Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1. And indeed most of those Old Testament atrocities were directly ordered or orchestrated by your "God" who is supposed to be the same god as Jesus..
2. Again, all those teachings are already found in the words of philosophers that predate the Jesus myth and New Testament.
3. If those teachings were applied philosophically by everyone, peace would also reign, without need of the extra baggage of religious superstition
4. And I have a bridge to sell you... real cheap!
5. Morality does not come from religion or gods. A secular "godless" society can be a moral, humanitarian one - even moreso than a religious one, in fact. If you look at the countries in the world today that run their government and society according to religious teachings and morals, you will see some of the most inhumane, brutal regimes known to man. Whereas the most prosperous, moral and humanitarian countries are the ones that lean toward secularism and have a majority atheistic or non-religious population.
1. Either you believe in God and blame Him for the atrocities written of in the Old Testament, or you don't believe in God and your 'point' is moot. Your choice...
2. Philosphers or prophets, pick your label, but whatever, all men. By the way, have you proven scientifically that Jesus did not live and is just a myth? Or are you just letting us know that you have faith that your belief is true?
3. Truth is truth regardless of how it was discovered. To apply true principles or not is a choice. Are you suggesting that the teachings taught by Jesus during his "Sermon on the Mount" (including the Beatitudes) are lifestyle principles originally invented by philosophers? If so, please identify those philosophers. If you can find them and link to where they wrote the Beatitudes, is it possible that those same philosophers might have been inspired by er um, maybe God? But yes, everyone knows there is a lot of superfluous baggage attached to all institutions, including churches.
4. If it's not in Brooklyn I might be interested if the price is right and I can get Obama to channel some tax money to make it more comfortable for the homeless to sleep under.
5. Please name those secular nations that are more "prosperous, moral, and humanitarian" than the United States of America. (Surely you are not inferring that the USA is majority atheistic/non-religious?)
That myth was shattered 1600 years ago. Unless you can show valid and reliable scientific proof that it's true of course.
I really like the high tech that often spins off from new discovery using the tools and methods of science. But I'm baffled at how much faith is often placed in people who just spent a few more years in school than most and majored in science subjects, some of them loners tediously laboring in labs trying their best to avoid making the same mistakes more than once.
Scientists do what they do to make a living, the same as everyone else, so I don't know why some people seem to almost adore them. Are scientists viewed as pseudo gods by some of the people who can't exercise enough faith to believe in God do you think?
That's something to bear in mind. I suppose it's the sort of awed admiration we have for the top atheletes or musicians or memory-men who can do things that we can't (but vaguely wish we could). There's also a bit of a Rockstar syndrome about it. The image of white-haired Einstein (at the time when all he was doing was trying to prove that God didn't play dice) is a famous icon, though less of an icon that Che Guevara, who achieved nothing much other than stop a bullet in Colombia.
It hasn't been helped by the advertising media who have found that it serves to up the sales of soap powder if you get the bit actor to put on a lab coat and a clipboard (hornrim glasses, too if she's pretty) while telling you that it removes champagne stains even from ladies' underwear.
No. Somewhow we have come to think of scientists as a race of oracles Whose Word May Not Be Questioned. No wonder that the creationists and other cultists are torn between wanting to discredit them when they disagree and holding them up as Proof Positive when they appear (or can be made to appear) to support them.
But that is not what science is all about. It moves on by finding out what's wrong as much as by finding out what's right.
Absolute straight up lie. There is no faith in the scientific method. The steps on how a previous scientist got to their conclusion is laid out for any other scientist wanting to test the veracity of the claim made. Know what you speak of before you speak it my friend.
I've gotta go with justamere on this one. It is a valid arguement. Anything read in a book takes a measure of faith. There is faith involved that the information laid down in the book is an accurate representation of the facts, and faith in the author's interpretation of the facts, unless you disagree with them.
If you do go out and check the facts for yourself, then faith is no longer required, as you have first hand knowledge, but if you don't, you are taking the facts as being correct on faith.
The scientific method doesn't take anything on faith, but accepting someone else's data without testing it yourself does.
Sorry justamere, that's about all I can agree with you on. The bible, is in fact, a conglomeration of many previous books, stories, and mythologies with a few opinions and current morals for the time thrown in for flavor. And, since I believe that the concept of god was created by man, I believe it cannot predate human history.
If you believe that there is no God, and that your 5 windows on the world (the 5 senses) are physiochemical machines, developed in response to evolutionary pressures, and you then further believe that these crude mechanisms give you an accurate picture of the complex phenomenon that is the Universe...such that you may conclude that there is no God...
If you believe that there is no God, and that your 5 windows on the world (the 5 senses) are physiochemical machines, developed in response to evolutionary pressures, and you then further believe that these crude mechanisms give you an accurate picture of the complex phenomenon that is the Universe...such that you may conclude that there is no God...
If you believe that there is no God, and that your 5 windows on the world (the 5 senses) are physiochemical machines, developed in response to evolutionary pressures, and you then further believe that these crude mechanisms give you an accurate picture of the complex phenomenon that is the Universe...such that you may conclude that there is no God...
I'd call you "naive."
If you go beyond what can be demonstrated with sound logic, evidence tested with the scientific method and reasoning based on all that; if you then speculate about what is still unanswered and regard those speculations as hard fact; it is rather foolish. And to reject all the other speculations as nonsense other than the one you happen to believe in is not only foolish but intellectually dishonest.
To then go on and sneer at anyone who does not share that foolishness and dishonesty as 'naive' is also incredibly arrogant.
I've gotta go with justamere on this one. It is a valid arguement. Anything read in a book takes a measure of faith. There is faith involved that the information laid down in the book is an accurate representation of the facts, and faith in the author's interpretation of the facts, unless you disagree with them.
If you do go out and check the facts for yourself, then faith is no longer required, as you have first hand knowledge, but if you don't, you are taking the facts as being correct on faith.
The scientific method doesn't take anything on faith, but accepting someone else's data without testing it yourself does.
Sorry justamere, that's about all I can agree with you on. The bible, is in fact, a conglomeration of many previous books, stories, and mythologies with a few opinions and current morals for the time thrown in for flavor. And, since I believe that the concept of god was created by man, I believe it cannot predate human history.
It's always nice (and too often rare) to have someone actually agree with me. Thanks for your post Lacerta, even though you have it backwards (slept through Sunday School classes no doubt.) It was God who created man, not the other way around.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
