World without Religion: Better or Worse? page 20

656 posts

Flag Post

@DR
So it’s perfectly fine to ASSUME, as long as it gives you the ability to ignore religion?
Cause only assumptions FOR religion are “bad”, assumptions AGAINST are very much welcomed…
Name me one DEFINITE (not ASSUMED) source that shows that modern “biblical moral values” as we know them, were “invented” before that.
Again, no ASSUMPTIONS, FACTS.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by somebody613:

@DR
So it’s perfectly fine to ASSUME, as long as it gives you the ability to ignore religion?
Cause only assumptions FOR religion are “bad”, assumptions AGAINST are very much welcomed…
Name me one DEFINITE (not ASSUMED) source that shows that modern “biblical moral values” as we know them, were “invented” before that.
Again, no ASSUMPTIONS, FACTS.

It would just be easier if you studied neuro-biology a bit.

 
Flag Post

Name me one DEFINITE (not ASSUMED) source that shows that modern “biblical moral values” as we know them, were “invented” before that.

So that’s really it? You’re here to say “haha, we did it first!”? How about you start by saying why it’s required for a supposed god to tell us what to do and what not to do before we’re actually part of a good society?

We don’t really need to prove anything to you if you don’t prove your claim. If your claim of all moral values coming from religion was true, you could prove it with something other than the Bible. But it stands contested, considering the implication is that people inherently want to do wrong to everyone.

 
Flag Post

@DR
And what is my claim, I wonder?

 
Flag Post

That religion is what invented moral values.

 
Flag Post

@DR
Ha! WRONG!
My claim is:
There are no modern “atheistic morals” that weren’t heavily influenced by the biblical ones.
Meaning, you can’t CLAIM that you know of any atheistic “morals” for a simple reason – there aren’t TODAY!
And what WAS – you also don’t know and have basically no chance to find out.
The only way to truly find this out – is to find a “COLONY” of “Mowglies”.
Only THEY would provide you with “biblicless morals”.
The NORMAL people are part of our society, and it was influenced by biblical values to no end.
(Yes, even Africa and Asia etc.)

 
Flag Post

Somebody has never step out of his country…. There are aboriginal tribes that exist till today… without knowledge of the bible… And some feed own their stillborns…

 
Flag Post

@Ane
And would DB consider such “morals” as fitting?
Cause he (and some others) claim “you can be a good guy without religion, cause it’s due to society”.
But YOU actually prove MY point – “atheistic morals” SUCK! Or GNAW. :DDD

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by somebody613:

@Ane
And would DB consider such “morals” as fitting?
Cause he (and some others) claim “you can be a good guy without religion, cause it’s due to society”.
But YOU actually prove MY point – “atheistic morals” SUCK! Or GNAW. :DDD

The rationale is their values are not wasteful of resources… I smell the youthful arrogance of bigotry… I’d keep a distance…

 
Flag Post

@ane
Does it mean you’d do it to YOUR stillborn?
Cause if not, you’re hypocritical.

 
Flag Post
It was part of the discussion about how it’s silly to actually point out you have a right to practice a religion.

Only silly because you seem to have taken the First Amendment for granted. Try being an open Christian in Tehran and get back to me.

If the law actually states you don’t have a right to practice a religion, naturally they’ll punish you for it. Is that a good thing for society?

Obviously it isn’t which is why the Founders put it into the Constitution because its important to guarantee religious liberties.

Yes. Did you search it up? In many countries it’s illegal except in certain circumstances, and in some it’s even illegal without exception.

I didn’t and it was a serious question. I don’t especially no, or care, what abortion laws are in other nations because I don’t live in said nation, nor do I ever plan on living in another nation, nor do I plan on ever having the mother of a potential unborn child ever terminating it.

Are you saying that there’s no correlation between the number of theists and people opposed to issues such as abortion? Or, in more simple words, do you think there’s no more relative amount of theists opposed to issues such as abortion compared with the relative amount of atheists opposed to issues such as abortion? Once again, you’ll always find people on the opposite side of the spectrum agreeing with those they normally disagree with. This doesn’t disprove the correlation. But if you disagree, that’s fine.

Correlation does not, nor has it ever, proved causation. As for the abortion issue, at least in the United States, Christianity is the dominant religion and Christianity has taken a firm stance on abortion issues. Those who view social issues with a religious frame of mind will probably look at the issue similar to how Christianity teaches it. But that correlation is just one potential contributing factor to how a person comes to their political views, not the only one.

You don’t understand what that saying means? No offense, but is English your third language?

So first I like to rant and now because I’ve never heard a colloquial phrase I now don’t speak English well? Keep up with the personal attacks – just makes you look less and less credible.

The bans on homosexual marriage are stopping social advance

I don’t care at all about gay marriage one way or the other so I’m not about to be drawn into a discussion about it.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by somebody613:

@ane
Does it mean you’d do it to YOUR stillborn?
Cause if not, you’re hypocritical.

On contrary… You are the one saying they sux.
I rather leave you alone. Your lacking does not concern me.

 
Flag Post

@ane
Nah, decide yourself:
1. They are good – so what about YOU? If not, how come they’re “good”?
2. They are bad – you just proved that there are no “good” morals without Bible (or rather brought no contradiction).
“Good” and “bad” here are YOUR feelings towards it – so YOU decide, which way it goes. :D

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by somebody613:

@ane
Nah, decide yourself:
1. They are good – so what about YOU? If not, how come they’re “good”?
2. They are bad – you just proved that there are no “good” morals without Bible (or rather brought no contradiction).
“Good” and “bad” here are YOUR feelings towards it – so YOU decide, which way it goes. :D

There is NOTHING inherently good or bad about morals, cultures or values. Its the manipulation of people using them that I find unnerving. “4legs good 2 legs bad” “2 legs good 4 legs bad”…

What is so objectively bad about consuming stillborn? Can’t name any? That is the manipulation I was talking about…

 
Flag Post

There are no modern “atheistic morals” that weren’t heavily influenced by the biblical ones.

So, really the “ha, we were first! Suck it!”?

Meaning, you can’t CLAIM that you know of any atheistic “morals” for a simple reason – there aren’t TODAY!

I don’t claim there are atheistic morals. I claim morals are independent of religion, as much as you should call it “claim”. You have the burden of proof by claiming your religion, or any religion, was the first to come up with the “don’t kill” rule, and that before religion everyone was killing each other off. If you can’t prove that, then morals were always there (hint: they were).

Issendorf, you’re getting more and more aggressive. I have no need to fight you, so there’s no need to fight me back. For example, I actually wasn’t sure if you were taking me too literally and forgot to see it was a saying. As a general reply to all your queries, of course the government can be corrupt. Religion being allowed as a free practice doesn’t mean you won’t get killed over it, by the government or otherwise. However, what I’m saying is that it’s silly to specifically mention you can freely practice your religion. It does no real damage, as long is made known that it basically means it’s not illegal and you just have to keep within the laws. Furthermore, the basis of several hatreds towards several issues seems to originate from religion. You’re free to argue otherwise. But you don’t seem to care about two of the major issues, so I’m not sure if you care at all about a discussion at this point.

 
Flag Post

@DR
Given that (according to my point which you simply ignore) what we see TODAY, is a PRODUCT of 2000+ years of religious influence, all your talks mean nothing.
It’s quite the same like “maybe we could live underwater, if for the LAST 2000 YEARS, we concentrated on underwater science”.
Dude, that’s JUST a “what if”, nothing really scientific about it.
Same with your claim on morals – we already HAVE it the way we DO.
So the “what if” of “without religion” is ONLY a “sci-fi” AT BEST.
Your “hint: they were” is VERY meaningless and purely emotional, you have NO PROOF for it AT ALL.
Same as with evolution, you ASSUME things, that CAN’T be CHECKED – then go on a rampage of “how dare you not believe me”.
But I forgot, that proving such points to anti-theists is futile, I’m talking to a wall that is predefined as deaf.
So, in order to NOT go into aggressive debates, I’ll just drop it.
This anyways leads nowhere.

@ane
Yes, I can.
Would YOU eat your stillborn?
Yes – OK, you won; but are you saying it HONESTLY? Would you REALLY? Imagine it first, then answer.
No – well, so why if YOU consider it “wrong”, you still claim it to be objective? YOU are subjectively against!

 
Flag Post

@ane
Yes, I can.
Would YOU eat your stillborn?
Yes – OK, you won; but are you saying it HONESTLY? Would you REALLY? Imagine it first, then answer.
No – well, so why if YOU consider it “wrong”, you still claim it to be objective? YOU are subjectively against

So I take that you have nothing to say that is objectively wrong about still birth without others opinion. I’ll make it simpler for you… what is morally wrong in eating own’s stillborn? Seek your brethen’s opinion if you have to. One without own’s judgment is like an swine being lead by the nose ring….
There’s nothing wrong being an retard doesn’t mean I have to act like an idiot to agree…

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by somebody613:

@ane
Speaking of retards and idiots…
I purposely asked YOUR opinion (with detailed explanation WHY) to show that you either are a hypocrite (most probably), or you must consider it RIGHT yourself, to BE ABLE to claim it being OBJECTIVELY non-WRONG.
You are simply avoiding answering it, which leads me to conclude that you’re just a hypocrite.
Not surprised, though. :D

Anyone else wanna say anything on this?

First: somebody613 what’s with all the semi-random capitalized words?
Second: It’s not being a hypocrite if you’re saying it’s objective.
Third: Before I continue with my opinion, what religion do you follow? I feel like I’ve narrowed it down to Judaism or Christianity, but I want to be sure and I don’t think you’ll have a problem with us knowing. If it was earlier in the thread sorry for making you repeat it.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by somebody613:

@ane
Speaking of retards and idiots…
I purposely asked YOUR opinion (with detailed explanation WHY) to show that you either are a hypocrite (most probably), or you must consider it RIGHT yourself, to BE ABLE to claim it being OBJECTIVELY non-WRONG.
You are simply avoiding answering it, which leads me to conclude that you’re just a hypocrite.
Not surprised, though. :D

Anyone else wanna say anything on this?

Purposely??? You meant the rest of your posts were without purpose?

Your are hopeless in understanding. I mentioned existing tribes consuming their stillborn and you say it proves your point that it(atheistic moral) sux. I asked what is objectively or morally wrong with it and you threw an ad hominem ( which shows you character and lacking understanding in the meaning of hypocrite). Its apparent that you cannot answer such questions because you never question the morals you learned.

I have answered your question squarely, which you rejected simply because they are not what you are used to. The way you reacted gives me an idea how narrow your thinking is…

I’m convinced. You are unable to answer my query… which was meant for you to reflect on your own morals…

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
Originally posted by somebody613:

@ane
Speaking of retards and idiots…
I purposely asked YOUR opinion (with detailed explanation WHY) to show that you either are a hypocrite (most probably), or you must consider it RIGHT yourself, to BE ABLE to claim it being OBJECTIVELY non-WRONG.
You are simply avoiding answering it, which leads me to conclude that you’re just a hypocrite.
Not surprised, though. :D

Anyone else wanna say anything on this?

Purposely??? You meant the rest of your posts were without purpose?

Your are hopeless in understanding. I mentioned existing tribes consuming their stillborn and you say it proves your point that it(atheistic moral) sux. I asked what is objectively or morally wrong with it and you threw an ad hominem ( which shows you character and lacking understanding in the meaning of hypocrite). Its apparent that you cannot answer such questions because you never question the morals you learned.

I have answered your question squarely, which you rejected simply because they are not what you are used to. The way you reacted gives me an idea how narrow your thinking is…

I’m convinced. You are unable to answer my query… which was meant for you to reflect on your own morals…

I agree with this. You should question your beliefs, it’s one of the ways to learn. I’m deeply religious and I question my beliefs frequently, otherwise you will be ignorant forever.

 
Flag Post

@MS
I’m quite obviously JEWISH. :D
(And I said it SO many times already…)

Hypocrite: I claim something, but I myself don’t believe in it.
My point was – if Ane claims, that eating stillborns is RIGHT (as in not-WRONG), then he/she MUST also hold by it.
So I asked, what about HIS/HER personal situation – would he/she?
If NOT – hypocrite by claiming a thing he/she does NOT believe as TRUE.
If YES – ok, but was it honest? Cause now I doubt the honesty of such an answer.
But in the end, I got NO answer AT ALL.
Ane’s request that I must prove its objectivity, is but a way to avoid answering the direct question “What about YOU?”
Which even more lets me assume – hypocrite, that just throws claims at random. Period.

You have no clue how much I know, especially on MY religion.
So, please, stop this “you know nothing about your religion” bs…

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by somebody613:

@MS
I’m quite obviously JEWISH. :D
(And I said it SO many times already…)

Hypocrite: I claim something, but I myself don’t believe in it.
My point was – if Ane claims, that eating stillborns is RIGHT (as in not-WRONG), then he/she MUST also hold by it.
So I asked, what about HIS/HER personal situation – would he/she?
If NOT – hypocrite by claiming a thing he/she does NOT believe as TRUE.
If YES – ok, but was it honest? Cause now I doubt the honesty of such an answer.
But in the end, I got NO answer AT ALL.
Ane’s request that I must prove its objectivity, is but a way to avoid answering the direct question “What about YOU?”
Which even more lets me assume – hypocrite, that just throws claims at random. Period.

You have no clue how much I know, especially on MY religion.
So, please, stop this “you know nothing about your religion” bs…

I didn’t read all 20 pages, so sorry.

Ane never said it was right in his/her opinion. Just that it’s objective. Nothing that Ane said even implied hypocrisy.

 
Flag Post

@MS
Reminds me of a professor that talked 2 hours about the damage of smoking, then after the class takes a cigarette.
Exactly what hypocrisy is.
If you CLAIM something (especially as OBJECTIVE), you MUST also follow your own opinion.
Else, you’re just the same hypocrite as that professor.
So I asked what was Ane’s personal opinion on the case, in the form of “would YOU do it?”…
What’s not understandable here?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by somebody613:

@MS
Reminds me of a professor that talked 2 hours about the damage of smoking, then after the class takes a cigarette.
Exactly what hypocrisy is.
If you CLAIM something (especially as OBJECTIVE), you MUST also follow your own opinion.
Else, you’re just the same hypocrite as that professor.

How does stating facts about smoking and then smoking make one a hypocrite?