I am an atheist.

[Czernobog]

And another pompous ass missing the point. I didn't post the OP for milk, and cookies. I posted it to point out that one does not need religious indoctrination to do good.

Dr. Ron Paul responds:

"Throughout our nation's history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government."

Woohoo. Ron Paul is entitled his opinion. It does not change that I need no church, no religion for me to decide to do what I do. Your point?

My point here was that religion serves a purpose and is a force for good.

"Throughout our nation's history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government."

See?

You're entitled your opinion. It does not change the fact that I do not need your religion to recognise what i consider to be good.

I agree 100%. You are 100% free to do as you choose. I am just showing people that religion does serve a purpose. It's all very Darwinian.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. Guess what? I'm doing just fine without it.

 

[ding]

I didn't take offence at it. I demonstrated that you hit on a rather famous example where forgiveness is most certainly not the natural response.

ahhh... I see. My bad. Yes, in hindsight, I chose the perfect example for my purpose. What better event to use. Have you ever done a search to see what their thoughts on this subject were. It would be very interesting, don't you think. I haven't done it yet. I would be willing to bet forgiveness was chosen more often than not.

I think it is probably less than you think, as I also know how the mind works, and we are not wired to forgive "crimes against humanity". Further, as a religion, Judaism is not exactly a religion of forgiveness - remember they very much still live according to the "eye for an eye" mindset - so I doubt they would be all that willing to forgive such atrocities.

I didn't say we were wired to forgive crimes against humanity. That seems a little to specific of a wiring to me. The mind cannot live in conflict that's why we rationalize so much. If you believe that inflicting harm on another human being is wrong and you desire to inflict harm on another human being you are in conflict. Something has to give. Usually it's the belief. Unless of course you remove the conflict which is what forgiving does.

I don't think you know Judaism very well.

07 Judaism

And that's my point. Their lives. Went. On. Forgiveness is not necessary to living a healthy life.

This argument isn't over that. It is about the best way. And it would have been even better if they had. Reason and experience tells me so.

 

[ding]

Dr. Ron Paul responds:

"Throughout our nation's history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government."

Woohoo. Ron Paul is entitled his opinion. It does not change that I need no church, no religion for me to decide to do what I do. Your point?

My point here was that religion serves a purpose and is a force for good.

"Throughout our nation's history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government."

See?

You're entitled your opinion. It does not change the fact that I do not need your religion to recognise what i consider to be good.

I agree 100%. You are 100% free to do as you choose. I am just showing people that religion does serve a purpose. It's all very Darwinian.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. Guess what? I'm doing just fine without it.

Thank you. And as we enter the 4th Turning of the saeculum cycle, I hope you continue to do so.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

There was nothing boastful in my post. There were simple declarative sentences. The only reason you find them "boastful" is because I dare to say that I am able to behave in this manner without the need of some imaginary sky god. Well, I'm sorry that my lack of a need for an imaginary deity offends you so. Actually, no I'm not. My fervent hope is that someone who isn't so sure of their religious teachings will read this, and learn that there is an alternative.

Those who truly are as virtuous as you claim to be (assuming that anyone really is that virtuous) don't need to make as big a show as you do of telling everyone how virtuous they are.

I see no meaningful difference between you and the hypocrites addressed in Matthew 6:1-4, other than at least they, as hypocritical as they were, still acknowledged God, while you, foolishly, deny Him.

 

[ding]

There was nothing boastful in my post. There were simple declarative sentences. The only reason you find them "boastful" is because I dare to say that I am able to behave in this manner without the need of some imaginary sky god. Well, I'm sorry that my lack of a need for an imaginary deity offends you so. Actually, no I'm not. My fervent hope is that someone who isn't so sure of their religious teachings will read this, and learn that there is an alternative.

Those who truly are as virtuous as you claim to be (assuming that anyone really is that virtuous) don't need to make as big a show as you do of telling everyone how virtuous they are.

I see no meaningful difference between you and the hypocrites addressed in Matthew 6:1-4, other than at least they, as hypocritical as they were, still acknowledged God, while you, foolishly, deny Him.

It's the dunning effect all over again.

 

[K9Buck]

Oh, I'm not. The problem is that you then allow religion to impose an artificial set of rules, based on an imaginary God, forcing you to follow a bunch of rules that not only are not necessary, but are, in fact, inhibit your ability to enjoy life freely, and encourage you to impose those restridtive rules on others. That's the difference between you, and I. I refuse to allow religion to corrupt what I believe to be right and wrong, while you, apparently, have no problem allowing it to do so.

Does murdering an unborn person "inhibit their ability to enjoy life freely"?

 

[K9Buck]

Because of the fact that religion and ‘god’ are creations of man, manifestations of goodness, decency, and morality can be practiced by anyone separate and apart from religious doctrine and dogma.

Yea and the universe created itself and then life also created itself and anyone who disagrees believes in magical unicorns.

 

[RWNJ]

Because of the fact that religion and ‘god’ are creations of man, manifestations of goodness, decency, and morality can be practiced by anyone separate and apart from religious doctrine and dogma.

Yea and the universe created itself and then life also created itself and anyone who disagrees believes in magical unicorns.

It's not that they don't believe in God. It's the simple fact that they don't want to believe, since it would impose limits on their behavior. In short, they love their sin more than their Creator.

 

[K9Buck]

If there is no "God", then why is it "immoral" for one to murder their neighbor and steal their wealth?

 

[Czernobog]

Oh, I'm not. The problem is that you then allow religion to impose an artificial set of rules, based on an imaginary God, forcing you to follow a bunch of rules that not only are not necessary, but are, in fact, inhibit your ability to enjoy life freely, and encourage you to impose those restridtive rules on others. That's the difference between you, and I. I refuse to allow religion to corrupt what I believe to be right and wrong, while you, apparently, have no problem allowing it to do so.

Does murdering an unborn person "inhibit their ability to enjoy life freely"?

There's no such thing as an "unborn person" so your question is moot.

 

[ding]

Oh, I'm not. The problem is that you then allow religion to impose an artificial set of rules, based on an imaginary God, forcing you to follow a bunch of rules that not only are not necessary, but are, in fact, inhibit your ability to enjoy life freely, and encourage you to impose those restridtive rules on others. That's the difference between you, and I. I refuse to allow religion to corrupt what I believe to be right and wrong, while you, apparently, have no problem allowing it to do so.

Does murdering an unborn person "inhibit their ability to enjoy life freely"?

There's no such thing as an "unborn person" so your question is moot.

DNA says otherwise.

 

[K9Buck]

There's no such thing as an "unborn person" so your question is moot.

Only in your flawed, simpleton mind.

 

[Czernobog]

If there is no "God", then why is it "immoral" for one to murder their neighbor and steal their wealth?

It's because there is no God that it is immoral. Contrary to fairy tales, there is no "blissful hereafter", no heaven, no paradise where we all float off to. There is this life, and only this life. As such there is nothing that is more precious than life. The number of one's days is the rarest, therefore the most valuable, commodity that one has. How vile to steal that commodity from another!

 

[Czernobog]

Oh, I'm not. The problem is that you then allow religion to impose an artificial set of rules, based on an imaginary God, forcing you to follow a bunch of rules that not only are not necessary, but are, in fact, inhibit your ability to enjoy life freely, and encourage you to impose those restridtive rules on others. That's the difference between you, and I. I refuse to allow religion to corrupt what I believe to be right and wrong, while you, apparently, have no problem allowing it to do so.

Does murdering an unborn person "inhibit their ability to enjoy life freely"?

There's no such thing as an "unborn person" so your question is moot.

DNA says otherwise.

No, it doesn't. Being genetically human is not enough to dictate a person. A cancer cluster is genetically human. I'm relatively certain that anyone calling a cancer cluster a "person" would be laughed at for the absurdity.

 

[Czernobog]

There's no such thing as an "unborn person" so your question is moot.

Only in your flawed, simpleton mind.

Well done. When you don't have a rational response, always run to the logical fallacies.

 

[ding]

“The two cells gradually and gracefully become one. This is the moment of conception, when an individual’s unique set of DNA is created, a human signature that never existed before and will never be repeated.”

In the Womb, National Geographic, 2005

Sounds like a very specific person to me.

 

[ding]

Oh, I'm not. The problem is that you then allow religion to impose an artificial set of rules, based on an imaginary God, forcing you to follow a bunch of rules that not only are not necessary, but are, in fact, inhibit your ability to enjoy life freely, and encourage you to impose those restridtive rules on others. That's the difference between you, and I. I refuse to allow religion to corrupt what I believe to be right and wrong, while you, apparently, have no problem allowing it to do so.

Does murdering an unborn person "inhibit their ability to enjoy life freely"?

There's no such thing as an "unborn person" so your question is moot.

DNA says otherwise.

No, it doesn't. Being genetically human is not enough to dictate a person. A cancer cluster is genetically human. I'm relatively certain that anyone calling a cancer cluster a "person" would be laughed at for the absurdity.

Yes it is. 100%.

It is a very very specific person.

 

[Czernobog]

Because of the fact that religion and ‘god’ are creations of man, manifestations of goodness, decency, and morality can be practiced by anyone separate and apart from religious doctrine and dogma.

Yea and the universe created itself and then life also created itself and anyone who disagrees believes in magical unicorns.

It's not that they don't believe in God. It's the simple fact that they don't want to believe, since it would impose limits on their behavior. In short, they love their sin more than their Creator.

 

[Czernobog]

“The two cells gradually and gracefully become one. This is the moment of conception, when an individual’s unique set of DNA is created, a human signature that never existed before and will never be repeated.”

In the Womb, National Geographic, 2005

Sounds like a very specific person to me.

Lovely poetry. No less wrong.

 

[Czernobog]

Oh, I'm not. The problem is that you then allow religion to impose an artificial set of rules, based on an imaginary God, forcing you to follow a bunch of rules that not only are not necessary, but are, in fact, inhibit your ability to enjoy life freely, and encourage you to impose those restridtive rules on others. That's the difference between you, and I. I refuse to allow religion to corrupt what I believe to be right and wrong, while you, apparently, have no problem allowing it to do so.

Does murdering an unborn person "inhibit their ability to enjoy life freely"?

There's no such thing as an "unborn person" so your question is moot.

DNA says otherwise.

No, it doesn't. Being genetically human is not enough to dictate a person. A cancer cluster is genetically human. I'm relatively certain that anyone calling a cancer cluster a "person" would be laughed at for the absurdity.

Yes it is. 100%.

It is a very very specific person.

Well, you're certainly entitled your opinion, however ill-informed. Nice to know you think cancer is a person.