Why are some many anti-religious and...

[Shogun]

Real Christians, not pretenders, are truly religious because real Christians don't repeatedly do something they know to be wrong, they haven't really accepted the Word of God if they did. You can't go one day in your entire life without cussing, that shows a lack of discipline as well.

AGAIN, your opinion of what constitutes a "real" christian means two things.. and you know what they are.

Your focus on my vocabulary instead of your weak asses argument conveys says more about your laughable christian standard than it does my discipline, dummy. The More You Know.

Your attacking all Christians because of the actions of the judgmental zealots who don't practice what they preach says a lot about you. You are as adamant in YOUR belief as he is his.

riiiiiight... becaue we see atheists out all over the place crying about social morality and trying to srap the world up in a dogma infused bow...


oook. I mean, if you feel like trying to make an equivalence...

 

[LOki]

The laws you live under today in the US are based on religious principles.

No they're not--at least not Constitutionally.

More religious principles means more values and morals for society.

No it doesn't--not in so far as such values and morals are meaningful.

The lack of morals and values would lead to a more chaotic society.

This is true only in so far the morals and values have a foundation in reality rather than superstitions. Morals and values based in superstions is the same thing as having irrelevent morals, and no values.

 

[LOki]

. . . atheists have nothing upon which to base any morals and values, . . .

Untrue. They could base their morals and values upon the objective nature of reality.

. . . thats why wahtever morals and values they do have are derived from religious sources.

No-one with an objective foundation for their morals and values would derive thier morals and/or values from the superstitious sources of religion.

 

[Luissa]

Ignore them. Obviously calling them names doesn't work, and religious or anti-religious, BOTH groups KNOW neither of them represent mainstream anything. They are only labeled as such to disingenuously attack religion.

as for your anti god squad, I think there is more of the Pro God squad ranting about people that don't believe in what they do. And as for name calling, I have had more so called christian people call me names because I didn't go along with their beliefs than anyone else on here.

I don't know what board you've been posting on, but if you think THAT, it isn't this one.

Oh! really! Well maybe you should read more posts.
Let's see if you believe in pro choice you are a baby killer and if you don't believe in Adam and Eve you are a cum dragger(whatever the hell that is?) or a fucking whore take your pick. I can give you direct quotes if you really want!

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Untrue. They could base their morals and values upon the objective nature of reality.

And what constitutes objective nature of reality? Is bashing people who are religious part of an *OBJECTIVE* nature of reality?

No-one with an objective foundation for their morals and values would derive thier morals and/or values from the superstitious sources of religion.

Please enlighten the Bass on some values that are derived from this objective source you rant about.

 

[xotoxi]

Please enlighten the Bass on some values that are derived from this objective source you rant about.

Why do you refer to yourself as "the Bass" and not "The Bass"?

 

[KittenKoder]

Please enlighten the Bass on some values that are derived from this objective source you rant about.

Why do you refer to yourself as "the Bass" and not "The Bass"?

Caps are everything ... he is after all the bAss Master as I call him.

 

[KittenKoder]

Untrue. They could base their morals and values upon the objective nature of reality.

And what constitutes objective nature of reality? Is bashing people who are religious part of an *OBJECTIVE* nature of reality?

No-one with an objective foundation for their morals and values would derive thier morals and/or values from the superstitious sources of religion.

Please enlighten the Bass on some values that are derived from this objective source you rant about.

I am growing bored with you again, but will indulge your idiocy:

1. Survival of the species: Do not murder your own. It's an ingrained instinct which is only overridden when a population of a species far exceeds it's limits.

2. Defend the offspring: ANY laws protecting your children. This instinct is never overridden by nature and cannot be. It's a part of being alive. Those few who do manage to break the instinctual behavior (a very few, mostly straight men) are aberrants which there is no explanation for as yet.

3. Territorialism: Do not take what is mine. A simple law of nature actually, and most species will mark their territories with scents (often urine) our loud chatter to drive off invaders. As humans we have developed more complex languages, so we can actually say "hey, that's mine, leave it alone.' What we as humans consider territory is very different than animals now, though several thousand years back it was exactly the same, and the same territory was fought over between humans and other animals.

4. Tend the wounded and ill: Even though you are probably too ignorant to ever see this, all animals have an instinct to tend the wounds of any living thing they consider part of their family unit, or put it out of it's misery if unable to tend. The BEST sanitizer we have today is cat saliva ... and cats are very willing to dole it out on those they care about. They will lick wound first, and not for the taste of blood, it's an instinct which tells them that since they care about this other living thing, they have to do this.

Tell me, what good and effective law does NOT follow these ... go on ... take your time. This is all nature by the way, not even intelligence is required to follow these laws, evolution created them.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Untrue. They could base their morals and values upon the objective nature of reality.

And what constitutes objective nature of reality? Is bashing people who are religious part of an *OBJECTIVE* nature of reality?

No-one with an objective foundation for their morals and values would derive thier morals and/or values from the superstitious sources of religion.

Please enlighten the Bass on some values that are derived from this objective source you rant about.

I am growing bored with you again, but will indulge your idiocy:

1. Survival of the species: Do not murder your own. It's an ingrained instinct which is only overridden when a population of a species far exceeds it's limits.

2. Defend the offspring: ANY laws protecting your children. This instinct is never overridden by nature and cannot be. It's a part of being alive. Those few who do manage to break the instinctual behavior (a very few, mostly straight men) are aberrants which there is no explanation for as yet.

3. Territorialism: Do not take what is mine. A simple law of nature actually, and most species will mark their territories with scents (often urine) our loud chatter to drive off invaders. As humans we have developed more complex languages, so we can actually say "hey, that's mine, leave it alone.' What we as humans consider territory is very different than animals now, though several thousand years back it was exactly the same, and the same territory was fought over between humans and other animals.

4. Tend the wounded and ill: Even though you are probably too ignorant to ever see this, all animals have an instinct to tend the wounds of any living thing they consider part of their family unit, or put it out of it's misery if unable to tend. The BEST sanitizer we have today is cat saliva ... and cats are very willing to dole it out on those they care about. They will lick wound first, and not for the taste of blood, it's an instinct which tells them that since they care about this other living thing, they have to do this.

Tell me, what good and effective law does NOT follow these ... go on ... take your time. This is all nature by the way, not even intelligence is required to follow these laws, evolution created them.

Human beings have violated very last one of things, neither are those morals and values. You're one trolling idiot.

 

[KittenKoder]

And what constitutes objective nature of reality? Is bashing people who are religious part of an *OBJECTIVE* nature of reality?




Please enlighten the Bass on some values that are derived from this objective source you rant about.

I am growing bored with you again, but will indulge your idiocy:

1. Survival of the species: Do not murder your own. It's an ingrained instinct which is only overridden when a population of a species far exceeds it's limits.

2. Defend the offspring: ANY laws protecting your children. This instinct is never overridden by nature and cannot be. It's a part of being alive. Those few who do manage to break the instinctual behavior (a very few, mostly straight men) are aberrants which there is no explanation for as yet.

3. Territorialism: Do not take what is mine. A simple law of nature actually, and most species will mark their territories with scents (often urine) our loud chatter to drive off invaders. As humans we have developed more complex languages, so we can actually say "hey, that's mine, leave it alone.' What we as humans consider territory is very different than animals now, though several thousand years back it was exactly the same, and the same territory was fought over between humans and other animals.

4. Tend the wounded and ill: Even though you are probably too ignorant to ever see this, all animals have an instinct to tend the wounds of any living thing they consider part of their family unit, or put it out of it's misery if unable to tend. The BEST sanitizer we have today is cat saliva ... and cats are very willing to dole it out on those they care about. They will lick wound first, and not for the taste of blood, it's an instinct which tells them that since they care about this other living thing, they have to do this.

Tell me, what good and effective law does NOT follow these ... go on ... take your time. This is all nature by the way, not even intelligence is required to follow these laws, evolution created them.

Human beings have violated very last one of things, neither are those morals and values. You're one trolling idiot.

Aaaw ... but not until after religious influence ... so if we follow your thinking then it is religious nutbags like you who actually ruined human society.

 

[LOki]

Untrue. They could base their morals and values upon the objective nature of reality.

And what constitutes objective nature of reality?

The fact that reality is not subject to our perception of it.

Is bashing people who are religious part of an *OBJECTIVE* nature of reality?

Bashing religious people is irrelevent to the objective nature of reality.

No-one with an objective foundation for their morals and values would derive thier morals and/or values from the superstitious sources of religion.

Please enlighten the Bass on some values that are derived from this objective source you rant about.

I have made no rant here, but I will oblige:

Life. The fact that life exists independent of one's wishes or hopes (for or the contrary) demands that one values life--particularly one's own life--failing to do so results in death, not only of the individual involved, but also the notions of their values. Even wishing to have life presupposes being alive to have such wishes; valuing life is contingent upon the objective reality of life.

Reason. Since reality is objective (rather than subjective) the use of reason (rather than wishes, for instance) to advance one's existence as a human being is a fine example of a value derived directly from the objective nature of reality--otherwise, one needs only precieve something to be real to make it real, and that nonsense is disproven by every schizophrenic ever.

Liberty. Since man's primary means of survival and pursuit of happiness is the full use of his mind and intelligence in thinking and understanding; that everything he needs must be discovered by his own mind and produced by his own effort (rather than wishful thinking), he must be free to excercise his reason to pursue his happiness; to validate his life.

How about them?

 

[spymaster]

Okay, I'm having a hard time with this thread. I am a hard-core Baptist who doesn't like seeing her religion bashed. And, although I don't agree with being aggresive, I believe that we have the right to preach what we think as do all other religions. (Although, if your definition of preaching includes violence, I disagree with your right to preach) Just because people don't agree with what I say, doesn't mean that there needs to be name-calling either. It's really rude and unnecessary. I think Gunny has done the best job here of trying to find some way to control this thread.

 

[rcajun90]

Scoff at and dismiss religious values and morals as intolerance? It seems like being against homosexual marriage, premarital sex, pornography, foul language, and dressing distastefully on religious grounds makes one an intolerant, ignorant bigot, but being against these sinful things actually will improve and help society.

Bass you have said so many hateful and racist things I find it hard to imagine you are a religious man. What is your religion?

 

[jeffrockit]

It seems like being against homosexual marriage, premarital sex, pornography, foul language, and dressing distastefully on religious grounds makes one an intolerant, ignorant bigot, but being against these sinful things actually will improve and help society.

Why are so many religious zealots on such a crusade to rid the world of what they find to be sinful when maybe they should focus on themselves and mind their own business?

None of the examples that you mentioned will "improve and help society" if they were to magically disappear.

And by continuing to rant against those that are doing things that you find distasteful, but do not infringe on your life, is the definition of an intolerant and ignorant bigot.

There is nothing that you can do, there is nothing that you can say that will rid the world of these "sinful" acts. Be happy that because you do not engage in any of these acts, that you will be "seated at the right hand of the Lord"...and stop worrying about others.

Why are so many anti-religious zealots on such a crusade to the rid the world of religion just because THEY don't believe in it?

By continuing to rant against those that are doing things that you find distasteful, but do not infringe on your life, is the definition of an intolerant and ignorant bigot.

It is because they are lost and do not see the world as Christians. Christians should not expect non-Christians to view things the same because they can't. We are, however, commanded to go and make disciples (and not that is not cramming our beliefs on others). I only broach the subject if it is asked of me but then am not shy about sharing the Christian belief system.

I have noticed that you rarely read posts that are so hate filled, by Christians. For the most part, the non-Christians seem angry to a point of being unstable when they post about Christianity. What is so hard about living your life and not trying to belittle those and their beliefs. It's as if some get this sick sense of enjoyment.

I, for one am at peace because of my faith and someone posting on a message board has no effect on that nor will they ever.

 

[jeffrockit]

"Before the first page is full" is a relative term, when it comes to Terral or Pubeless Infantilium.

Ignore them. Obviously calling them names doesn't work, and religious or anti-religious, BOTH groups KNOW neither of them represent mainstream anything. They are only labeled as such to disingenuously attack religion.

as for your anti god squad, I think there is more of the Pro God squad ranting about people that don't believe in what they do. And as for name calling, I have had more so called christian people call me names because I didn't go along with their beliefs than anyone else on here.

Then those Christians need to search themselves as to whether they are truly saved or is it a false conversion because they are not following the teachings of Christ. Don't buy into all of the media reported "Christians" when they fail as they were probably not saved (though that is not up to me rather it is up to the individual and God).

 

[jeffrockit]

I would turn my back if they got together and lynched you, and any like you, for that to. Hell, I'd pay for the rope.

It is statements like this that strengthens my faith and the fact that the world does indeed need a moral compass like the bible. It definitely makes me pray more for all people.

What an absolute vile thing to say to another human simply because they have written something disagree with...regardless of whether you truly meant it or not.
I find myself sickened by all of the hatred I read on this message board and in the world.

 

[KittenKoder]

It is statements like this that strengthens my faith and the fact that the world does indeed need a moral compass like the bible. It definitely makes me pray more for all people.

What an absolute vile thing to say to another human simply because they have written something disagree with...regardless of whether you truly meant it or not.
I find myself sickened by all of the hatred I read on this message board and in the world.

Oh yeah ... use that as your moral compass and see how long it takes before they toss you in jail. Seriously ... morality does not come from religion, it comes from logic only, at least the good morals that have actually been a benefit to societies.

You seem to not know the bAss Master well, and if you agree with his ways then you are no better. I make no effort to mask my hatred toward some people, and I don't need to justify any of it with some religious bullshit, I hate based on how people treat other living things. bAss Master hates anyone who is different than him, so if you agree with him in any way then I have good reason to hate you as well.

Here's a bit of reality for you, everyone and everything hates something, what's important is why and how we act based on that hatred, not the hatred itself. It's natural to hate, it's natural to be angry, it's healthy to be angry, but it's wrong to be angry or hate someone just because they are different. Just read more of the bAss Masters posts if you are still confused about the difference.

 

[k2skier]

I think Gunny has done the best job here of trying to find some way to control this thread.

By overreacting and ranting? Wow.

 

[N4mddissent]

First of all, while a case could be made that the cultural values nurtured and embraced as part of the protestant reformation helped determine the development of certain American Principals, I think it is more appropriate to say that those values are perhaps based on certain interpretations of the bible rather than say there is a biblical basis for the foundation of American values. Furthermore, those reformation values were modified to be more secular by enlightenment philosophy. And anyone who believes the ten commandments are part of America's Constitutional foundation has obviously never really thought about the issue.

The first four commandments (which actually take up 10 verses in the text) are 1."no other god before me", 2. "no idols/graven images", 3. "no use of name in vain", and 4. "keep the sabbath holy and do no work".

The first commandment is arguably the most important. Not only is it the first listed, but it is a theme repeated throughout the bible, old testament and new. Denying god is the unforgivable sin. Yet, enshrined in our first amendment is the concept of freedom of religion. Furthermore, there is no religious test to hold office. There is no mention of god, a creator, or any other divine reference anywhere in our Constitution. Now it seems to me, that if one was designing a Constitution with a basis in "judeo-christian" values, recognition of god/jesus as supreme would necessarily be a part of it. It is a value that every christian can agree on. Yet it was left out.

Additionally, in the commandment banning idols, the bible speaks of punishing children for the crimes of their parents. That is fundamentally antithetical to our ideas of justice. Freedom of speech is certainly not inspired by commandments to not use the lord's name in vain. Furthermore, there is nothing required by the constitution that would seem to support any of these commandments except perhaps the idea that compensation must be given for property. Values like "equality" and "liberty" are much more related to cultural developments surrounding the protestant reformation and do not have a strong biblical origin. The bible does not condemn slavery in any passage. In fact, it proscribes rules for how slaves should be treated.

Values like "not killing" and "prohibiting theft" along with "honesty" are near universal morals, independently developed by various cultures, many of which had never heard of the bible or christianity. Claiming they derived from the bible or christianity is a failure to acknowledge that they most likely would have developed even in absence of christianity like most other groups around the world.

So, I think that while it is true that some of the principles of America's founding were developed in a predominantly christian culture and were strongly associated with the protestant reformation (perhaps a result of it, perhaps the cause of it, probably a bit of both), I think calling them "judeo-christian" values is misleading.

One last point here. While I do think believers and non-believers can sometimes be offensive and more interested in creating discord than debate here, I also wonder how often the cause of offense is due to different standards based on personal perception. Consider this:

Jesus is Lord vs Jesus is not real

You want to deny god so you can be immoral vs. you need god as an emotional crutch because your afraid to think for yourself

you have just closed your heart and don't want to understand vs. you just have accepted what you've been told instead of thinking for yourself.

These statements are equally offensive/ not-offensive depending on one's point of view. In my experience, I have encountered christians who would get very offended about the statement "god is just pretend" but still see no reason why "jesus is lord" would agitate someone. I'm sure it happens in the other direction as well. Just be aware, that just because a statement contradicts your beliefs, doesn't mean it is any more offensive than a statement supporting your beliefs.

The "talking snake" comments by non-believers are sometimes viewed as condescending. If that accurately reflects the belief someone holds, then I fail to see how it is condescending. I know that not all christians are literalists. But many are. If it does not apply to you, then speak up. Because of the diversity of interpretations in religion, the person commenting cannot know if that is a belief you adhere to or not. Additionally, be careful to avoid being hypocritical by claiming offense at comments like "invisible man in the sky" or "talking snakes" referencing belief and then seeing no problem with those who talk about "xenu and the galatic overlords" or "magic underwear" with a note of incredulity. All of these represent the actual beliefs of some segments of our society. Are we ok with satirically referencing them so they sound ridiculous? Or not? Don't pick and choose. That would be very ethnocentric and shade close to bigotry.

 

[jeffrockit]

It is statements like this that strengthens my faith and the fact that the world does indeed need a moral compass like the bible. It definitely makes me pray more for all people.

What an absolute vile thing to say to another human simply because they have written something disagree with...regardless of whether you truly meant it or not.
I find myself sickened by all of the hatred I read on this message board and in the world.

Oh yeah ... use that as your moral compass and see how long it takes before they toss you in jail. Seriously ... morality does not come from religion, it comes from logic only, at least the good morals that have actually been a benefit to societies.

You seem to not know the bAss Master well, and if you agree with his ways then you are no better. I make no effort to mask my hatred toward some people, and I don't need to justify any of it with some religious bullshit, I hate based on how people treat other living things. bAss Master hates anyone who is different than him, so if you agree with him in any way then I have good reason to hate you as well.

Here's a bit of reality for you, everyone and everything hates something, what's important is why and how we act based on that hatred, not the hatred itself. It's natural to hate, it's natural to be angry, it's healthy to be angry, but it's wrong to be angry or hate someone just because they are different. Just read more of the bAss Masters posts if you are still confused about the difference.

Not defending anyone or anything but my own beliefs. Your reality is just that YOUR reality. My belief system has no effect on anyone but me but no one on a message board is ever going to change that.

What a shame to go through life carrying that kind of hatred. It is a complete waste of energy and hurts no one but you.
Here is a bit of reality for you....learn how to enjoy life. If you have hatred for all who have different views, you will live a hate filled, miserable life.

With that being said,my discussion ends with you as I have no desire to communicate with that level of hatred.