's that easy. who am I to question a written guidline?

2013 Obama & Castro - "and barack has once again bowed down to a despot"
2018 Trump & Kim - "and it is happening now! after nearly 65 years and 11 presidents"
biggest fucking hypocrite around LOL only in da forum...
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #162 posted 10/11/18 10:26am

CherryMoon57




Martin Luther King, Jr. The Dimensions of a Complete Life, 1959

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #163 posted 10/11/18 1:17pm

toejam

avatar

CherryMoon57 said:

I am not entirely convinced about the sincerity of your search for God, especially since you have spent a lot of your study time, looking for a proof that He does not exist, or the flaws of the Bible.

.

It certainly causes less cognitive dissonance to simply presume insincerity on the part of the unbeliever. My slow realization that God was most likely a superstition occurred over many years, probably starting from the age of, I dunno... maybe 10? and lasting until I as 28, when the penny finally dropped. The core driving factor of this slow deconversion wasn't the need to find proof of God's existence or non-existence, it was most predominantly the continued absense of any detectable response from my regular sincere prayer, "Are you there?". Don't get me wrong, that's not all I prayed for. I'd pray for all sorts of things - world peace, better understandings, etc., but often during those prayers I'd have a momentary suspicion that I was just talking to myself. So I'd throw it to God... "Are you there?".

.

The overwhelming majority of my study of Judeo-Christian Origins came after I came to think that God was a superstition, sure. But it wasn't so much to find proof that he didn't exist, or specifically to find flaws in the Bible. I wanted to know what can and can't be said about it from a historical perspective, rather than a theological one. My understanding of 'the Bible' and Judeo-Christian Origins has changed a lot since I started reading all those books.

.

I was not particularly aware of Wilson or Slick's associations but as long as their message is consistent with the Bible, I have no problem with it. I too believe that the unsaved will be tormented (many already are in many aspects of their lives) and that would be a terrible tragedy for them, but you cannot blame God that He does not offer them a choice.

.

I don't see that God is there offering anything. Your response here sounds like someone making excuses for a Godfather-like Mafia boss who can't be blamed for the murder of those who double-crossed him because, after all, he "made them an offer they couldn't refuse" lol. Where is your God's empathy in having people like myself who think he's a superstition suffer eternal conscious torment? And do you believe, as Wilson and Slick do, that people are predestinied for either heaven or hell?

.

As for you, I am not sure why that should concern you at all, since you do not believe any of this.

.

Because I care about truth, and I presume most other people do too.

Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #164 posted 10/11/18 1:26pm

IanRG

BombSquad said:

2freaky4church1 said:

How do they know they are moral?

we look in the atheist moral guidline

if it says painting your house in three different colors is bad, then it is bad

if it says painting your house in four different colors is good, then it is good

if it says giving an amount of money equal to a primary number to charity is bad, then it is bad
if it says killing little kittens is good, then it is good.

if it says raping children is fine, then it is fine.

yes, it's that easy. who am I to question a written guidline?

.

We know you are trying to be clever, but what you are saying is exactly where your morals come from. The atheist moral guideline is just as an unquestioning acceptance of society's current determination of what is good or bad as everyone else's - perhaps not quite as absolute as your list but then your list is an unrealistic exaggeration and every determination of what is moral changes over time even if based on old texts and laws.

.

The writtern moral guidance used by most Western atheists is exactly the same written guidance used by every Westerner today. It is the Bible and other works like Aesop's fables, Shakespeares plays together with the laws, philosophy, media and, now social media. These are all inspired by God, or at the very least, in the vast majority by people who believe they were inspired by God. You take it on your faith (being your belief without proof) that there is no God, so all these writings, including the Bible, to you, are are not inspired by God.

.

So, what happens when all this is thrown out to be pure new atheist start specifically clear of any inherited politcal, religious or cultural beliefs? The closest we have to such an experiment is Cambodia's Chhnan Saun or Year Zero. Things like killing kittens and raping children were absolutely considered good and fine and forced by the law of the land imposed at the cost of between a 1/4 and a 1/3rd of the total population and only stopped by foreign invasion by Vietnam.

[Edited 10/11/18 13:45pm]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #165 posted 10/11/18 1:42pm

IanRG

toejam said:

CherryMoon57 said:

I am not entirely convinced about the sincerity of your search for God, especially since you have spent a lot of your study time, looking for a proof that He does not exist, or the flaws of the Bible.

.

It certainly causes less cognitive dissonance to simply presume insincerity on the part of the unbeliever. My slow realization that God was most likely a superstition occurred over many years, probably starting from the age of, I dunno... maybe 10? and lasting until I as 28, when the penny finally dropped. The core driving factor of this slow deconversion wasn't the need to find proof of God's existence or non-existence, it was most predominantly the continued absense of any detectable response from my regular sincere prayer, "Are you there?". Don't get me wrong, that's not all I prayed for. I'd pray for all sorts of things - world peace, better understandings, etc., but often during those prayers I'd have a momentary suspicion that I was just talking to myself. So I'd throw it to God... "Are you there?".

.

The overwhelming majority of my study of Judeo-Christian Origins came after I came to think that God was a superstition, sure. But it wasn't so much to find proof that he didn't exist, or specifically to find flaws in the Bible. I wanted to know what can and can't be said about it from a historical perspective, rather than a theological one. My understanding of 'the Bible' and Judeo-Christian Origins has changed a lot since I started reading all those books.

.

.

I don't see that God is there offering anything. Your response here sounds like someone making excuses for a Godfather-like Mafia boss who can't be blamed for the murder of those who double-crossed him because, after all, he "made them an offer they couldn't refuse" lol. Where is your God's empathy in having people like myself who think he's a superstition suffer eternal conscious torment? And do you believe, as Wilson and Slick do, that people are predestinied for either heaven or hell?

.

As for you, I am not sure why that should concern you at all, since you do not believe any of this.

.

Because I care about truth, and I presume most other people do too.

.

But those of us who know you from before your facebook list have not seen any difference in your arguments or focus here. You come into thread after thread after thread to change all religious threads to make them about why you think God does not exist and direct it to Historical Jesus arguments - a specific belief system that denies Christ, so it naturally seeks to disprove God and fails to do so because it is not about finding the Truth, it is about evangelising its understanding of a predetermined version of the truth.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #166 posted 10/11/18 1:43pm

toejam

avatar

^As an atheist, my moral guideline is not an unquestioning acceptance of society's current determination of what is good or bad.

Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #167 posted 10/11/18 1:52pm

IanRG

toejam said:

^As an atheist, my moral guideline is not an unquestioning acceptance of society's current determination of what is good or bad.

.

As a Christian, my moral guideline is not an unquestioning acceptance of society's current determination of what is good or bad.

.

As ever, in your studies and your comments here you are taking things out of context and missing the point to promote your beliefs. The whole sentence was "The atheist moral guideline is just as an unquestioning acceptance of society's current determination of what is good or bad as everyone else's - perhaps not quite as absolute as your list but then your list is an unrealistic exaggeration and every determination of what is moral changes over time even if based on old texts and laws." Emphasis added.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #168 posted 10/11/18 2:24pm

benni

Just as an aside, I had noticed Ian talking about the dates of the books of the Bible above, and just wanted to interject: One of the reasons I appreciated the Mahabharata (Hindu text) is because "The oldest preserved parts of the text are thought to be not much older than around 400 BCE, though the origins of the epic probably fall between the 8th and 9th centuries BCE". I love looking at ancient texts and reading them, but when you have surviving texts from 400 BCE....that's just incredible.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #169 posted 10/11/18 2:40pm

CherryMoon57

CherryMoon57 said:

I am not entirely convinced about the sincerity of your search for God, especially since you have spent a lot of your study time, looking for a proof that He does not exist, or the flaws of the Bible.

.

toejam said:

It certainly causes less cognitive dissonance to simply presume insincerity on the part of the unbeliever. My slow realization that God was most likely a superstition occurred over many years, probably starting from the age of, I dunno... maybe 10? and lasting until I as 28, when the penny finally dropped. The core driving factor of this slow deconversion wasn't the need to find proof of God's existence or non-existence, it was most predominantly the continued absense of any detectable response from my regular sincere prayer, "Are you there?". Don't get me wrong, that's not all I prayed for. I'd pray for all sorts of things - world peace, better understandings, etc., but often during those prayers I'd have a momentary suspicion that I was just talking to myself. So I'd throw it to God... "Are you there?".

.

The overwhelming majority of my study of Judeo-Christian Origins came after I came to think that God was a superstition, sure. But it wasn't so much to find proof that he didn't exist, or specifically to find flaws in the Bible. I wanted to know what can and can't be said about it from a historical perspective, rather than a theological one. My understanding of 'the Bible' and Judeo-Christian Origins has changed a lot since I started reading all those books.

So you had already concluded that the spiritual God was a superstition, before undertaking any historical researches about the Bible and Judeo-Christian origins... Okay, but where does that leave your actual reading of the Bible or your understanding of the spiritual message within the Bible itself. What I mean is: did you actually spend sufficient time reading the Bible and trying to get your own spiritual understanding before drawing that final conclusion (that it is all superstition) or before looking at it from the purely historical perspective?


CherryMoon57 said: I was not particularly aware of Wilson or Slick's associations but as long as their message is consistent with the Bible, I have no problem with it. I too believe that the unsaved will be tormented (many already are in many aspects of their lives) and that would be a terrible tragedy for them, but you cannot blame God that He does not offer them a choice.

.

toejam said:
I don't see that God is there offering anything. Your response here sounds like someone making excuses for a Godfather-like Mafia boss who can't be blamed for the murder of those who double-crossed him because, after all, he "made them an offer they couldn't refuse" lol. Where is your God's empathy in having people like myself who think he's a superstition suffer eternal conscious torment? And do you believe, as Wilson and Slick do, that people are predestinied for either heaven or hell?

God offers a choice. Not being saved is a choice you make. The message in the Bible is clear enough. Once this has been made available to you, it is your own responsibility to decide what you want to do with it. You have to take responsibility for your own actions, including the thoughts you like to entertain. If you want to think that God is a 'mafia-boss' or Jesus a 'fake-psychic' then that is your choice too. If you want to be saved, you can be saved. And of course NO, I don't believe that anyone is predestined for hell.

'For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.' John 3:16

Does this really sound like God has wants some of us to be tormented for the rest of eternity? If you so care about the truth, the least you can do is open your eyes to it.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #170 posted 10/11/18 3:38pm

toejam

avatar

CherryMoon57 said:

So you had already concluded that the spiritual God was a superstition, before undertaking any historical researches about the Bible and Judeo-Christian origins... Okay, but where does that leave your actual reading of the Bible or your understanding of the spiritual message within the Bible itself. What I mean is: did you actually spend sufficient time reading the Bible and trying to get your own spiritual understanding before drawing that final conclusion (that it is all superstition) or before looking at it from the purely historical perspective?

.

I don't see that the Bible has a singular 'spiritual message'. Yes, I believe I am justified in thinking God is a superstition and that I have spent sufficient time to decide this. While studying the historical question of Judeo-Christian Origins (a good chunk of which entails becoming familiar with the Bible) did not make me an atheist, it certainly hasn't shown my thought that God is superstition to be wrong. There is nothing in the Bible that could not have been written by men and men alone. It seems to me that believers bring this idea of divine inspiration to the text, rather than it being present without the assumption.

.

God offers a choice. Not being saved is a choice you make. The message in the Bible is clear enough. Once this has been made available to you, it is your own responsibility to decide what you want to do with it.

.

OK, well this has not been made available to me. I don't believe God is there offering any choice. Your saying so doesn't make it so. The Bible was written by men, not God. At the very least there's no necessity to attribute it beyond men. Let's say I'm wrong. Will your God allow me to choose non-existence after I die over eternal conscious suffering in hell? Or is that free-will choice out of bounds? Will hell be the inevitable outcome for those like me familiar with the 'gospel message' yet still think it's a superstition?

.

You have to take responsibility for your own actions, including the thoughts you like to entertain. If you want to think that God is a 'mafia-boss' or Jesus a 'fake-psychic' then that is your choice too. If you want to be saved, you can be saved.

.

I already take responsibility for my actions. I don't want to think God is like a mafia-boss, but that is the impression you give of his character when you say that if you don't choose faith he will have you suffer eternally.

.

And of course NO, I don't believe that anyone is predestined for hell.

.

That is good to know. My view is that the Bible itself is inconsistent and often indecipherable in its picture of the fate of the unsaved.

.

'For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.' John 3:16

Does this really sound like God has wants some of us to be tormented for the rest of eternity? If you so care about the truth, the least you can do is open your eyes to it.

.

Why should one be granted eternal life based on what they believe happened 2,000yrs ago in a highly illiterate, superstitious, and not-well-evidenced time and place? Isn't that a bit weird? It seems absurd that a God who doesn't want people to suffer eternally would use this to determine one's eternal fate when there are so many unknowables about the historicity of the gospel events (let alone theological reliability).

.

Again, I perceive your language suggesting my eyes are shut as coming from the quick and inaccurate assumption that it is my fault for not believing. You judge my heart as insincere and my mind as closed. I get that it's probably easier for you to go down that route because it prevents the cognitive dissonance of trying to defend an absent God. But I know my prayers were not insincere. And I don't feel that my mind is closed. I feel no guilt in thinking God is a superstition as I think that's where the evidence points. Your God remains absent despite years of sincerely asking "Are you there?". Despite containing some good bits, the Bible also contains some truly awful bits, some downright ridiculous bits, some historically inaccurate bits, prophecies that didn't eventuate as they should have, and it is often inconsistent with itself on every thing from small details to big-picture theological questions. The Bible was written by men. If I'm wrong, your God is free to show me so any time he feels.

.

[Edited 10/11/18 15:45pm]

Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #171 posted 10/11/18 3:48pm

IanRG

benni said:

Just as an aside, I had noticed Ian talking about the dates of the books of the Bible above, and just wanted to interject: One of the reasons I appreciated the Mahabharata (Hindu text) is because "The oldest preserved parts of the text are thought to be not much older than around 400 BCE, though the origins of the epic probably fall between the 8th and 9th centuries BCE". I love looking at ancient texts and reading them, but when you have surviving texts from 400 BCE....that's just incredible.

.

Yes, it is incredible, but it was CherryMoon57 who raised this, not me.

.

It is even more incredible when you add in the Old Testament and note just how short-lived each manuscript is before it needs to be rewritten to preserve its contents and just how effectively the accuracy of these rewrites has been. This is to the point that there is almost no change in the message, and the errors that toejam will probably post about rather than ever discuss the topic of MLK's Essay mean no significant change in the message and have been known long before the various Historical Jesus movements and have taken into account by theologians.

.

Compare this to the writings about, say Alexander the Great or most of the minor Pharoahs (We found another Pharoah in the last couple of years that we did not even know existed) and there is so very much more about Jesus. It is like the preservation of word and message has been done, well, with great religious conviction to preserve the truth. What has been documented includes documentation of the practices to preserve the message of texts over such a long time.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #172 posted 10/11/18 4:00pm

toejam

avatar

benni said:

Just as an aside, I had noticed Ian talking about the dates of the books of the Bible above, and just wanted to interject: One of the reasons I appreciated the Mahabharata (Hindu text) is because "The oldest preserved parts of the text are thought to be not much older than around 400 BCE, though the origins of the epic probably fall between the 8th and 9th centuries BCE". I love looking at ancient texts and reading them, but when you have surviving texts from 400 BCE....that's just incredible.

.

It's incredible and fascinating, yes! But longevity of a text does not necessarily equal theological, historical, or moral reliability. It tells us more about us as humans than it necessarily does about the gods.

Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #173 posted 10/11/18 4:17pm

IanRG

toejam said:

benni said:

Just as an aside, I had noticed Ian talking about the dates of the books of the Bible above, and just wanted to interject: One of the reasons I appreciated the Mahabharata (Hindu text) is because "The oldest preserved parts of the text are thought to be not much older than around 400 BCE, though the origins of the epic probably fall between the 8th and 9th centuries BCE". I love looking at ancient texts and reading them, but when you have surviving texts from 400 BCE....that's just incredible.

.

It's incredible and fascinating, yes! But longevity of a text does not necessarily equal theological, historical, or moral reliability. It tells us more about us as humans than it necessarily does about the gods.

.

Only to the Historical Jesus crowd.

.

Other historians absolutely believe that longevity of a text in such volumes with such clear signs of way above normal preservation efficacy does increase reliability very signficantly. It absolutely tells us about the theological and moral beliefs about God by those people and is a great source of history. Unless you look at it through filters based on promoting a pre-determined belief in a godless "Historical Jesus".

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #174 posted 10/11/18 4:22pm

toejam

avatar

IanRG said:

It is even more incredible when you add in the Old Testament and note just how short-lived each manuscript is before it needs to be rewritten to preserve its contents and just how effectively the accuracy of these rewrites has been. This is to the point that there is almost no change in the message, and the errors that toejam will probably post about [...]

.

The textual reliability of the Old Testament is actually much worse than that of the New Testament. Early manuscripts are much harder to come by, and there are significant variations between the four dominant sources - the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Masoretic text, the Septuagint, and (to a lesser extent) the retellings of Old Testament stories in texts like the Genesis Apocrphyon and the writings of Josephus. Scholars generally understand much of the Old Testament to have gone through a prolonged editing and re-writing process that spanned through multiple centuries prior to the time of our earliest surviving manuscripts.

Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #175 posted 10/11/18 4:26pm

toejam

avatar

IanRG said:

toejam said:

.

It's incredible and fascinating, yes! But longevity of a text does not necessarily equal theological, historical, or moral reliability. It tells us more about us as humans than it necessarily does about the gods.

.

Only to the Historical Jesus crowd.

.

Other historians absolutely believe that longevity of a text in such volumes with such clear signs of way above normal preservation efficacy does increase reliability very signficantly. It absolutely tells us about the theological and moral beliefs about God by those people and is a great source of history. Unless you look at it through filters based on promoting a pre-determined belief in a godless "Historical Jesus".

.

I completely agree with the bolded part - It tells us about what people believed at points in history. But learning what people believed and were careful to preseve and pass on does not equal historical, theological, or moral, reliability.

Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #176 posted 10/11/18 4:48pm

IanRG

toejam said:

IanRG said:

.

Only to the Historical Jesus crowd.

.

Other historians absolutely believe that longevity of a text in such volumes with such clear signs of way above normal preservation efficacy does increase reliability very signficantly. It absolutely tells us about the theological and moral beliefs about God by those people and is a great source of history. Unless you look at it through filters based on promoting a pre-determined belief in a godless "Historical Jesus".

.

I completely agree with the bolded part - It tells us about what people believed at points in history. But learning what people believed and were careful to preseve and pass on does not equal historical, theological, or moral, reliability.

.

Hogwash. All historical writing that seeks to document beliefs about their own history, their own religion and their own morals does provide reliability on their history, religion and morals. Indeed, the writings of ancient people are the crucial evidence in establishing a reliable understanding of their histories, religions and morals. The lack of writings for, say various South American cultures, is what makes understanding their history, religion and morals NOT able to be reliably determined. Your blinkered view is hiding the obvious in scholarly understanding of history as much as elsewhere.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #177 posted 10/11/18 5:06pm

IanRG

toejam said:

IanRG said:

It is even more incredible when you add in the Old Testament and note just how short-lived each manuscript is before it needs to be rewritten to preserve its contents and just how effectively the accuracy of these rewrites has been. This is to the point that there is almost no change in the message, and the errors that toejam will probably post about [...]

.

The textual reliability of the Old Testament is actually much worse than that of the New Testament. Early manuscripts are much harder to come by, and there are significant variations between the four dominant sources - the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Masoretic text, the Septuagint, and (to a lesser extent) the retellings of Old Testament stories in texts like the Genesis Apocrphyon and the writings of Josephus. Scholars generally understand much of the Old Testament to have gone through a prolonged editing and re-writing process that spanned through multiple centuries prior to the time of our earliest surviving manuscripts.

.

That the Old Testament grew overtime is obvious because this is set of books is a Christian concept. The books etc in the "Old Testament" were progressively written over a long period of time and to the Jews are, to this day, different sets of collections of books. This is irrelevant and misses my point - The available documents support no significant change to the message in the preservation and re-writing of the individual books in what is referrred to by Christans as the "Old Testament" even though the available texts were transcribed earlier than the equivalents for the New Testament.

.

"Scholars" outside of the various Historical Jesus movements generally agree on this.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #178 posted 10/11/18 11:42pm

BombSquad

avatar

IanRG said:

BombSquad said:

we look in the atheist moral guidline

if it says painting your house in three different colors is bad, then it is bad

if it says painting your house in four different colors is good, then it is good

if it says giving an amount of money equal to a primary number to charity is bad, then it is bad
if it says killing little kittens is good, then it is good.

if it says raping children is fine, then it is fine.

yes, it's that easy. who am I to question a written guidline?

.

We know you are trying to be clever, but what you are saying is exactly where your morals come from. The atheist moral guideline is just as an unquestioning acceptance of society's current determination of what is good or bad as everyone else's - perhaps not quite as absolute as your list but then your list is an unrealistic exaggeration and every determination of what is moral changes over time even if based on old texts and laws.

.

The writtern moral guidance used by most Western atheists is exactly the same written guidance used by every Westerner today. It is the Bible and other works like Aesop's fables, Shakespeares plays together with the laws, philosophy, media and, now social media. These are all inspired by God, or at the very least, in the vast majority by people who believe they were inspired by God. You take it on your faith (being your belief without proof) that there is no God, so all these writings, including the Bible, to you, are are not inspired by God.

.

So, what happens when all this is thrown out to be pure new atheist start specifically clear of any inherited politcal, religious or cultural beliefs? The closest we have to such an experiment is Cambodia's Chhnan Saun or Year Zero. Things like killing kittens and raping children were absolutely considered good and fine and forced by the law of the land imposed at the cost of between a 1/4 and a 1/3rd of the total population and only stopped by foreign invasion by Vietnam.

you use way more words than 2freaky but basically you say the same: humans don't have morals and need to be told what to do. which means morals are nothing reliable or even absolute, but completely man made dependent from the reigning societey, polticis and religion.

I say that at least core morals and things like love or empathy are built in traits that are even necessary to guarantee the survival of the species.

geeee, I just wonder... who tells the elephant to help injured herd members? who tells the monkey to help older monkeys in getting food? who tells the mother of a baby kitten that she has to LOVE her children or redestribute her wealth milk for them to survive? all without a book?? impossible!!!




we disagree. the END.



[Edited 10/12/18 0:19am]

2013 Obama & Castro - "and barack has once again bowed down to a despot"
2018 Trump & Kim - "and it is happening now! after nearly 65 years and 11 presidents"
biggest fucking hypocrite around LOL only in da forum...
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #179 posted 10/12/18 1:03am

IanRG

BombSquad said:

IanRG said:

.

We know you are trying to be clever, but what you are saying is exactly where your morals come from. The atheist moral guideline is just as an unquestioning acceptance of society's current determination of what is good or bad as everyone else's - perhaps not quite as absolute as your list but then your list is an unrealistic exaggeration and every determination of what is moral changes over time even if based on old texts and laws.

.

The writtern moral guidance used by most Western atheists is exactly the same written guidance used by every Westerner today. It is the Bible and other works like Aesop's fables, Shakespeares plays together with the laws, philosophy, media and, now social media. These are all inspired by God, or at the very least, in the vast majority by people who believe they were inspired by God. You take it on your faith (being your belief without proof) that there is no God, so all these writings, including the Bible, to you, are are not inspired by God.

.

So, what happens when all this is thrown out to be pure new atheist start specifically clear of any inherited politcal, religious or cultural beliefs? The closest we have to such an experiment is Cambodia's Chhnan Saun or Year Zero. Things like killing kittens and raping children were absolutely considered good and fine and forced by the law of the land imposed at the cost of between a 1/4 and a 1/3rd of the total population and only stopped by foreign invasion by Vietnam.

you use way more words than 2freaky but basically you say the same: humans don't have morals and need to be told what to do. which means morals are nothing reliable or even absolute, but completely man made dependent from the reigning societey, polticis and religion.

I say that at least core morals and things like love or empathy are built in traits that are even necessary to guarantee the survival of the species.

geeee, I just wonder... who tells the elephant to help injured herd members? who tells the monkey to help older monkeys in getting food? who tells the mother of a baby kitten that she has to LOVE her children or redestribute her wealth milk for them to survive? all without a book?? impossible!!!




we disagree. the END.

.

I never said humans need to be told what to do, they were your words:

.

BombSquad said in Post #152:

a believer has NO morals and love actually. he is only TOLD what to do

.

Now you want to change this and make it something I said.

.

I also never said that morals can only came from a book, I was directly answering your comments on written moral guidance. Earlier I discussed with you the potential difference sources morals as by people alone or by people inspired by God. You raised written guidelines from people in living in tents as if these morals are unchanging, I disagreed. I said we have the ability to overcome the worst of the "untoward" outcomes of evolution by how we choose to live - It is how we have developed beyond evolutionary outcomes that allows us to do this. This is not always good: The atheist Khmer Rouge did not need books to determine their "morals" when they wiped out 25% to 33% of their own population, they also destroyed books and targeted teachers and the educated. This was also neither an evolutionary outcome nor an intervention by God - It was a choice by atheist people to create new morals.

.

Perhaps elephants, monkeys and cats can also exceed the limitations of evolution in the development of their morals through the same means as us, perhaps it is inherited characteristics.

.

We disagree on what you you think I think.

[Edited 10/12/18 1:04am]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 6 of 10 <12345678910>
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > The Essay that will mow down any atheist: MLK, at age 28!