Can Atheists be Moral?

[ding]

God, through the Holy Spirt, doesn't just speak to me or other believers, he's speaking to you and everyone else. You're just not listening.

Right....me and 5 billion others...how unfortunate...

I believe your numbers are way off.

You’d be surprised how many people are willing to listen when they are in the shit.

 

[hobelim]

You say its all magical bullshit.

And you claim your particular, preferred pile of magical bullshit is the only magical bullshit that is not bullshit.

So, a rational person like me is left with two choices"

1) Shaman Hobelim holds the only, absolute divine truth, and everyone else is full of shit.

2) Shaman Hobelim is just as full of shit as eveyone else.

Its not a tough call.

lol,,, there you go again too..

I tell you there is hidden teaching in scripture just like any fairy tale and you say there is no hidden teaching. I mention a talking serpent and you said the authors 'absolutely' believed that snakes can talk. I tell you that a talking serpent is an archetype for a specific type of person described in great detail, which is true about any talking animal in a fairy tale, and you call you that magical bullshit.

Now thats quite the steaming pile of hypocritical bullshit right there dripping off your lips.



You two are just as dumb and deliberately blind as any deceptive religious fundamentalist nut job out there...

You are a religious fundamentalist.

No. I am an ordinary unbeliever who just happened to learn how to recognize a fairy tale and search for the moral teaching of the story before I went to kindergarten.

By the second grade and I first heard about the story of Adam and Eve I had already known how to do that for years.

So when I first heard a religious instructor say "we believe that this bread made by human hands will become for us the body of christ", after I had memorized the ten commandments and learned about the death, hell, and eternal damnation consequent to disobedience I said to myself, "there goes a talking serpent, **** this religion."

Nothing magical, mystical, mysterious, supernatural, complicated, religious, or special about it.

I was just paying attention.

Cool story. Of course there’s the whole attacking a rival religion thingee that makes you a religious fundamentalist.

well, thanks, it is a true story, not unlike your own I'm sure, except for the fact that you had no balls.

Anyway, how can a person who has no religion be a religious fundamentalist?

I'm into waste management now.

Or you can look at it as if you were given an assignment to study a book a few thousand years ago and now you are being tested for comprehension and graded according to how well you have done.

So far you are failing miserably.

 

[ding]

And you claim your particular, preferred pile of magical bullshit is the only magical bullshit that is not bullshit.

So, a rational person like me is left with two choices"

1) Shaman Hobelim holds the only, absolute divine truth, and everyone else is full of shit.

2) Shaman Hobelim is just as full of shit as eveyone else.

Its not a tough call.

lol,,, there you go again too..

I tell you there is hidden teaching in scripture just like any fairy tale and you say there is no hidden teaching. I mention a talking serpent and you said the authors 'absolutely' believed that snakes can talk. I tell you that a talking serpent is an archetype for a specific type of person described in great detail, which is true about any talking animal in a fairy tale, and you call you that magical bullshit.

Now thats quite the steaming pile of hypocritical bullshit right there dripping off your lips.



You two are just as dumb and deliberately blind as any deceptive religious fundamentalist nut job out there...

You are a religious fundamentalist.

No. I am an ordinary unbeliever who just happened to learn how to recognize a fairy tale and search for the moral teaching of the story before I went to kindergarten.

By the second grade and I first heard about the story of Adam and Eve I had already known how to do that for years.

So when I first heard a religious instructor say "we believe that this bread made by human hands will become for us the body of christ", after I had memorized the ten commandments and learned about the death, hell, and eternal damnation consequent to disobedience I said to myself, "there goes a talking serpent, **** this religion."

Nothing magical, mystical, mysterious, supernatural, complicated, religious, or special about it.

I was just paying attention.

Cool story. Of course there’s the whole attacking a rival religion thingee that makes you a religious fundamentalist.

well, thanks, it is a true story, not unlike your own I'm sure, except for the fact that you had no balls.

Anyway, how can a person who has no religion be a religious fundamentalist?

I'm into waste management now.

Or you can look at it as if you were given an assignment to study a book a few thousand years ago and now you are being on tested on comprehension and graded according to how well you have done.

So far you are failing miserably.

I couldn’t be happier for you to believe I have no balls. Being meek isn’t what some believe. It’s hard work.

A person who has no religion is a religious fundamentalist when they habitually attack other religions. That’s how.

So you believe you are doing God’s work and that God has instructed you to attack the beliefs of others? That your behaviors are morally justified?

It seems to me that if God is willing to let us have free will you should too.

 

[hobelim]

lol,,, there you go again too..

I tell you there is hidden teaching in scripture just like any fairy tale and you say there is no hidden teaching. I mention a talking serpent and you said the authors 'absolutely' believed that snakes can talk. I tell you that a talking serpent is an archetype for a specific type of person described in great detail, which is true about any talking animal in a fairy tale, and you call you that magical bullshit.

Now thats quite the steaming pile of hypocritical bullshit right there dripping off your lips.



You two are just as dumb and deliberately blind as any deceptive religious fundamentalist nut job out there...

You are a religious fundamentalist.

No. I am an ordinary unbeliever who just happened to learn how to recognize a fairy tale and search for the moral teaching of the story before I went to kindergarten.

By the second grade and I first heard about the story of Adam and Eve I had already known how to do that for years.

So when I first heard a religious instructor say "we believe that this bread made by human hands will become for us the body of christ", after I had memorized the ten commandments and learned about the death, hell, and eternal damnation consequent to disobedience I said to myself, "there goes a talking serpent, **** this religion."

Nothing magical, mystical, mysterious, supernatural, complicated, religious, or special about it.

I was just paying attention.

Cool story. Of course there’s the whole attacking a rival religion thingee that makes you a religious fundamentalist.

well, thanks, it is a true story, not unlike your own I'm sure, except for the fact that you had no balls.

Anyway, how can a person who has no religion be a religious fundamentalist?

I'm into waste management now.

Or you can look at it as if you were given an assignment to study a book a few thousand years ago and now you are being on tested on comprehension and graded according to how well you have done.

So far you are failing miserably.

I couldn’t be happier for you to believe I have no balls. Being meek isn’t what some believe. It’s hard work.

A person who has no religion is a religious fundamentalist when they habitually attack other religions. That’s how.

So you believe you are doing God’s work and that God has instructed you to attack the beliefs of others? That your behaviors are morally justified?

It seems to me that if God is willing to let us have free will you should too.

Sure, I know its hard work trying to ignore reality day and night perpetuating delusions in your own head that are contradicted by reality day and night.

I'm sure its downright exhausting.

And I am not attacking anything dimwit. You are making claims and I am pointing out exactly how what you profess to believe is wrong and what is right.

So what. Its an open message board. Freedom of expression and all that... I'm a goddamn American.

If you want to pray to a lifeless matzo made by human hands and then eat it for spiritual life, kneel, stand up, sit down, light a candle, genuflect and then chant chant chant, knock yourself out....go to church. No one there is going to disturb your obliviousness by challenging you to question, "isn't this eating of the Jesus thingy a bit stupid?"

 

[MedfordMan]

God, through the Holy Spirt, doesn't just speak to me or other believers, he's speaking to you and everyone else. You're just not listening.

Right....me and 5 billion others...how unfortunate...

I would call that unfortunate, yes.

my point is that Christianity is not secret club, it's an open invitation to anyone who has come to the end of themselves and is willing to accept the Lordship of a loving God.

But, I respect your right to decline that invitation.

However I love you enough to warn you that your decision may have consequences.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

But, I respect your right to decline that invitation.

Just as I have declined the invitation to join all the other religious clubs. Like, hundreds of them. As have you.

However I love you enough to warn you that your decision may have consequences.

Sorry, shaman. Your magical threats and incantations hold no weight with me.

 

[sealybobo]

It is intrinsically impossible for atheists to be moral, given that they have no firmly established moral code, but rather rely on relativistic self serving, self-qualified opinions of what is right and proper in a particular situation.

.

It is intrinsically impossible for atheists to be moral, given that they have no firmly established moral code, but rather rely on relativistic self serving, self-qualified opinions of what is right and proper in a particular situation.

It is intrinsically impossible for atheists to be moral ...

there is no barrier, intrinsically for an atheist to be moral having at birth a clean slate for deturmination however for a religion conceived deceitfully as christianity where sinning is perceived as inseparable from the being does make those individuals intrinsically immoral by their inability to rationally know right from wrong.

what sins are you unable to not commit short-change, to help determine the depth of your immorality - such as hate baited post that are "relativistic self serving, self-qualified opinions of what is right and proper in a particular situation".

When you are the arbiter of whether or not your actions are sinful, you are able to define the levels of right and wrong in the manner that best allows your conscience to be eased. If you're hungry, it's okay to steal. If you want his car to take your wife to the hospital, it's okay to kill him to get it.

Those are not morals, those are self-justification rationales for your behavior. Without an externally enforced set of unassailable laws, you have no moral code - you only have self-serving nonsense designed to justify your bad behavior.

All complete nonsense....thats why no two Christian's loving today would agree 9n all morality, much less a Christian living today and one plucked from 500 years ago (despite carrying around the same,iron age instruction manual). You derive your morality chiefly from the genetic accident of where and when you were born .You simply fool yourself and aggrandize yourself by pretending your morality derives from some divine decree.

Humans are subjective. Their perception of morality changes.

Exactly ... and therein lies the flaw in the logic .... the moral code cannot change. You may choose to ignore parts of it, or even, all of it. But, that does not change your culpability for your sins.

I need help deciding what the moral thing to do is. I’m at a fort being attacked by Apache indians. I escape to get help and run into a man with 100 rifles but I don’t have the money to buy the guns. I can either murder him to save the 200 men and women at the fort or they will die. What should I do?

No other option. Murder him and save 200 or don’t murder him and they will die.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

.

It is intrinsically impossible for atheists to be moral ...

there is no barrier, intrinsically for an atheist to be moral having at birth a clean slate for deturmination however for a religion conceived deceitfully as christianity where sinning is perceived as inseparable from the being does make those individuals intrinsically immoral by their inability to rationally know right from wrong.

what sins are you unable to not commit short-change, to help determine the depth of your immorality - such as hate baited post that are "relativistic self serving, self-qualified opinions of what is right and proper in a particular situation".

When you are the arbiter of whether or not your actions are sinful, you are able to define the levels of right and wrong in the manner that best allows your conscience to be eased. If you're hungry, it's okay to steal. If you want his car to take your wife to the hospital, it's okay to kill him to get it.

Those are not morals, those are self-justification rationales for your behavior. Without an externally enforced set of unassailable laws, you have no moral code - you only have self-serving nonsense designed to justify your bad behavior.

All complete nonsense....thats why no two Christian's loving today would agree 9n all morality, much less a Christian living today and one plucked from 500 years ago (despite carrying around the same,iron age instruction manual). You derive your morality chiefly from the genetic accident of where and when you were born .You simply fool yourself and aggrandize yourself by pretending your morality derives from some divine decree.

Humans are subjective. Their perception of morality changes.

Exactly ... and therein lies the flaw in the logic .... the moral code cannot change. You may choose to ignore parts of it, or even, all of it. But, that does not change your culpability for your sins.

I need help deciding what the moral thing to do is. I’m at a fort being attacked by Apache indians. I escape to get help and run into a man with 100 rifles but I don’t have the money to buy the guns. I can either murder him to save the 200 men and women at the fort or they will die. What should I do?

No other option. Murder him and save 200 or don’t murder him and they will die.

But that is still somewhat unethical. You and the 200 made your choices to be in the position you are in (even though your position is not solely due to your choices). And now you are transferring the negative consequences of those choices to someone else.

might i propose that you convince the gun seller that he will die as well?

 

[sealybobo]

When you are the arbiter of whether or not your actions are sinful, you are able to define the levels of right and wrong in the manner that best allows your conscience to be eased. If you're hungry, it's okay to steal. If you want his car to take your wife to the hospital, it's okay to kill him to get it.

Those are not morals, those are self-justification rationales for your behavior. Without an externally enforced set of unassailable laws, you have no moral code - you only have self-serving nonsense designed to justify your bad behavior.

All complete nonsense....thats why no two Christian's loving today would agree 9n all morality, much less a Christian living today and one plucked from 500 years ago (despite carrying around the same,iron age instruction manual). You derive your morality chiefly from the genetic accident of where and when you were born .You simply fool yourself and aggrandize yourself by pretending your morality derives from some divine decree.

Humans are subjective. Their perception of morality changes.

Exactly ... and therein lies the flaw in the logic .... the moral code cannot change. You may choose to ignore parts of it, or even, all of it. But, that does not change your culpability for your sins.

I need help deciding what the moral thing to do is. I’m at a fort being attacked by Apache indians. I escape to get help and run into a man with 100 rifles but I don’t have the money to buy the guns. I can either murder him to save the 200 men and women at the fort or they will die. What should I do?

No other option. Murder him and save 200 or don’t murder him and they will die.

But that is still somewhat unethical. You and the 200 made your choices to be in the position you are in (even though your position is not solely due to your choices). And now you are transferring the negative consequences of those choices to someone else.

might i propose that you convince the gun seller that he will die as well?

No. In the movie I just watched fort dobbs, he had to murder him for the guns.

I just thought it was odd in the movie they didn’t make the bad guy bad enough in my opinion to justify murdering him for his guns. The main character made the decision to murder him to save the fort.

Very strange movie. He was on the run because he murdered a man for beating up his whore girlfriend, but it was in self defense. Because he saved the fort the sheriff decided to let him go. No mention of the fact he murdered a man to save all their lives.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No. In the movie I just watched fort dobbs, he had to murder him for the guns.

Well that was dumb. He xouldnt convince the guy that he was dead, too?

200 people couldn't overtake the guy withoit killing him?

 

[sealybobo]

When you are the arbiter of whether or not your actions are sinful, you are able to define the levels of right and wrong in the manner that best allows your conscience to be eased. If you're hungry, it's okay to steal. If you want his car to take your wife to the hospital, it's okay to kill him to get it.

Those are not morals, those are self-justification rationales for your behavior. Without an externally enforced set of unassailable laws, you have no moral code - you only have self-serving nonsense designed to justify your bad behavior.

All complete nonsense....thats why no two Christian's loving today would agree 9n all morality, much less a Christian living today and one plucked from 500 years ago (despite carrying around the same,iron age instruction manual). You derive your morality chiefly from the genetic accident of where and when you were born .You simply fool yourself and aggrandize yourself by pretending your morality derives from some divine decree.

Humans are subjective. Their perception of morality changes.

Exactly ... and therein lies the flaw in the logic .... the moral code cannot change. You may choose to ignore parts of it, or even, all of it. But, that does not change your culpability for your sins.

I need help deciding what the moral thing to do is. I’m at a fort being attacked by Apache indians. I escape to get help and run into a man with 100 rifles but I don’t have the money to buy the guns. I can either murder him to save the 200 men and women at the fort or they will die. What should I do?

No other option. Murder him and save 200 or don’t murder him and they will die.

But that is still somewhat unethical. You and the 200 made your choices to be in the position you are in (even though your position is not solely due to your choices). And now you are transferring the negative consequences of those choices to someone else.

might i propose that you convince the gun seller that he will die as well?

I don’t understand why he didn’t tell the guy he’d get the guns back as soon as they save the fort. I expect my gun has been fired a few times before I buy it. It’s not like they lose value because they’ve been shot a few times.

 

[sealybobo]

No. In the movie I just watched fort dobbs, he had to murder him for the guns.

Well that was dumb. He xouldnt convince the guy that he was dead, too?

200 people couldn't overtake the guy withoit killing him?

No the main character left the fort in search of help. So he came across him and they had a shootout.

Not the point. The point is, is it unethical that the main character murdered him for his possessions? I don’t think so but how many of us would to save 200 women and children?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No the main character left the fort in search of help. So he came across him and they had a shootout.

Ah, I see.

Still somewhat unethical. But human.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
who will not answer the question is you, what sins are you unable not to commit. christian.


that must be one of them.


you have that backwards.

in regards to the original spoken religion of antiquity they are ... your 10,000 page document is an inexcusable sin. less than attaining the apex of knowledge is not an excuse. by humanity to fail without final judgement - for their existence from the metaphysical they evolved from.

What do you believe was the original spoken religion?

.
The Triumph of Good vs Evil - is the original religion of antiquity, reaffirmed by the travails of noah ... why it took them till the 4th century to makeup the forgeries of the christian bible. the fallacies of all three desert religions.

Life did not evolve from the metaphysical.

life is metaphysical without it the physical expression, physiology disappears from existence and is subordinate to the spiritual for its composition. as proof for their shared origin. not of Earth.

You are incapable of giving a straight answer, aren’t you?

Which religion was that again? The triumph of good versus evil? Never heard of it. Are you talking about Judaism?

.

Never heard of it.

the spoken religion of Antiquity, The Triumph of Good vs Evil - that's all there is christian ... and what is your religion of sinners called, that includes a messiah that is to save you from your uncontrollable sinning by granting you admission to the Everlasting than too who Triumph's over evil.

the religion of Antiquity is the spoken religion as prescribed by the Almighty, the travails of noah - yours is madeup in the 4th century by the crucifiers that misconstrued the events of the 1st century as has been perpetrated since the 4th century to this day. their 10,000 page political document disguised as a religion.

No such thing. Which religion did you say it was? If there was nothing ever written about it, how did you learn about it? Hmmmm?

.

No such thing. Which religion did you say it was? If there was nothing ever written about it, how did you learn about it? Hmmmm?

- you are about as dense as they come ....

all the desert religions and early religions are verbal translations to text - the texts primarily a corruption by syntax. christianity.

the spoken religion of antiquity is reaffirmed by the travails of noah - when the last good or evil person perishes those who remain will be the Final Judgement granted by the Almighty for all humanity, granted admission to the Everlasting or that all will perish together.

the parable would have concluded with noah's death and the annihilation of humanity, that was preempted and mankind was given a second chance.

 

[sealybobo]

No the main character left the fort in search of help. So he came across him and they had a shootout.

Ah, I see.

Still somewhat unethical. But human.

I want to hear from the theists here. Is it clear cut ethical or unethical in their eyes.

 

[sealybobo]

What do you believe was the original spoken religion?

.
The Triumph of Good vs Evil - is the original religion of antiquity, reaffirmed by the travails of noah ... why it took them till the 4th century to makeup the forgeries of the christian bible. the fallacies of all three desert religions.

Life did not evolve from the metaphysical.

life is metaphysical without it the physical expression, physiology disappears from existence and is subordinate to the spiritual for its composition. as proof for their shared origin. not of Earth.

You are incapable of giving a straight answer, aren’t you?

Which religion was that again? The triumph of good versus evil? Never heard of it. Are you talking about Judaism?

.

Never heard of it.

the spoken religion of Antiquity, The Triumph of Good vs Evil - that's all there is christian ... and what is your religion of sinners called, that includes a messiah that is to save you from your uncontrollable sinning by granting you admission to the Everlasting than too who Triumph's over evil.

the religion of Antiquity is the spoken religion as prescribed by the Almighty, the travails of noah - yours is madeup in the 4th century by the crucifiers that misconstrued the events of the 1st century as has been perpetrated since the 4th century to this day. their 10,000 page political document disguised as a religion.

No such thing. Which religion did you say it was? If there was nothing ever written about it, how did you learn about it? Hmmmm?

.

No such thing. Which religion did you say it was? If there was nothing ever written about it, how did you learn about it? Hmmmm?

- you are about as dense as they come ....

all the desert religions and early religions are verbal translations to text - the texts primarily a corruption by syntax. christianity.

the spoken religion of antiquity is reaffirmed by the travails of noah - when the last good or evil person perishes those who remain will be the Final Judgement granted by the Almighty for all humanity, granted admission to the Everlasting or that all will perish together.

the parable would have concluded with noah's death and the annihilation of humanity, that was preempted and mankind was given a second chance.

I just watched Noah. So did his son who left at the end of the movie find more people wherever he went?

And who impregnated who after Noah’s family multiplied?

 

[BreezeWood]

Ironically, in Isaiah 40:22, the Bible states that the earth is round long before modern science was around

No it doesn't. How absurd. For every overwrought attempt to peddle that nonsense, one can just as easily produce passages from the bible that imply the earth is flat.

Much ado about nothing

Excuse you, its germane to your point. In one breath, you claim not to be in possession of the one, divine truth. In the next, you claim god communicates this truth to you. And,in the next, you claim that your magical beliefs are correct, while those of other religions are wrong. I can see how you would want to sidestep this obvious contradiction in your talking points, because it discredits you utterly .

Let me correct a couple of misperceptions.

God, through the Holy Spirt, doesn't just speak to me or other believers, he's speaking to you and everyone else. You're just not listening.

That's not as critical as it sounds, because I get it. My selfish sin nature makes it difficult for me to listen to HIM too.

God (through the Holy Spirit) doesn't communicate "truth" to me. He provides practical direction in the minute to minute decisions I have to make in my daily life.

You see God doesn't provide truth, he IS righteous and true.

As a Christian, I am not better than you. I'm not smarter than you. I don't have any greater understanding of anything other than this. I'm a sinner, like you, but I can't redeem myself.

You seek truth? That's the truth I understand and that you don't.

You have made it clear that you don't feel that you need God and can do it all yourself.

Good luck to you, I tried that for years and was unsuccessful. If you can pull it off, you're a better man than me.

.

I'm a sinner, like you, but I can't redeem myself.

what are the sins you can not stop committing, you fool yourself by the 4th century christian religion - follow the true religion as prescribed by the Almighty, triumph over evil for admission to the Everlasting.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
The Triumph of Good vs Evil - is the original religion of antiquity, reaffirmed by the travails of noah ... why it took them till the 4th century to makeup the forgeries of the christian bible. the fallacies of all three desert religions.


life is metaphysical without it the physical expression, physiology disappears from existence and is subordinate to the spiritual for its composition. as proof for their shared origin. not of Earth.

You are incapable of giving a straight answer, aren’t you?

Which religion was that again? The triumph of good versus evil? Never heard of it. Are you talking about Judaism?

.

Never heard of it.

the spoken religion of Antiquity, The Triumph of Good vs Evil - that's all there is christian ... and what is your religion of sinners called, that includes a messiah that is to save you from your uncontrollable sinning by granting you admission to the Everlasting than too who Triumph's over evil.

the religion of Antiquity is the spoken religion as prescribed by the Almighty, the travails of noah - yours is madeup in the 4th century by the crucifiers that misconstrued the events of the 1st century as has been perpetrated since the 4th century to this day. their 10,000 page political document disguised as a religion.

No such thing. Which religion did you say it was? If there was nothing ever written about it, how did you learn about it? Hmmmm?

.

No such thing. Which religion did you say it was? If there was nothing ever written about it, how did you learn about it? Hmmmm?

- you are about as dense as they come ....

all the desert religions and early religions are verbal translations to text - the texts primarily a corruption by syntax. christianity.

the spoken religion of antiquity is reaffirmed by the travails of noah - when the last good or evil person perishes those who remain will be the Final Judgement granted by the Almighty for all humanity, granted admission to the Everlasting or that all will perish together.

the parable would have concluded with noah's death and the annihilation of humanity, that was preempted and mankind was given a second chance.

I just watched Noah. So did his son who left at the end of the movie find more people wherever he went?

And who impregnated who after Noah’s family multiplied?

.

I just watched Noah. So did his son who left at the end of the movie find more people wherever he went?

And who impregnated who after Noah’s family multiplied?

you are talking about the christian version - the event was the reaffirmation of the original metaphysical imperative for the evolution of humanity from whence they came ... the threat to destroy the affirmative was itself destroyed. and was summarily resurrected by humanity, the 4th century as an example.

 

[ding]

You are a religious fundamentalist.

No. I am an ordinary unbeliever who just happened to learn how to recognize a fairy tale and search for the moral teaching of the story before I went to kindergarten.

By the second grade and I first heard about the story of Adam and Eve I had already known how to do that for years.

So when I first heard a religious instructor say "we believe that this bread made by human hands will become for us the body of christ", after I had memorized the ten commandments and learned about the death, hell, and eternal damnation consequent to disobedience I said to myself, "there goes a talking serpent, **** this religion."

Nothing magical, mystical, mysterious, supernatural, complicated, religious, or special about it.

I was just paying attention.

Cool story. Of course there’s the whole attacking a rival religion thingee that makes you a religious fundamentalist.

well, thanks, it is a true story, not unlike your own I'm sure, except for the fact that you had no balls.

Anyway, how can a person who has no religion be a religious fundamentalist?

I'm into waste management now.

Or you can look at it as if you were given an assignment to study a book a few thousand years ago and now you are being on tested on comprehension and graded according to how well you have done.

So far you are failing miserably.

I couldn’t be happier for you to believe I have no balls. Being meek isn’t what some believe. It’s hard work.

A person who has no religion is a religious fundamentalist when they habitually attack other religions. That’s how.

So you believe you are doing God’s work and that God has instructed you to attack the beliefs of others? That your behaviors are morally justified?

It seems to me that if God is willing to let us have free will you should too.

Sure, I know its hard work trying to ignore reality day and night perpetuating delusions in your own head that are contradicted by reality day and night.

I'm sure its downright exhausting.

And I am not attacking anything dimwit. You are making claims and I am pointing out exactly how what you profess to believe is wrong and what is right.

So what. Its an open message board. Freedom of expression and all that... I'm a goddamn American.

If you want to pray to a lifeless matzo made by human hands and then eat it for spiritual life, kneel, stand up, sit down, light a candle, genuflect and then chant chant chant, knock yourself out....go to church. No one there is going to disturb your obliviousness by challenging you to question, "isn't this eating of the Jesus thingy a bit stupid?"

Challenging me? That’s what you are doing?

That’s rich.

 

[sealybobo]

You are a religious fundamentalist.

No. I am an ordinary unbeliever who just happened to learn how to recognize a fairy tale and search for the moral teaching of the story before I went to kindergarten.

By the second grade and I first heard about the story of Adam and Eve I had already known how to do that for years.

So when I first heard a religious instructor say "we believe that this bread made by human hands will become for us the body of christ", after I had memorized the ten commandments and learned about the death, hell, and eternal damnation consequent to disobedience I said to myself, "there goes a talking serpent, **** this religion."

Nothing magical, mystical, mysterious, supernatural, complicated, religious, or special about it.

I was just paying attention.

Cool story. Of course there’s the whole attacking a rival religion thingee that makes you a religious fundamentalist.

well, thanks, it is a true story, not unlike your own I'm sure, except for the fact that you had no balls.

Anyway, how can a person who has no religion be a religious fundamentalist?

I'm into waste management now.

Or you can look at it as if you were given an assignment to study a book a few thousand years ago and now you are being on tested on comprehension and graded according to how well you have done.

So far you are failing miserably.

I couldn’t be happier for you to believe I have no balls. Being meek isn’t what some believe. It’s hard work.

A person who has no religion is a religious fundamentalist when they habitually attack other religions. That’s how.

So you believe you are doing God’s work and that God has instructed you to attack the beliefs of others? That your behaviors are morally justified?

It seems to me that if God is willing to let us have free will you should too.

Sure, I know its hard work trying to ignore reality day and night perpetuating delusions in your own head that are contradicted by reality day and night.

I'm sure its downright exhausting.

And I am not attacking anything dimwit. You are making claims and I am pointing out exactly how what you profess to believe is wrong and what is right.

So what. Its an open message board. Freedom of expression and all that... I'm a goddamn American.

If you want to pray to a lifeless matzo made by human hands and then eat it for spiritual life, kneel, stand up, sit down, light a candle, genuflect and then chant chant chant, knock yourself out....go to church. No one there is going to disturb your obliviousness by challenging you to question, "isn't this eating of the Jesus thingy a bit stupid?"

You don’t come to these message boards then become sensitive about people attacking your ridiculous religion I agree. This is the place to do this.