Why argue for atheism? (scientific, Revelation, bible, morals)

[L8Gr8Apost8]

Originally Posted by riggy_house

You may say, "we are many", but can you say, we are the majority?

This is all I meant when I said it takes a special individual to break away, but why split these types of hairs?

When you say the violent teachings, Are you talking about what went on in your household, or what you were reading in the bible?

Not wanting to ask personal questions, but I'm just hoping and wanting to clarify these are biblical teachings you are referring to.

Both the things that went on in the Bible and the Watchtower teachings as they piggy back the violence in the Bible. I know there is something wrong with my mom and can't remember a time I didn't so it's not about that. Most all of the people I grew up with seemed kind, sincere and loving to me and I still believe they are so it's not that I noticed these people behaving badly and figured it out that way. I saw worldly people behaving that way too and couldn't figure out what special thing they had (they say heart condition) that set them apart from those that would be destroyed. I still have the urge to stick up for them and I don't know if that's me coming from a place of compassion or indoctrination. I'll error on the side of compassion for now.

Someone already brought up one of scriptures that horrified me. The story of Noah always bothered me as well as I pointed out and how they justify that to mean that God will destroy every man, woman, child, fetus that doesn't go along with the Watchtower at Armageddon. I'm 49 now so this is what I grew up believing God intended to do. This is a picture from a book I studied as a child (children are given the same material as adults to absorb). I don't know if you can see it on the picture but people are being swallowed by the earth. On the upper right side there is a little girl( maybe 3 or 4?) on a bike with her dog and God is destroying them because her parents didn't want to listen to the Watchtower. I remember seeing the car above her and hoping it would crush her before she realized what was going on and died of suffocation. I was unnaturally worried about the dog too for some reason.

That's dehumanizing people. That is a lover of violence.



I wanted to illustrate using their illustrations why the story of Noah bothered me so bad.



How do you look at that and think : "I told you so."? Once again, they show animals being punished by God because of humans. Maybe an adult can rationalize such things but a child has no defense against it. It just made me sick and afraid of what god was going to do to my classmates, teachers, father, random baby st the supermarket...

[Cruithne]

Originally Posted by riggy_house

I actually meant to say, I'm assuming you were raised in a Christian founded nation, such as the US, UK, or a plethora of nations that all have based their laws and social standards based on the gospels.

You admit to having some ties to church, yet you adamantly reject the notion that any christian based beliefs entered into what you believe are your own mantras and philosophies.

I never said anything of the kind. That's completely in your imagination. I only gave a loose description of my upbringing. I never 'adamantly rejected' any 'notion'. Stop making these ridiculous assumptions. You are projecting your own thoughts onto me and you don't know anything about me other than what I've written in about 3 paragraphs.
I accept that being brought up in Britain brings with it certain cultural norms some of which were based in a past Christian foundation. If I was brought up in China I would have different cultural norms and if I had been brought up in Ancient Rome they would be entirely different again. That's how it works. Where were you brought up? Madagascar?

If we are to continue having a conversation on here perhaps in future you could ask me what I think instead of telling me what I think.
Then perhaps we will get somewhere.

"live and let live" you say. But do you realize this is an old saying, and most likely based on the Christian belief to love and forgive others?

Actually the phrase was developed during the First World War. It originated in the trenches to describe abstaining from violence. Not all terminology comes from the bible don'cha know.

I've seen many times when people who have felt such disdain for others who practice and force their religions onto others, that they try vigorously to shake from themselves any of the stigma that goes with religion.

They convince themselves that religion has never brought them anything good, and has only brought about evil, and so they simply do everything the can to separate themselves from it. It's natural.

Again if this is you projecting your preconceived ideas onto me then you have me completely wrong.
If not then it's irrelevant to the conversation.

[riggy_house]

Originally Posted by mordant

After I left the faith I noticed that what was ACTUALLY going on was that people were frequently making pretty good decisions without the help of an imaginary guy in the sky

I want to present another analogy, and this is about a boy who is taught carpentry, and when the boy grows up he continues to learn his trade, right up until he is finally able to leave his family's business and venture out to build things on his own.

But his family still has concerns so they gave their son, who is now a young man, a copy of their family's big book of carpentry notes.

And within those notes contained a wealth of information about building methods and solutions, and stories from the past- some of them even having bad endings like the time grandpa fell from the rafters and broke his neck, all because he'd forgot to tie off the ladder.

And for a time the young man continued to look into the book for reference, as it held many true equations and helpful guidelines to keep things square and on the level.

But as time progresses, he looks to the book less and less, because much of what is contained within is held firmly in his mind.

He is able to teach his own children and grandchildren many lessons from the book, all without sharing it with them to read. And he knows better than to try, because the book is full of strange dialogue that they wouldn't necessarily be able to understand without proper interpretation.

None the less, he continues to teach what he knows, while the book sits in his chest, unread and gathering book bugs.

As his hair grows white he looks upon everything he'd built with pride, and says, "I've been making pretty good decisions, and all without the help of my family." But the boy couldn't be further from the truth, as he'd always clung to the principles that his family had instilled into him.

Then years after the old boy dies, the book is once again rediscovered. But this time it's by a great grandchild of the boy, who didn't know about the book's history, or how to properly interpret all of the contents within.

This great grandchild has no carpentry skills, but tries none the less to understand the book, and also attempts to build a house according to it's teachings. But alas, the house he tries to build comes crashing to the ground killing many family members inside; leaving many to wonder why the great grand child ever tried to use the book as a guideline for building the house.

---

Now here's a science question for you. Would an amoeba in the bloodstream ever believe it was living inside another being, even though it were true?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Originally Posted by riggy_house

I want to present another analogy, and this is about a boy who is taught carpentry, and when the boy grows up he continues to learn his trade, right up until he is finally able to leave his family's business and venture out to build things on his own.

But his family still has concerns so they gave their son, who is now a young man, a copy of their family's big book of carpentry notes.

And within those notes contained a wealth of information about building methods and solutions, and stories from the past- some of them even having bad endings like the time grandpa fell from the rafters and broke his neck, all because he'd forgot to tie off the ladder.

And for a time the young man continued to look into the book for reference, as it held many true equations and helpful guidelines to keep things square and on the level.

But as time progresses, he looks to the book less and less, because much of what is contained within is held firmly in his mind.

He is able to teach his own children and grandchildren many lessons from the book, all without sharing it with them to read. And he knows better than to try, because the book is full of strange dialogue that they wouldn't necessarily be able to understand without proper interpretation.

None the less, he continues to teach what he knows, while the book sits in his chest, unread and gathering book bugs.

As his hair grows white he looks upon everything he'd built with pride, and says, "I've been making pretty good decisions, and all without the help of my family." But the boy couldn't be further from the truth, as he'd always clung to the principles that his family had instilled into him.

Then years after the old boy dies, the book is once again rediscovered. But this time it's by a great grandchild of the boy, who didn't know about the book's history, or how to properly interpret all of the contents within.

This great grandchild has no carpentry skills, but tries none the less to understand the book, and also attempts to build a house according to it's teachings. But alas, the house he tries to build comes crashing to the ground killing many family members inside; leaving many to wonder why the great grand child ever tried to use the book as a guideline for building the house.

---

Now here's a science question for you. Would an amoeba in the bloodstream ever believe it was living inside another being, even though it were true?

Once the amoeba had figured out that E = MC², then constructed the Hubble telescope and the CERN hadron collider, it just might.

[riggy_house]

Originally Posted by Cruithne

I never said anything of the kind. That's completely in your imagination. I only gave a loose description of my upbringing. I never 'adamantly rejected' any 'notion'. Stop making these ridiculous assumptions. You are projecting your own thoughts onto me and you don't know anything about me other than what I've written in about 3 paragraphs.

Most people who can read would clearly see you were clearly disassociating yourself from religious influence, having your mother as an agnostic, your father as a skeptic, and your brother as a full on Atheist.

We can agree to disagree with how adamantly you were disassociating yourself from the notion that religion had been of anything other than trivial influence on your upbringing. But disassociating you were- at least in my eyes. But I admit, I could be wrong.

Originally Posted by Cruithne

I accept that being brought up in Britain brings with it certain cultural norms some of which were based in a past Christian foundation. If I was brought up in China I would have different cultural norms and if I had been brought up in Ancient Rome they would be entirely different again. That's how it works. Where were you brought up? Madagascar?

I was brought up in the U.S. well, born and a short time in a US military base in Europe, but that has little meaning here.

Originally Posted by Cruithne

If we are to continue having a conversation on here perhaps in future you could ask me what I think instead of telling me what I think.
Then perhaps we will get somewhere.

Ok.

Originally Posted by Cruithne

Actually the phrase was developed during the First World War. It originated in the trenches to describe abstaining from violence. Not all terminology comes from the bible don'cha know.

Actually, yes, and I'm willing to bet that it was developed by an individual(s) who sat in a pew, or were raised by people who did. What are your google search facts saying about that?

Originally Posted by Cruithne

Again if this is you projecting your preconceived ideas onto me then you have me completely wrong.
If not then it's irrelevant to the conversation.

I could be wrong, as I've said.

Were you not discarding earlier the value of the 10 commandments- implying most of them should be obvious, and therefor unnecessary?

Were you not criticizing the first four commandments, and implying they must have been written because God is "needy", and just wanting to be "flattered"?

Or do you understand that IF there is a God, (even though you may not believe it), then it may actually be important for people to show proper respect for their loving creator, regardless of whether or not God has an ego?

So, if you could please answer, yes or no, Were you trying to sew seeds of doubt, regarding the 10 commandments, or were you full on rejecting their value as being obsolete?

And, are you also admitting, that the religious directives of the past can be given at least some amount of credit in shaping the person you are, and the values that you hold?

Or are you under the impression that it should just be obvious that people shouldn't kill?

Forgive me, if I'm confused as to what your views are, but it seems you have made some conflicting and rather wide open statements.

[riggy_house]

Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense

[/color]

Once the amoeba had figured out that E = MC², then constructed the Hubble telescope and the CERN hadron collider, it just might.

E = MC² is not a correct formula- even Einstein had to admit it. There may never be one either.

A Hubble type telescope built by an amoeba might have a chance at viewing the gall bladder of the human, if they were lucky, and only if the amoebae implemented enough laws like ours to allow them to build it. And oh yeah, only if much of those laws btw, were actually based on the 10 commandments

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Originally Posted by riggy_house

E = MC² is not a correct formula- even Einstein had to admit it. There may never be one either.

Please defend this statement.

Originally Posted by riggy_house

A HUbble type telescope built by an amoeba might have a chance at viewing the gall bladder of the human, if they were lucky, and implemented enough laws like ours to allow them to build it. And oh yeah, much of those laws were actually based on the 10 commandments.

Probably true. Which is an admission that your comparison was never really valid from the get-go.

Half of the laws in the 10 commandments are nothing more than commands to kiss God's, um, the part He showed Moses. The other half is covered by the golden rule. Which is centuries older than Christianity. And some children have been very badly abused by their parents and do not deserve to be honored. No matter what God says.

I am the LORD thy God
No other gods before me
No graven images or likenesses
Not take the LORD's name in vain
Remember the sabbath day
Honour thy father and thy mother

Thou shalt not kill
Thou shalt not commit adultery
Thou shalt not steal
Thou shalt not bear false witness
Thou shalt not covet

One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself (positive or directive form).
One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated (negative or prohibitive form).

This is actually far more comprehensive with less to remember.

[riggy_house]

Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense

One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself (positive or directive form).
One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated (negative or prohibitive form).

This is actually far more comprehensive with less to remember.

wow. You actually get full credit for trying to steal Jesus' thunder, without giving any credit whatsoever to the one who came up with it.

I'm guessing you get called "slick" from time to time, no?

Matthew 7:12

12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Originally Posted by riggy_house

wow. You actually get full credit for trying to steal Jesus' thunder, without giving any credit whatsoever to the one who came up with it.

I'm guessing you get called "slick" from time to time, no?

Matthew 7:12

12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

Wikipedia
The Golden Rule
Possibly the earliest affirmation of the maxim of reciprocity, reflecting the ancient Egyptian goddess Ma'at, appears in the story of The Eloquent Peasant, which dates to the Middle Kingdom (c. 2040–1650 BC): "Now this is the command: Do to the doer to make him do." This proverb embodies the do ut des principle.[14] A Late Period (c. 664–323 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."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

Now, go back and explain how Einstein got E = MC² wrong. Because that is going to come as a major shock to the thousands that died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[Cruithne]

Originally Posted by riggy_house

Most people who can read would clearly see you were clearly disassociating yourself from religious influence, having your mother as an agnostic, your father as a skeptic, and your brother as a full on Atheist.

No, not most people. You are doing it again. Don't assume what others think. Only be sure of what YOU think.
Again, I was not disassociating myself from religious influence. I did not do that at all. I was simply supplying a truthful and factual account of my upbringing. It is you that is projecting into it that I'm disassociating myself from any religious influence. I'm just stating facts.

We can agree to disagree with how adamantly you were disassociating yourself from the notion that religion had been of anything other than trivial influence on your upbringing. But disassociating you were- at least in my eyes. But I admit, I could be wrong

Not adamantly disassociating myself at all. Not in the slightest. They are just statements of fact.

What's interesting is that you are doing precisely what you assume others are doing - projecting your own preconceived ideas onto others. Here for example with Mordant earlier:

Originally Posted by riggy_house

Could it be that since this how you feel, and because these are the principles that you live by, then you automatically assume all others feel the same as you, and operate on your principles, that you just so happen to share with many people around you.

I was brought up in the U.S. well, born and a short time in a US military base in Europe, but that has little meaning here.

Perhaps what you are failing to take into account is that the UK is not at all like the US, in religious terms.
We don't tend to have hang-ups about religion.

Actually, yes, and I'm willing to bet that it was developed by an individual(s) who sat in a pew, or were raised by people who did. What are your google search facts saying about that?

Yes you are making assumptions again. You assume a random phrase must automatically have something to do with Christianity. And there's nothing wrong with that. Lots of phrases we use in everyday life have a basis in Christianlty.

Were you not discarding earlier the value of the 10 commandments- implying most of them should be obvious, and therefor unnecessary?

Were you not criticizing the first four commandments, and implying they must have been written because God is "needy", and just wanting to be "flattered"?

Or do you understand that IF there is a God, (even though you may not believe it), then it may actually be important for people to show proper respect for their loving creator, regardless of whether or not God has an ego?

If there was a god yes. But I'm an atheist and this is an atheist forum. I welcome anybody asking me whatever they like and I will give them a straightforward answer.

So, if you could please answer, yes or no, Were you trying to sew seeds of doubt, regarding the 10 commandments, or were you full on rejecting their value as being obsolete?

Not seeds of doubt no. I'm simply sharing my view. The poster is welcome to decide for themselves, and of course they will. And given my experience on this forum, very little I say will have any influence.

And, are you also admitting, that the religious directives of the past can be given at least some amount of credit in shaping the person you are, and the values that you hold?

As I already stated in my last post, yes, culturally at least. I believe I said that actually in my first post to you.

Or are you under the impression that it should just be obvious that people shouldn't kill?

Forgive me, if I'm confused as to what your views are, but it seems you have made some conflicting and rather wide open statements.

Yes, it's obvious that people should not kill as with some of the other obvious statements. The point I was making with the poster is that the 10 commandments are not a catch-all list of how to behave. Maybe they were 2000 years ago but they certainly are not now. And they do not mention anything about love at all, which I believe was my starting point and the point I was questioning with the poster.

If people come onto the atheist forum and ask questions, I'm going to give my point of view. That's what the forum is for.
I'm just offering statements of fact and and my worldview.