Why argue for atheism? (birth control, delusion, Mormon, godless)

[L8Gr8Apost8]

I find the Golden Rule to fall a bit short anyway. Treat others as you want to be treated is great but it doesn't require that a person extend their compassion beyond their own ideas. Treat others as they want to be treated requires a person to step outside their own worldview and see things through the others eyes. That would require a person to lose themselves in service to another.

[riggy_house]

Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense

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

I'm glad to see you have disclosed where you borrowed your own phrase from, that you seem to hold as valuable ideals.
I hope it comes as no shock to you that I, along with likely millions of others were already aware of the "golden rule", and it's lendable qualities.

So, now that I know we are both on the same page, are you now going to try to tell me that these words were first uttered by an Atheist?

Or do you suppose rather that someone or someone(s) who believed in a higher spiritual being and greater authority than yourself wrote those words down long ago?

Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense

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.

I'm certain you can't prove his equation to be right, so why should you expect me to prove to you that it is wrong?

I never said that Einstein admitted to having a less than perfect equation, but those who understand Einstein's wisdom also understand that he would admit it, if he had to.


For many centuries many people believed in the concept of spontaneous generation, the creation of life from organic matter. Francesco Redi disproved spontaneous generation for large organisms by showing that maggots arose from meat only when flies laid eggs in the meat.

Now, before Fransesco came along, the simple equation of RM+J=F (adding rotten meat to jar = flies) This equation served to be correct for many, for who knows how many generations? And as many times as the experiment was run, adding rotten meat to jars would almost inevitably produce flies. But all it took was a slight tweak of the equation, which was to also make sure the jar was open, so that flies could enter to lay their eggs.

And before Einstein came along, the prevailing opinion was that "lumineferous aether" was the medium that light traveled through. And this served as being correct for quite a time.

Let's not overlook what Einstein himself was credited for saying:

"A scientific person will never understand why he should believe opinions only because they are written in a certain book. Furthermore, he will never believe that the results of his own attempts are final."

E = MC² is no more an absolute correct than 1+1=2 is correct.

You and countless others may see it as being correct, but you and others simply wouldn't understand that 1+1 =2 is no more than an illusion. In reality those numbers and letters are only representations of ideas, and it's impossible for them to be the same as reality. The numbers by definition of what they are, only represent ideas.

Einstein, myself, and many others understood this concept, while a great many others don't.

If you don't understand this very simple concept, then I'm afraid you may need to read more books, and spend more time contemplating before you can come to the realization that Einstein, myself and others have already come to.

And if you don't understand the concept that numbers are fallible ideas, then it I could write many books worth of posts, and you may still likely not understand that concept.

So, go figure, I guess.

[riggy_house]

Originally Posted by Cruithne

No, not most people. You are doing it again. Don't assume what others think. Only be sure of what YOU think.

I stand to be corrected. I just meant that what is obvious is just obvious. We can agree to disagree whether or not you were giving a strong impression that religion had little influence in your upbringing, and the shaping of your worldviews.

BTW, I can't help but find some irony in the standards you set so high for me, yet you yourself don't appear to be able to stand up to.

You tell me not to assume what others think, yet you are just absolutely sure of what people living in a distant land thousands of years ago understood about their world.

Originally Posted by Cruithne

No, none of the commandments are confusing. They were written as you say by men - as was the entire bible, by people who understood practically nothing about the natural world.

Now, this actually goes beyond ironic, and may even be considered a slight by other people of the nations in which you speak of.

I wouldn't go as far as to call this what it may be, which is potentially a sort of racial fallacy, but you must understand, for you to claim these people to be as ignorant, to the extent that you have, well, I'm not so sure others would agree, so maybe we should just keep it at that.

But all this really means is that you can't imagine these people which you know practically nothing about, had information as good as you think you have.

IOW, you are assuming what they thought they knew. Am I allowed to do that now?

[L8Gr8Apost8]

Sheesshh...lego my ego Riggy.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Originally Posted by riggy_house

I'm glad to see you have disclosed where you borrowed your own phrase from, that you seem to hold as valuable ideals.
I hope it comes as no shock to you that I, along with likely millions of others were already aware of the "golden rule", and it's lendable qualities.

So, now that I know we are both on the same page, are you now going to try to tell me that these words were first uttered by an Atheist?

Or do you suppose rather that someone or someone(s) who believed in a higher spiritual being and greater authority than yourself wrote those words down long ago?

The point is, I didn't credit the golden rule to Jesus, because the concept of the golden rule is far older than Jesus.

Originally Posted by riggy_house

I'm certain you can't prove his equation to be right, so why should you expect me to prove to you that it is wrong?

I never said that Einstein admitted to having a less than perfect equation, but those who understand Einstein's wisdom also understand that he would admit it, if he had to.


For many centuries many people believed in the concept of spontaneous generation, the creation of life from organic matter. Francesco Redi disproved spontaneous generation for large organisms by showing that maggots arose from meat only when flies laid eggs in the meat.

Now, before Fransesco came along, the simple equation of RM+J=F (adding rotten meat to jar = flies) This equation served to be correct for many, for who knows how many generations? And as many times as the experiment was run, adding rotten meat to jars would almost inevitably produce flies. But all it took was a slight tweak of the equation, which was to also make sure the jar was open, so that flies could enter to lay their eggs.

And before Einstein came along, the prevailing opinion was that "lumineferous aether" was the medium that light traveled through. And this served as being correct for quite a time.

Let's not overlook what Einstein himself was credited for saying:

"A scientific person will never understand why he should believe opinions only because they are written in a certain book. Furthermore, he will never believe that the results of his own attempts are final."

E = MC² is no more an absolute correct than 1+1=2 is correct.

You and countless others may see it as being correct, but you and others simply wouldn't understand that 1+1 =2 is no more than an illusion. In reality those numbers and letters are only representations of ideas, and it's impossible for them to be the same as reality. The numbers by definition of what they are, only represent ideas.

Einstein, myself, and many others understood this concept, while a great many others don't.

If you don't understand this very simple concept, then I'm afraid you may need to read more books, and spend more time contemplating before you can come to the realization that Einstein, myself and others have already come to.

And if you don't understand the concept that numbers are fallible ideas, then it I could write many books worth of posts, and you may still likely not understand that concept.

So, go figure, I guess.

E = MC² is elegantly simple, and yet contains perhaps the most profound insight into nature ever discovered. Because light is massless, and because energy can neither be created or destroyed, only changed from form to form, accelerating any object to the speed of light would render it massless. The amount of energy that would be required to accelerate any given unit of mass to the speed of light would be equal to the weight of the mass times the square of the speed of light. E(energy) = M (mass) times C (the speed of light) ² (squared). The major revelation here is the recognition that mass (matter) is one of the forms that energy takes. And matter has HUGE energy potential if released all at once. As in, say, a nuclear bomb.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Originally Posted by riggy_house

I made an analogy already of the guy from the US, who mistakenly thinks all that he has, he worked for.
Perhaps what you think of being "built in" is wrong.

If you were raised by people who say it's ok for men to beat women, and guided you by those examples, then perhaps your "built in" moral compass would be telling you those things are ok. Why? Because the majority of the people that surround you allow those things to happen, and teach you to do these things.

We can see example after example of these things happening in many other nations, simply because the majority of the people all determine where the majority of moral compasses are pointing.

Surely you aren't blind to this.

And you may say, "well, I wouldn't be one of those people who continue to do bad things to others. I'm special, and I'd be the first to break away from it" and you may be right about that. But, you still couldn't deny that you condoned those behaviors for a time, before you decided to break yourself away.

And it's likely that the more outside help you could get, teaching you the proper reasoning, then the more courage you may have to actually break away from a society full of sick and confused individuals.

Perhaps what you think is "built-in" was actually a gift given to you by a greater thing than yourself.

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the conversation at hand. It doesn't have anything to do with me. I was surrounded by Christians as a boy. I became an atheist at age 13 when I concluded that Christianity is far too silly to be valid. I had never even met another openly atheist person at that point, and wouldn't for several years yet.

I have been married to the same woman for 46 years, by the way. Beating her has never been on the table.It sometimes happens in Christian families though, DOESN'T IT!

[riggy_house]

Originally Posted by badlander

Aren't the ten commandments from the OT and isn't God given morality objective and never changibg?

Part 1 of your question. Yes
Part 2. Maybe, but what has been the same since the beginning, doesn't always transfer to laws the way we'd hope. Laws may change, but this doesn't mean that God given morality would have to.

Originally Posted by badlander

When did Jesus state that slavery was bad?

I'm not sure he did. But according to our records he never said Fire = bad, or Fire = good either.
Nor did he say that saturn had rings, nor did he say that anal rape was bad either.

Perhaps because you see the word slavery as bad only, then you think he should have condemned the fact that the trade should exist, or should have ever existed.

That's a fair question and one I think can be addressed, but likely not in a short amount of space.

But remember, Jesus surprised most people with his far reaching wisdom, which confused many back then, and still does many today. You might be surprised by what he had to teach about it.

Consider too that he was said to have done and said a great many other things which were never written down. Perhaps he did say something along those specific lines. And perhaps someday more authentic texts will be discovered. We may never know, especially if the extreme neo-Atheists have their way in destroying any and all aspects of religion and it's affiliated texts.

It seems a good many Atheists today would like to revisit our past days of propelling ignorance by burning books until we have nothing but their favorite literature on hand, which I imagine would be a shelf full of Richard Dawkins books.

My God, what a bore this place would be then, eh?

Originally Posted by badlander

How did other countries have morality prior to being introduced to Christianity?

Your not shy with big loaded questions are you?

Most of our history teaches us that most societies everywhere in the past had some form of religion as their guidelines. No it wasn't always Christianity, or Judaism, but there was usually always some social ideal that a higher creator being was guiding/influencing us.

How many past Atheist societies have you ever heard of? I get the feeling they've always been more of a fringe of society. Now this doesn't mean that one or more of them didn't plant an idea in someone's ear to love and forgive others, but as we can see today, most people who claim to be atheists are against holding so fast to those ideas that it becomes their religion.

One Atheist says its okay to have incest, while another doesn't. Which is right? You may scream wrong all day, but you may not be able to escape the fact that incest played a big role in your own past family background, which means it may have played an important role in shaping exactly who you are.

Originally Posted by badlander

Where are the rules against capital punishment, or corporal punishment of chikdren?

Another fair question. Do I believe in the death penalty? I don't form this view. I would hope to never take another's life, but if I had near certain knowledge that someone is going to continue killing others without thought or remorse, as long as they were able, then I may be the first to end that person's life.

It's quite easy to say, thou shalt not kill, but sometimes obviously common sense tells people to do it anyway.

This is why not killing may be more of a law, rather than a true moral, and as I've said, laws are subject to change.

Originally Posted by badlander

And why did all these people created by God not know morality until the Bible's rules came about? And how do we know that they did not have morality?

I think the totality, or at least the jest of the bible explains that people had morality before the books were written, but that many chose to ignore it- just as they chose to ignore God.

Originally Posted by badlander

These are all assumptions that Christians make and expect us to accept it all as true. If you need a book to tell you that rape is wrong you are not naturally moral. If your book states that having another God is immoral but does not mention that owning another human being is not moral then your book is not moral.

Again, i think because you carry the notion that all slavery is/was a bad thing, then you have it listed as one of your morals. Just as you may be thinking that all incest is/was a bad thing, despite the fact that it may have helped you come into existence.

Originally Posted by badlander

If you think that the NT is the sole source for morality than you lack knowledge about people and history.

One thing I know for certain is my lack of knowledge when it comes to history. There's far more history than I can ever know even if I'd read every book and webpage. And much of what we read is undoubtedly wrong as well. Who can argue that?

I also don't make any claim to thinking that the NT is the whole source for morality.
Was there someone else on here doing that?

[L8Gr8Apost8]

Originally Posted by riggy_house

Part 1 of your question. Yes
Part 2. Maybe, but what has been the same since the beginning, doesn't always transfer to laws the way we'd hope. Laws may change, but this doesn't mean that God given morality would have to.



I'm not sure he did. But according to our records he never said Fire = bad, or Fire = good either.
Nor did he say that saturn had rings, nor did he say that anal rape was bad either.

Perhaps because you see the word slavery as bad only, then you think he should have condemned the fact that the trade should exist, or should have ever existed.

That's a fair question and one I think can be addressed, but likely not in a short amount of space.

But remember, Jesus surprised most people with his far reaching wisdom, which confused many back then, and still does many today. You might be surprised by what he had to teach about it.

Consider too that he was said to have done and said a great many other things which were never written down. Perhaps he did say something along those specific lines. And perhaps someday more authentic texts will be discovered. We may never know, especially if the extreme neo-Atheists have their way in destroying any and all aspects of religion and it's affiliated texts.

It seems a good many Atheists today would like to revisit our past days of propelling ignorance by burning books until we have nothing but their favorite literature on hand, which I imagine would be a shelf full of Richard Dawkins books.

My God, what a bore this place would be then, eh?



Your not shy with big loaded questions are you?

Most of our history teaches us that most societies everywhere in the past had some form of religion as their guidelines. No it wasn't always Christianity, or Judaism, but there was usually always some social ideal that a higher creator being was guiding/influencing us.

How many past Atheist societies have you ever heard of? I get the feeling they've always been more of a fringe of society. Now this doesn't mean that one or more of them didn't plant an idea in someone's ear to love and forgive others, but as we can see today, most people who claim to be atheists are against holding so fast to those ideas that it becomes their religion.

One Atheist says its okay to have incest, while another doesn't. Which is right? You may scream wrong all day, but you may not be able to escape the fact that incest played a big role in your own past family background, which means it may have played an important role in shaping exactly who you are.



Another fair question. Do I believe in the death penalty? I don't form this view. I would hope to never take another's life, but if I had near certain knowledge that someone is going to continue killing others without thought or remorse, as long as they were able, then I may be the first to end that person's life.

It's quite easy to say, thou shalt not kill, but sometimes obviously common sense tells people to do it anyway.

This is why not killing may be more of a law, rather than a true moral, and as I've said, laws are subject to change.



I think the totality, or at least the jest of the bible explains that people had morality before the books were written, but that many chose to ignore it- just as they chose to ignore God.



Again, i think because you carry the notion that all slavery is/was a bad thing, then you have it listed as one of your morals. Just as you may be thinking that all incest is/was a bad thing, despite the fact that it may have helped you come into existence.



One thing I know for certain is my lack of knowledge when it comes to history. There's far more history than I can ever know even if I'd read every book and webpage. And much of what we read is undoubtedly wrong as well. Who can argue that?

I also don't make any claim to thinking that the NT is the whole source for morality.
Was there someone else on here doing that?

What are you even talking about here? You've gone off the rails with the rest of your post.

[riggy_house]

Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the conversation at hand. It doesn't have anything to do with me.

I gave the analogy of a man who beats his wife so you can understand that people often have their moral compasses misaligned by their upbringing.

You stated that your moral compass, was built-in, which implies it wasn't taught to you, but that it's rather innate. No?

Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense

Murica. I am an atheist and not a Christian, however. So my built in "moral compass" prevents me from murdering women and children and babies. And taking little girls as slaves.

My analogy hopefully helps you to realize that your moral compass may not be innate as you may be thinking, but that it may be heavily aligned by what your society has taught you, and much of that would be based on religious directives and narratives.

It seems as if you thought I was trying to insinuate your family was teaching you to beat women. I don't think I said anything remotely like that, and certainly meant nothing of the sort.

Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense

I've have been married to the same woman for 46 years, by the way. Beating her has never been on the table.It sometimes happens in Christian families though, DOESN'T IT!

I'm sure that's correct. I'm pretty sure it happens in Atheist families to, DOESN'T IT!?

[riggy_house]

Originally Posted by L8Gr8Apost8

What are you even talking about here? You've gone off the rails with the rest of your post.

Hey, if I didn't get hit with 20 questions at once, things may seem a little easier for you to process. I can't help everyone with every issue, sheesh...