God declares war on Christmas

[Asclepias]

Actually that statement is false. Believing you are immortal is a way of dealing with mortality. Why construct the idea of immortality at all if not to ease the worry of dying?

Argument from wishful thinking. The primary psychological role of traditional religion is deathist rationalization, that is, rationalizing the tragedy of death as a good thing to alleviate the anxiety of mortality.

You basically just reiterated my argument.

No, you basically reiterated point number 28 on why there is no god.

Why there is no god

What are you talking about? I said people believe in immortality to deal with the fact of mortality. The concept doesnt depend on proving god is real. Thats just part of the bargain.

The Golden Rule or ethic of reciprocity is a moral maxim or principle of altruism found in nearly every human culture and religion, suggesting it is related to a fundamental human nature.

The concept occurs in some form in nearly every religion[4][5] and ethical tradition.[6] It can also be explained from the perspectives of psychology, philosophy, sociology, and economics. Psychologically, it involves a person empathizing with others. Philosophically, it involves a person perceiving their neighbor also as "I" or "self".[7]Sociologically, 'love your neighbor as yourself' is applicable between individuals, between groups, and also between individuals and groups. In economics, Richard Swift, referring to ideas from David Graeber, suggests that "without some kind of reciprocity society would no longer be able to exist."

Possibly the earliest affirmation of reciprocity reflecting the Ancient Egyptian concept of Maat appears in the story of The Eloquent Peasant, which dates to the Middle Kingdom (c. 2040 – c. 1650 BC): "Now this is the command: Do to the doer to make him do."[10][11] This proverb embodies the du ut des principle.[12] A Late Period (c. 664 BC – 323 BC) papyrus contains an early negative affirmation of the Golden Rule: "That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another."

Ancient China[edit]
The Golden Rule existed among all the major philosophical schools of Ancient China: Mohism, Taoism, and Confucianism. Examples of the concept include:

• "Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself." — Confucius[14](c. 500 BC)
• "If people regarded other people's families in the same way that they regard their own, who then would incite their own family to attack that of another? For one would do for others as one would do for oneself." — Mozi (c. 400 BC)
• "Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss." — Laozi[15] (c. 500 BC)

In Mahābhārata, the ancient epic of India, (c 800-700 BC) comes a discourse where the wise minister Vidura advises the King Yuddhiśhṭhira thus, "Listening to wise scriptures, austerity, sacrifice, respectful faith, social welfare, forgiveness, purity of intent, compassion, truth and self-control — are the ten wealth of character (self).

No god necessary.

You do realize that the concept of Maat is religious right? Religion is used to provide social order.

 

[sealybobo]

“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” – Steven Weinberg

People need to believe in god / Without god people will do bad things.
Argument from adverse consequences.

Just because something is perceived as having good consequences if it is true, does not actually make it true.

The fact that religiously free societies with a proportionally large number of atheists are generally more peaceful than otherwise is evidence this perception is incorrect.

Without belief in some god/religion etc more people would be doing more things others perceive as bad.

It doesn't work that way on me. For example, you'll never see me shoot up a Planned Parenthood over atheism.

I don't believe that. I don't think you are giving humans enough credit. I know right now you are probably right. I know humans today are sheep and probably need big brother but I hope future humans don't. I don't. And I don't see how it is necessary.

But religion or god does get a lot of people to do good or at least try to be good. I get what you are saying. Religion isn't all bad.

Thats because you were taught it was wrong. If you were never taught it was wrong and you viewed them as a threat big enough to go to jail for what would stop you? The only people not subject to guilt (which comes from religion), are sociopaths. Break everything down to its base. Watch a toddler. They dont give a shit nor do they feel guilty.

I could never rape a woman. Not because I'd be afraid I would burn in hell for eternity or get caught but because I would feel bad hurting someone. I have empathy. I just wouldn't want to hurt someone. I know it is wrong to hurt other people. I understand that it would ruin the rest of her life and I understand I wouldn't want it happening to me.

Thats because you were taught it was wrong and you were taught to consider how other people feel. That is the result of religion. If you didnt feel it was wrong you wouldnt have any problem doing it.

Nonsense. We were baptized Greek Orthodox but that's just what Greeks do. Even atheist Greeks are buried in the church. We just don't admit we don't believe.

Yes, we were raised by being first told santa knows if we are naughty or nice. I just know it isn't necessary. Just as I can convince you its wrong to steal even without God, I can do it with children too.

 

[sealybobo]

Argument from wishful thinking. The primary psychological role of traditional religion is deathist rationalization, that is, rationalizing the tragedy of death as a good thing to alleviate the anxiety of mortality.

You basically just reiterated my argument.

No, you basically reiterated point number 28 on why there is no god.

Why there is no god

What are you talking about? I said people believe in immortality to deal with the fact of mortality. The concept doesnt depend on proving god is real. Thats just part of the bargain.

The Golden Rule or ethic of reciprocity is a moral maxim or principle of altruism found in nearly every human culture and religion, suggesting it is related to a fundamental human nature.

The concept occurs in some form in nearly every religion[4][5] and ethical tradition.[6] It can also be explained from the perspectives of psychology, philosophy, sociology, and economics. Psychologically, it involves a person empathizing with others. Philosophically, it involves a person perceiving their neighbor also as "I" or "self".[7]Sociologically, 'love your neighbor as yourself' is applicable between individuals, between groups, and also between individuals and groups. In economics, Richard Swift, referring to ideas from David Graeber, suggests that "without some kind of reciprocity society would no longer be able to exist."

Possibly the earliest affirmation of reciprocity reflecting the Ancient Egyptian concept of Maat appears in the story of The Eloquent Peasant, which dates to the Middle Kingdom (c. 2040 – c. 1650 BC): "Now this is the command: Do to the doer to make him do."[10][11] This proverb embodies the du ut des principle.[12] A Late Period (c. 664 BC – 323 BC) papyrus contains an early negative affirmation of the Golden Rule: "That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another."

Ancient China[edit]
The Golden Rule existed among all the major philosophical schools of Ancient China: Mohism, Taoism, and Confucianism. Examples of the concept include:

• "Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself." — Confucius[14](c. 500 BC)
• "If people regarded other people's families in the same way that they regard their own, who then would incite their own family to attack that of another? For one would do for others as one would do for oneself." — Mozi (c. 400 BC)
• "Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss." — Laozi[15] (c. 500 BC)

In Mahābhārata, the ancient epic of India, (c 800-700 BC) comes a discourse where the wise minister Vidura advises the King Yuddhiśhṭhira thus, "Listening to wise scriptures, austerity, sacrifice, respectful faith, social welfare, forgiveness, purity of intent, compassion, truth and self-control — are the ten wealth of character (self).

No god necessary.

You do realize that the concept of Maat is religious right? Religion is used to provide social order.

I know what religion is used for.

And I'm sure if you explain God and heaven to any child, its something most would want to believe. Heck, even adults believe the unbelievable because of wishful thinking, so its easy with kids.

On pbs I saw Isis teaching the kids about God. Scary shit. They even interviewed a future suicide bomber teen. Allah is great he kept saying. Allah akbar

 

[Asclepias]

Without belief in some god/religion etc more people would be doing more things others perceive as bad.

It doesn't work that way on me. For example, you'll never see me shoot up a Planned Parenthood over atheism.

I don't believe that. I don't think you are giving humans enough credit. I know right now you are probably right. I know humans today are sheep and probably need big brother but I hope future humans don't. I don't. And I don't see how it is necessary.

But religion or god does get a lot of people to do good or at least try to be good. I get what you are saying. Religion isn't all bad.

Thats because you were taught it was wrong. If you were never taught it was wrong and you viewed them as a threat big enough to go to jail for what would stop you? The only people not subject to guilt (which comes from religion), are sociopaths. Break everything down to its base. Watch a toddler. They dont give a shit nor do they feel guilty.

I could never rape a woman. Not because I'd be afraid I would burn in hell for eternity or get caught but because I would feel bad hurting someone. I have empathy. I just wouldn't want to hurt someone. I know it is wrong to hurt other people. I understand that it would ruin the rest of her life and I understand I wouldn't want it happening to me.

Thats because you were taught it was wrong and you were taught to consider how other people feel. That is the result of religion. If you didnt feel it was wrong you wouldnt have any problem doing it.

Nonsense. We were baptized Greek Orthodox but that's just what Greeks do. Even atheist Greeks are buried in the church. We just don't admit we don't believe.

Yes, we were raised by being first told santa knows if we are naughty or nice. I just know it isn't necessary. Just as I can convince you its wrong to steal even without God, I can do it with children too.

Thats were you are wrong. You may be able to convince a weak minded person or a child that its wrong without the threat of god/higher power (maybe), but there is no way you have the authority or credibility to convince more than a few without some omnipresent higher authority backing you up. Also you keep forgetting that the concept is not natural. Law of survival is kill or be killed. There is no room for fairness or niceties. That comes from the concept of religions.

 

[Asclepias]

You basically just reiterated my argument.

No, you basically reiterated point number 28 on why there is no god.

Why there is no god

What are you talking about? I said people believe in immortality to deal with the fact of mortality. The concept doesnt depend on proving god is real. Thats just part of the bargain.

The Golden Rule or ethic of reciprocity is a moral maxim or principle of altruism found in nearly every human culture and religion, suggesting it is related to a fundamental human nature.

The concept occurs in some form in nearly every religion[4][5] and ethical tradition.[6] It can also be explained from the perspectives of psychology, philosophy, sociology, and economics. Psychologically, it involves a person empathizing with others. Philosophically, it involves a person perceiving their neighbor also as "I" or "self".[7]Sociologically, 'love your neighbor as yourself' is applicable between individuals, between groups, and also between individuals and groups. In economics, Richard Swift, referring to ideas from David Graeber, suggests that "without some kind of reciprocity society would no longer be able to exist."

Possibly the earliest affirmation of reciprocity reflecting the Ancient Egyptian concept of Maat appears in the story of The Eloquent Peasant, which dates to the Middle Kingdom (c. 2040 – c. 1650 BC): "Now this is the command: Do to the doer to make him do."[10][11] This proverb embodies the du ut des principle.[12] A Late Period (c. 664 BC – 323 BC) papyrus contains an early negative affirmation of the Golden Rule: "That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another."

Ancient China[edit]
The Golden Rule existed among all the major philosophical schools of Ancient China: Mohism, Taoism, and Confucianism. Examples of the concept include:

• "Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself." — Confucius[14](c. 500 BC)
• "If people regarded other people's families in the same way that they regard their own, who then would incite their own family to attack that of another? For one would do for others as one would do for oneself." — Mozi (c. 400 BC)
• "Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss." — Laozi[15] (c. 500 BC)

In Mahābhārata, the ancient epic of India, (c 800-700 BC) comes a discourse where the wise minister Vidura advises the King Yuddhiśhṭhira thus, "Listening to wise scriptures, austerity, sacrifice, respectful faith, social welfare, forgiveness, purity of intent, compassion, truth and self-control — are the ten wealth of character (self).

No god necessary.

You do realize that the concept of Maat is religious right? Religion is used to provide social order.

I know what religion is used for.

And I'm sure if you explain God and heaven to any child, its something most would want to believe. Heck, even adults believe the unbelievable because of wishful thinking, so its easy with kids.

On pbs I saw Isis teaching the kids about God. Scary shit. They even interviewed a future suicide bomber teen. Allah is great he kept saying. Allah akbar

Did it occur to you that there is a reason the kid was saying "god is great"? It just supports my argument that the belief in some unseen final judge is the most powerful way to get people to act a certain way.

 

[pinqy]

It doesn't work that way on me. For example, you'll never see me shoot up a Planned Parenthood over atheism.

I don't believe that. I don't think you are giving humans enough credit. I know right now you are probably right. I know humans today are sheep and probably need big brother but I hope future humans don't. I don't. And I don't see how it is necessary.

But religion or god does get a lot of people to do good or at least try to be good. I get what you are saying. Religion isn't all bad.

Thats because you were taught it was wrong. If you were never taught it was wrong and you viewed them as a threat big enough to go to jail for what would stop you? The only people not subject to guilt (which comes from religion), are sociopaths. Break everything down to its base. Watch a toddler. They dont give a shit nor do they feel guilty.

I could never rape a woman. Not because I'd be afraid I would burn in hell for eternity or get caught but because I would feel bad hurting someone. I have empathy. I just wouldn't want to hurt someone. I know it is wrong to hurt other people. I understand that it would ruin the rest of her life and I understand I wouldn't want it happening to me.

Thats because you were taught it was wrong and you were taught to consider how other people feel. That is the result of religion. If you didnt feel it was wrong you wouldnt have any problem doing it.

Nonsense. We were baptized Greek Orthodox but that's just what Greeks do. Even atheist Greeks are buried in the church. We just don't admit we don't believe.

Yes, we were raised by being first told santa knows if we are naughty or nice. I just know it isn't necessary. Just as I can convince you its wrong to steal even without God, I can do it with children too.

Thats were you are wrong. You may be able to convince a weak minded person or a child that its wrong without the threat of god/higher power (maybe), but there is no way you have the authority or credibility to convince more than a few without some omnipresent higher authority backing you up. .

Why not? You keep claiming it's necessary, but you have no evidence or reasoning to support this.

 

[Asclepias]

Thats because you were taught it was wrong. If you were never taught it was wrong and you viewed them as a threat big enough to go to jail for what would stop you? The only people not subject to guilt (which comes from religion), are sociopaths. Break everything down to its base. Watch a toddler. They dont give a shit nor do they feel guilty.

I could never rape a woman. Not because I'd be afraid I would burn in hell for eternity or get caught but because I would feel bad hurting someone. I have empathy. I just wouldn't want to hurt someone. I know it is wrong to hurt other people. I understand that it would ruin the rest of her life and I understand I wouldn't want it happening to me.

Thats because you were taught it was wrong and you were taught to consider how other people feel. That is the result of religion. If you didnt feel it was wrong you wouldnt have any problem doing it.

Nonsense. We were baptized Greek Orthodox but that's just what Greeks do. Even atheist Greeks are buried in the church. We just don't admit we don't believe.

Yes, we were raised by being first told santa knows if we are naughty or nice. I just know it isn't necessary. Just as I can convince you its wrong to steal even without God, I can do it with children too.

Thats were you are wrong. You may be able to convince a weak minded person or a child that its wrong without the threat of god/higher power (maybe), but there is no way you have the authority or credibility to convince more than a few without some omnipresent higher authority backing you up. .

Why not? You keep claiming it's necessary, but you have no evidence or reasoning to support this.

I just pointed it out. No man has the credibility or authority to convince humans to do things against their nature without religion/god etc as the final authority. Thats all the evidence one needs. No one has provided evidence to the contrary. Name me just 1 event in history where a group of people were convinced to kill themselves or abstain from sex without a god being referred to at some point in the sales pitch.

 

[pinqy]

I could never rape a woman. Not because I'd be afraid I would burn in hell for eternity or get caught but because I would feel bad hurting someone. I have empathy. I just wouldn't want to hurt someone. I know it is wrong to hurt other people. I understand that it would ruin the rest of her life and I understand I wouldn't want it happening to me.

Thats because you were taught it was wrong and you were taught to consider how other people feel. That is the result of religion. If you didnt feel it was wrong you wouldnt have any problem doing it.

Nonsense. We were baptized Greek Orthodox but that's just what Greeks do. Even atheist Greeks are buried in the church. We just don't admit we don't believe.

Yes, we were raised by being first told santa knows if we are naughty or nice. I just know it isn't necessary. Just as I can convince you its wrong to steal even without God, I can do it with children too.

Thats were you are wrong. You may be able to convince a weak minded person or a child that its wrong without the threat of god/higher power (maybe), but there is no way you have the authority or credibility to convince more than a few without some omnipresent higher authority backing you up. .

Why not? You keep claiming it's necessary, but you have no evidence or reasoning to support this.

I just pointed it out. No man has the credibility or authority to convince humans to do things against their nature without religion/god etc as the final authority.

You are moving the goal posts. Who said anything about "against their nature?" If you want to protect your own life or property, it is beneficial to have a societal agreement respecting life and property with (temporal) punishment for violaters. Why does one need a supernatural entity for that to make sense?

No one has provided evidence to the contrary. Name me just 1 event in history where a group of people were convinced to kill themselves or abstain from sex without a god being referred to at some point in the sales pitch.

ummm are there any examples of anyone trying to convince people to kill themselves or abstain from sex without a god as the reason? So your analogy fails there...you can't say that something that has never been tried doesn't work without a specific reason why. And people have been convinced to kill themselves by "friends" and others.

 

[sealybobo]

It doesn't work that way on me. For example, you'll never see me shoot up a Planned Parenthood over atheism.

I don't believe that. I don't think you are giving humans enough credit. I know right now you are probably right. I know humans today are sheep and probably need big brother but I hope future humans don't. I don't. And I don't see how it is necessary.

But religion or god does get a lot of people to do good or at least try to be good. I get what you are saying. Religion isn't all bad.

Thats because you were taught it was wrong. If you were never taught it was wrong and you viewed them as a threat big enough to go to jail for what would stop you? The only people not subject to guilt (which comes from religion), are sociopaths. Break everything down to its base. Watch a toddler. They dont give a shit nor do they feel guilty.

I could never rape a woman. Not because I'd be afraid I would burn in hell for eternity or get caught but because I would feel bad hurting someone. I have empathy. I just wouldn't want to hurt someone. I know it is wrong to hurt other people. I understand that it would ruin the rest of her life and I understand I wouldn't want it happening to me.

Thats because you were taught it was wrong and you were taught to consider how other people feel. That is the result of religion. If you didnt feel it was wrong you wouldnt have any problem doing it.

Nonsense. We were baptized Greek Orthodox but that's just what Greeks do. Even atheist Greeks are buried in the church. We just don't admit we don't believe.

Yes, we were raised by being first told santa knows if we are naughty or nice. I just know it isn't necessary. Just as I can convince you its wrong to steal even without God, I can do it with children too.

Thats were you are wrong. You may be able to convince a weak minded person or a child that its wrong without the threat of god/higher power (maybe), but there is no way you have the authority or credibility to convince more than a few without some omnipresent higher authority backing you up. Also you keep forgetting that the concept is not natural. Law of survival is kill or be killed. There is no room for fairness or niceties. That comes from the concept of religions.

Fairness and being nice existed long before the concept of god. We hadn't invented god yet.

 

[Asclepias]

Thats because you were taught it was wrong and you were taught to consider how other people feel. That is the result of religion. If you didnt feel it was wrong you wouldnt have any problem doing it.

Nonsense. We were baptized Greek Orthodox but that's just what Greeks do. Even atheist Greeks are buried in the church. We just don't admit we don't believe.

Yes, we were raised by being first told santa knows if we are naughty or nice. I just know it isn't necessary. Just as I can convince you its wrong to steal even without God, I can do it with children too.

Thats were you are wrong. You may be able to convince a weak minded person or a child that its wrong without the threat of god/higher power (maybe), but there is no way you have the authority or credibility to convince more than a few without some omnipresent higher authority backing you up. .

Why not? You keep claiming it's necessary, but you have no evidence or reasoning to support this.

I just pointed it out. No man has the credibility or authority to convince humans to do things against their nature without religion/god etc as the final authority.

You are moving the goal posts. Who said anything about "against their nature?" If you want to protect your own life or property, it is beneficial to have a societal agreement respecting life and property with (temporal) punishment for violaters. Why does one need a supernatural entity for that to make sense?

No one has provided evidence to the contrary. Name me just 1 event in history where a group of people were convinced to kill themselves or abstain from sex without a god being referred to at some point in the sales pitch.

ummm are there any examples of anyone trying to convince people to kill themselves or abstain from sex without a god as the reason? So your analogy fails there...you can't say that something that has never been tried doesn't work without a specific reason why. And people have been convinced to kill themselves by "friends" and others.

I'm not moving the goal posts. I am asking for proof to the contrary. Religion is social control and the best way to test that theory is to find a time when a human convinced a group of other humans to do something that is against their natural impulses without invoking god/religion at some point in the sales job.

No my analogy doesnt fail because you are talking about individuals. I'm talking about large groups of people being convinced to do something against their natural impulse by another entity.

 

[Asclepias]

Thats because you were taught it was wrong. If you were never taught it was wrong and you viewed them as a threat big enough to go to jail for what would stop you? The only people not subject to guilt (which comes from religion), are sociopaths. Break everything down to its base. Watch a toddler. They dont give a shit nor do they feel guilty.

I could never rape a woman. Not because I'd be afraid I would burn in hell for eternity or get caught but because I would feel bad hurting someone. I have empathy. I just wouldn't want to hurt someone. I know it is wrong to hurt other people. I understand that it would ruin the rest of her life and I understand I wouldn't want it happening to me.

Thats because you were taught it was wrong and you were taught to consider how other people feel. That is the result of religion. If you didnt feel it was wrong you wouldnt have any problem doing it.

Nonsense. We were baptized Greek Orthodox but that's just what Greeks do. Even atheist Greeks are buried in the church. We just don't admit we don't believe.

Yes, we were raised by being first told santa knows if we are naughty or nice. I just know it isn't necessary. Just as I can convince you its wrong to steal even without God, I can do it with children too.

Thats were you are wrong. You may be able to convince a weak minded person or a child that its wrong without the threat of god/higher power (maybe), but there is no way you have the authority or credibility to convince more than a few without some omnipresent higher authority backing you up. Also you keep forgetting that the concept is not natural. Law of survival is kill or be killed. There is no room for fairness or niceties. That comes from the concept of religions.

Fairness and being nice existed long before the concept of god. We hadn't invented god yet.

Can you give me an example? Thats a rhetorical question because the earliest known religion/god is at least 75k years old

 

[sealybobo]

Thats because you were taught it was wrong and you were taught to consider how other people feel. That is the result of religion. If you didnt feel it was wrong you wouldnt have any problem doing it.

Nonsense. We were baptized Greek Orthodox but that's just what Greeks do. Even atheist Greeks are buried in the church. We just don't admit we don't believe.

Yes, we were raised by being first told santa knows if we are naughty or nice. I just know it isn't necessary. Just as I can convince you its wrong to steal even without God, I can do it with children too.

Thats were you are wrong. You may be able to convince a weak minded person or a child that its wrong without the threat of god/higher power (maybe), but there is no way you have the authority or credibility to convince more than a few without some omnipresent higher authority backing you up. .

Why not? You keep claiming it's necessary, but you have no evidence or reasoning to support this.

I just pointed it out. No man has the credibility or authority to convince humans to do things against their nature without religion/god etc as the final authority.

You are moving the goal posts. Who said anything about "against their nature?" If you want to protect your own life or property, it is beneficial to have a societal agreement respecting life and property with (temporal) punishment for violaters. Why does one need a supernatural entity for that to make sense?

No one has provided evidence to the contrary. Name me just 1 event in history where a group of people were convinced to kill themselves or abstain from sex without a god being referred to at some point in the sales pitch.

ummm are there any examples of anyone trying to convince people to kill themselves or abstain from sex without a god as the reason? So your analogy fails there...you can't say that something that has never been tried doesn't work without a specific reason why. And people have been convinced to kill themselves by "friends" and others.

A suffering

Nonsense. We were baptized Greek Orthodox but that's just what Greeks do. Even atheist Greeks are buried in the church. We just don't admit we don't believe.

Yes, we were raised by being first told santa knows if we are naughty or nice. I just know it isn't necessary. Just as I can convince you its wrong to steal even without God, I can do it with children too.

Thats were you are wrong. You may be able to convince a weak minded person or a child that its wrong without the threat of god/higher power (maybe), but there is no way you have the authority or credibility to convince more than a few without some omnipresent higher authority backing you up. .

Why not? You keep claiming it's necessary, but you have no evidence or reasoning to support this.

I just pointed it out. No man has the credibility or authority to convince humans to do things against their nature without religion/god etc as the final authority.

You are moving the goal posts. Who said anything about "against their nature?" If you want to protect your own life or property, it is beneficial to have a societal agreement respecting life and property with (temporal) punishment for violaters. Why does one need a supernatural entity for that to make sense?

No one has provided evidence to the contrary. Name me just 1 event in history where a group of people were convinced to kill themselves or abstain from sex without a god being referred to at some point in the sales pitch.

ummm are there any examples of anyone trying to convince people to kill themselves or abstain from sex without a god as the reason? So your analogy fails there...you can't say that something that has never been tried doesn't work without a specific reason why. And people have been convinced to kill themselves by "friends" and others.

I'm not moving the goal posts. I am asking for proof to the contrary. Religion is social control and the best way to test that theory is to find a time when a human convinced a group of other humans to do something that is against their natural impulses without invoking god/religion at some point in the sales job.

No my analogy doesnt fail because you are talking about individuals. I'm talking about large groups of people being convinced to do something against their natural impulse by another entity.

Eventually we will move towards solving global climate change and god won't have a thing to do with it.

God isn't convincing me we have to fight ISIS. This isn't a holy war.

We collectively made abortions legal and actually we went against what god believers said.

 

[Asclepias]

Nonsense. We were baptized Greek Orthodox but that's just what Greeks do. Even atheist Greeks are buried in the church. We just don't admit we don't believe.

Yes, we were raised by being first told santa knows if we are naughty or nice. I just know it isn't necessary. Just as I can convince you its wrong to steal even without God, I can do it with children too.

Thats were you are wrong. You may be able to convince a weak minded person or a child that its wrong without the threat of god/higher power (maybe), but there is no way you have the authority or credibility to convince more than a few without some omnipresent higher authority backing you up. .

Why not? You keep claiming it's necessary, but you have no evidence or reasoning to support this.

I just pointed it out. No man has the credibility or authority to convince humans to do things against their nature without religion/god etc as the final authority.

You are moving the goal posts. Who said anything about "against their nature?" If you want to protect your own life or property, it is beneficial to have a societal agreement respecting life and property with (temporal) punishment for violaters. Why does one need a supernatural entity for that to make sense?

No one has provided evidence to the contrary. Name me just 1 event in history where a group of people were convinced to kill themselves or abstain from sex without a god being referred to at some point in the sales pitch.

ummm are there any examples of anyone trying to convince people to kill themselves or abstain from sex without a god as the reason? So your analogy fails there...you can't say that something that has never been tried doesn't work without a specific reason why. And people have been convinced to kill themselves by "friends" and others.

A suffering

Thats were you are wrong. You may be able to convince a weak minded person or a child that its wrong without the threat of god/higher power (maybe), but there is no way you have the authority or credibility to convince more than a few without some omnipresent higher authority backing you up. .

Why not? You keep claiming it's necessary, but you have no evidence or reasoning to support this.

I just pointed it out. No man has the credibility or authority to convince humans to do things against their nature without religion/god etc as the final authority.

You are moving the goal posts. Who said anything about "against their nature?" If you want to protect your own life or property, it is beneficial to have a societal agreement respecting life and property with (temporal) punishment for violaters. Why does one need a supernatural entity for that to make sense?

No one has provided evidence to the contrary. Name me just 1 event in history where a group of people were convinced to kill themselves or abstain from sex without a god being referred to at some point in the sales pitch.

ummm are there any examples of anyone trying to convince people to kill themselves or abstain from sex without a god as the reason? So your analogy fails there...you can't say that something that has never been tried doesn't work without a specific reason why. And people have been convinced to kill themselves by "friends" and others.

I'm not moving the goal posts. I am asking for proof to the contrary. Religion is social control and the best way to test that theory is to find a time when a human convinced a group of other humans to do something that is against their natural impulses without invoking god/religion at some point in the sales job.

No my analogy doesnt fail because you are talking about individuals. I'm talking about large groups of people being convinced to do something against their natural impulse by another entity.

Eventually we will move towards solving global climate change and god won't have a thing to do with it.

God isn't convincing me we have to fight ISIS. This isn't a holy war.

We collectively made abortions legal and actually we went against what god believers said.

Youre not making sense. What does global climate change have to do with doing something against your natural impulses? What does fighting ISIS have to do with going against your natural impulses? What does abortion have to do with it?

 

[sealybobo]

I could never rape a woman. Not because I'd be afraid I would burn in hell for eternity or get caught but because I would feel bad hurting someone. I have empathy. I just wouldn't want to hurt someone. I know it is wrong to hurt other people. I understand that it would ruin the rest of her life and I understand I wouldn't want it happening to me.

Thats because you were taught it was wrong and you were taught to consider how other people feel. That is the result of religion. If you didnt feel it was wrong you wouldnt have any problem doing it.

Nonsense. We were baptized Greek Orthodox but that's just what Greeks do. Even atheist Greeks are buried in the church. We just don't admit we don't believe.

Yes, we were raised by being first told santa knows if we are naughty or nice. I just know it isn't necessary. Just as I can convince you its wrong to steal even without God, I can do it with children too.

Thats were you are wrong. You may be able to convince a weak minded person or a child that its wrong without the threat of god/higher power (maybe), but there is no way you have the authority or credibility to convince more than a few without some omnipresent higher authority backing you up. Also you keep forgetting that the concept is not natural. Law of survival is kill or be killed. There is no room for fairness or niceties. That comes from the concept of religions.

Fairness and being nice existed long before the concept of god. We hadn't invented god yet.

Can you give me an example? Thats a rhetorical question because the earliest known religion/god is at least 75k years old

Can you prove fairness and niceties came only after religion?

I went and fed the homeless this Thanksgiving and I'm an atheist. What possible reason would I help strangers if I don't believe in God?

 

[Asclepias]

Thats because you were taught it was wrong and you were taught to consider how other people feel. That is the result of religion. If you didnt feel it was wrong you wouldnt have any problem doing it.

Nonsense. We were baptized Greek Orthodox but that's just what Greeks do. Even atheist Greeks are buried in the church. We just don't admit we don't believe.

Yes, we were raised by being first told santa knows if we are naughty or nice. I just know it isn't necessary. Just as I can convince you its wrong to steal even without God, I can do it with children too.

Thats were you are wrong. You may be able to convince a weak minded person or a child that its wrong without the threat of god/higher power (maybe), but there is no way you have the authority or credibility to convince more than a few without some omnipresent higher authority backing you up. Also you keep forgetting that the concept is not natural. Law of survival is kill or be killed. There is no room for fairness or niceties. That comes from the concept of religions.

Fairness and being nice existed long before the concept of god. We hadn't invented god yet.

Can you give me an example? Thats a rhetorical question because the earliest known religion/god is at least 75k years old

Can you prove fairness and niceties came only after religion?

I went and fed the homeless this Thanksgiving and I'm an atheist. What possible reason would I help strangers if I don't believe in God?

I asked you first.

I already told you that you were educated in the religious concepts of charity as a child. Doesnt matter what you believe now. The concepts of charity have already formed the habit long before you reached adulthood.

 

[sealybobo]

Thats were you are wrong. You may be able to convince a weak minded person or a child that its wrong without the threat of god/higher power (maybe), but there is no way you have the authority or credibility to convince more than a few without some omnipresent higher authority backing you up. .

Why not? You keep claiming it's necessary, but you have no evidence or reasoning to support this.

I just pointed it out. No man has the credibility or authority to convince humans to do things against their nature without religion/god etc as the final authority.

You are moving the goal posts. Who said anything about "against their nature?" If you want to protect your own life or property, it is beneficial to have a societal agreement respecting life and property with (temporal) punishment for violaters. Why does one need a supernatural entity for that to make sense?

No one has provided evidence to the contrary. Name me just 1 event in history where a group of people were convinced to kill themselves or abstain from sex without a god being referred to at some point in the sales pitch.

ummm are there any examples of anyone trying to convince people to kill themselves or abstain from sex without a god as the reason? So your analogy fails there...you can't say that something that has never been tried doesn't work without a specific reason why. And people have been convinced to kill themselves by "friends" and others.

A suffering

Why not? You keep claiming it's necessary, but you have no evidence or reasoning to support this.

I just pointed it out. No man has the credibility or authority to convince humans to do things against their nature without religion/god etc as the final authority.

You are moving the goal posts. Who said anything about "against their nature?" If you want to protect your own life or property, it is beneficial to have a societal agreement respecting life and property with (temporal) punishment for violaters. Why does one need a supernatural entity for that to make sense?

No one has provided evidence to the contrary. Name me just 1 event in history where a group of people were convinced to kill themselves or abstain from sex without a god being referred to at some point in the sales pitch.

ummm are there any examples of anyone trying to convince people to kill themselves or abstain from sex without a god as the reason? So your analogy fails there...you can't say that something that has never been tried doesn't work without a specific reason why. And people have been convinced to kill themselves by "friends" and others.

I'm not moving the goal posts. I am asking for proof to the contrary. Religion is social control and the best way to test that theory is to find a time when a human convinced a group of other humans to do something that is against their natural impulses without invoking god/religion at some point in the sales job.

No my analogy doesnt fail because you are talking about individuals. I'm talking about large groups of people being convinced to do something against their natural impulse by another entity.

Eventually we will move towards solving global climate change and god won't have a thing to do with it.

God isn't convincing me we have to fight ISIS. This isn't a holy war.

We collectively made abortions legal and actually we went against what god believers said.

Youre not making sense. What does global climate change have to do with doing something against your natural impulses? What does fighting ISIS have to do with going against your natural impulses? What does abortion have to do with it?

You said "No man has the credibility or authority to convince humans to do things against their nature without religion/god"

Seems like burning fossil fuels and hunting are part of our nature but we have hunting seasons for example where it is illegal to hunt or fish. We do that to assure the survival of the animals we harvest every year. No one had to bring up god to convince us to only allow hunting between Oct 15 and Jan 1.

Anyways, I can see you are going to be stubborn about this. Fine, you think god is a necessary lie people need to believe or they'd do all kinds of bad things. That tells me a lot about you. That you can't imagine yourself being a good person without god. Without god you'd have no reason not to lie, cheat, steal and murder. Got it.

 

[sealybobo]

Nonsense. We were baptized Greek Orthodox but that's just what Greeks do. Even atheist Greeks are buried in the church. We just don't admit we don't believe.

Yes, we were raised by being first told santa knows if we are naughty or nice. I just know it isn't necessary. Just as I can convince you its wrong to steal even without God, I can do it with children too.

Thats were you are wrong. You may be able to convince a weak minded person or a child that its wrong without the threat of god/higher power (maybe), but there is no way you have the authority or credibility to convince more than a few without some omnipresent higher authority backing you up. Also you keep forgetting that the concept is not natural. Law of survival is kill or be killed. There is no room for fairness or niceties. That comes from the concept of religions.

Fairness and being nice existed long before the concept of god. We hadn't invented god yet.

Can you give me an example? Thats a rhetorical question because the earliest known religion/god is at least 75k years old

Can you prove fairness and niceties came only after religion?

I went and fed the homeless this Thanksgiving and I'm an atheist. What possible reason would I help strangers if I don't believe in God?

I asked you first.

I already told you that you were educated in the religious concepts of charity as a child. Doesnt matter what you believe now. The concepts of charity have already formed the habit long before you reached adulthood.

Wasn't it you who said no true Christian would ever own a slave? Weren't christian slave owners educated in these religious concepts?

So you're saying no matter what I know now, being taught about god is how I ended up being a good person who knows right and wrong.

Funny how that this belief in god didn't stop all those slave owners but with me I wouldn't know to give to charity if this god concept wasn't taught to me.

I'm a lot confused now.

 

[Asclepias]

Why not? You keep claiming it's necessary, but you have no evidence or reasoning to support this.

I just pointed it out. No man has the credibility or authority to convince humans to do things against their nature without religion/god etc as the final authority.

You are moving the goal posts. Who said anything about "against their nature?" If you want to protect your own life or property, it is beneficial to have a societal agreement respecting life and property with (temporal) punishment for violaters. Why does one need a supernatural entity for that to make sense?

No one has provided evidence to the contrary. Name me just 1 event in history where a group of people were convinced to kill themselves or abstain from sex without a god being referred to at some point in the sales pitch.

ummm are there any examples of anyone trying to convince people to kill themselves or abstain from sex without a god as the reason? So your analogy fails there...you can't say that something that has never been tried doesn't work without a specific reason why. And people have been convinced to kill themselves by "friends" and others.

A suffering

I just pointed it out. No man has the credibility or authority to convince humans to do things against their nature without religion/god etc as the final authority.

You are moving the goal posts. Who said anything about "against their nature?" If you want to protect your own life or property, it is beneficial to have a societal agreement respecting life and property with (temporal) punishment for violaters. Why does one need a supernatural entity for that to make sense?

No one has provided evidence to the contrary. Name me just 1 event in history where a group of people were convinced to kill themselves or abstain from sex without a god being referred to at some point in the sales pitch.

ummm are there any examples of anyone trying to convince people to kill themselves or abstain from sex without a god as the reason? So your analogy fails there...you can't say that something that has never been tried doesn't work without a specific reason why. And people have been convinced to kill themselves by "friends" and others.

I'm not moving the goal posts. I am asking for proof to the contrary. Religion is social control and the best way to test that theory is to find a time when a human convinced a group of other humans to do something that is against their natural impulses without invoking god/religion at some point in the sales job.

No my analogy doesnt fail because you are talking about individuals. I'm talking about large groups of people being convinced to do something against their natural impulse by another entity.

Eventually we will move towards solving global climate change and god won't have a thing to do with it.

God isn't convincing me we have to fight ISIS. This isn't a holy war.

We collectively made abortions legal and actually we went against what god believers said.

Youre not making sense. What does global climate change have to do with doing something against your natural impulses? What does fighting ISIS have to do with going against your natural impulses? What does abortion have to do with it?

You said "No man has the credibility or authority to convince humans to do things against their nature without religion/god"

Seems like burning fossil fuels and hunting are part of our nature but we have hunting seasons for example where it is illegal to hunt or fish. We do that to assure the survival of the animals we harvest every year. No one had to bring up god to convince us to only allow hunting between Oct 15 and Jan 1.

Anyways, I can see you are going to be stubborn about this. Fine, you think god is a necessary lie people need to believe or they'd do all kinds of bad things. That tells me a lot about you. That you can't imagine yourself being a good person without god. Without god you'd have no reason not to lie, cheat, steal and murder. Got it.

Thats correct. The operative word is "convince" not force.

No burning fossil fuels is not part of our nature. Hunting is not part of our nature either. If that was true people wouldnt get their meat from the store. Thats not hunting. Either way the natural instinct of survival would limit us if we perceived there was a threat to our existence by over hunting or burning fossil fuels which is stronger.

I'm not being stubborn. I'm trying to get you to provide proof your opinion is correct and mine is incorrect. No i dont think what you just claimed I think. My belief is that more people would be doing more "bad" things if there were no concepts of god/afterlife/karma etc. All those invisible unprovable concepts that do a adequate job guarding against complete anarchy. I dont actually believe in a "god". There is nothing to stop me from lying cheating, stealing, or murder but myself. If put in a situation where I believed they were needed I would have no qualms about doing any of those things.

 

[sealybobo]

Nonsense. We were baptized Greek Orthodox but that's just what Greeks do. Even atheist Greeks are buried in the church. We just don't admit we don't believe.

Yes, we were raised by being first told santa knows if we are naughty or nice. I just know it isn't necessary. Just as I can convince you its wrong to steal even without God, I can do it with children too.

Thats were you are wrong. You may be able to convince a weak minded person or a child that its wrong without the threat of god/higher power (maybe), but there is no way you have the authority or credibility to convince more than a few without some omnipresent higher authority backing you up. .

Why not? You keep claiming it's necessary, but you have no evidence or reasoning to support this.

I just pointed it out. No man has the credibility or authority to convince humans to do things against their nature without religion/god etc as the final authority.

You are moving the goal posts. Who said anything about "against their nature?" If you want to protect your own life or property, it is beneficial to have a societal agreement respecting life and property with (temporal) punishment for violaters. Why does one need a supernatural entity for that to make sense?

No one has provided evidence to the contrary. Name me just 1 event in history where a group of people were convinced to kill themselves or abstain from sex without a god being referred to at some point in the sales pitch.

ummm are there any examples of anyone trying to convince people to kill themselves or abstain from sex without a god as the reason? So your analogy fails there...you can't say that something that has never been tried doesn't work without a specific reason why. And people have been convinced to kill themselves by "friends" and others.

I'm not moving the goal posts. I am asking for proof to the contrary. Religion is social control and the best way to test that theory is to find a time when a human convinced a group of other humans to do something that is against their natural impulses without invoking god/religion at some point in the sales job.

No my analogy doesnt fail because you are talking about individuals. I'm talking about large groups of people being convinced to do something against their natural impulse by another entity.

Atheists can’t know the difference between right and wrong.
Note: The following answer is a generalization. Atheists are not a homogeneous group. There is no formal moral code resulting from a lack of belief. Atheists can and do subscribe to any number of ethical systems, or may simply decide such things for themselves.

Atheists generally derive their sense of right and wrong from an innate and reasoned understanding of which actions contribute towards a society most hospitable to continual well-being and personal fulfillment. They are accountable to their own conscience and to society at large. They do not require an absolute standard in order to make distinctions between the possible effects of their actions.

Atheists are attuned to the here and now. Their ethics are not derived from some reward or punishment after death, but from a rational consideration of the consequences in this life. Impulsive desires are compassionately, empathetically and intelligently weighed against long term personal and social goals.

As social animals that have evolved to want and give love, to have freedom and security, we have learned that we are safer, stronger and more prosperous in a successful group. Crimes are inherently anti-social behaviours that introduce needless risk and are antithetical to the long-term needs and goals of a happy, stable society.

Essentially all theists unknowingly exercise their innate ‘morality’ or conscience by picking and choosing which parts of their religion to follow.

See also: Enlightened Self-Interest, Secular Ethics, Secular Humanism, Secular Morality, Compassion, Empathy, Sympathy, Conscience, Morality – Good without Gods (a must watch) Sam Harris – Science and Morality (a must watch), Trust, Morality and Oxytocin (a must watch), Christopher Hitchens on Atheist morality.

I have no need for religion, I have a conscience.

 

[Asclepias]

Thats were you are wrong. You may be able to convince a weak minded person or a child that its wrong without the threat of god/higher power (maybe), but there is no way you have the authority or credibility to convince more than a few without some omnipresent higher authority backing you up. Also you keep forgetting that the concept is not natural. Law of survival is kill or be killed. There is no room for fairness or niceties. That comes from the concept of religions.

Fairness and being nice existed long before the concept of god. We hadn't invented god yet.

Can you give me an example? Thats a rhetorical question because the earliest known religion/god is at least 75k years old

Can you prove fairness and niceties came only after religion?

I went and fed the homeless this Thanksgiving and I'm an atheist. What possible reason would I help strangers if I don't believe in God?

I asked you first.

I already told you that you were educated in the religious concepts of charity as a child. Doesnt matter what you believe now. The concepts of charity have already formed the habit long before you reached adulthood.

Wasn't it you who said no true Christian would ever own a slave? Weren't christian slave owners educated in these religious concepts?

So you're saying no matter what I know now, being taught about god is how I ended up being a good person who knows right and wrong.

Funny how that this belief in god didn't stop all those slave owners but with me I wouldn't know to give to charity if this god concept wasn't taught to me.

I'm a lot confused now.

Obviously they were educated in religious concepts but it was with a twist that allowed them to own slaves on the pretense of taking care of the savages. You should read up on this phenomenon on how supposed christians actually rationalized they were doing Blacks a favor by enslaving them. It was the christian thing to do because Blacks were not actually human to them. If they had believed Blacks to be human then slavery would have never taken hold here in the US among christians. The two conflicting concepts would have caused cognitive dissonance. The ability to change their religion to support slavery is further proof of my theory. You shouldnt remain confused. Investigate these things and you will see I speak the truth.