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.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,381,135 times
Reputation: 40736
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by maineguy8888
Well, many of the people I know who started going to church after being heathens for years started acting a lot better. So there is that. Most of the junkies and drunks I know never went to church until they cleaned up, and one thing that helped them clean up was going to church. So there is THAT. And most of the people who go to my church are already fine folk, probably could not act MUCH better than they are (although they are trying hard).
You say they " never went to church until they cleaned up " and go on to say " one thing that helped them clean up was going to church ". A bit diametrically opposed I'd say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maineguy8888
You have many friends who go to church and then run around?? Wow, that's weird. Who do you hang out with??
Where did I identify them as friends? I've worked with that sort, doesn't make them friends.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maineguy8888
Church goers in my town are ALOT different than non churchers.
Yet:
Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society. [George Washington, letter to Edward Newenham, October 20, 1792; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 726]
And That he was not just striking a popular attitude as a politician is revealed by the absence of of the usual Christian terms: he did not mention Christ or even use the word "God." Following the phraseology of the philosophical Deism he professed, he referred to "the invisible hand which conducts the affairs of men," to "the benign parent of the human race." [James Thomas Flexner, on Washington's first inaugural speech in April 1789, in George Washington and the New Nation [1783-1793], Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1970, p. 184.]
As far as your post goes about the Supreme Court. Who cares what they THINK? It doesn't make it true. Just a bunch of men who will do & say anything to stay in power.
Right. While they certainly appreciated the Christian faith, they also saw, as we all do every day, how so many "professed Christians" certainly didn't demonstrate their "beliefs" by their actions.
Even Christ himself reviled "Religion".
Religion has definitely caused its share of atrocities and abominations.
So an historical Supreme Court ruling is a poor reference point when discussing to the history of our nation???
Just a heads up:
Once they are on the Supreme Court they don't have to do ANYTHING to "stay in power".
The collapse of religion, tends to create a bunch of selfish/narcissistic/entitled people, who believe the only purpose of life, is pleasure(hedonism/materialism).
I know that you are sincere in this belief, and I'm sorry that you are.
Morality exists separately from religion. The overwhelming bulk of atheists that I know are entirely moral people. They are thoughtful people, who nurture empathy. And it is empathy, not religion, that is the source of morality. The ability to imagine what it is like to be another, the ability to consider the challenges that another faces, is what allows us to put others before ourselves.
I've seen many Christians who are devoid of empathy. And if you give of yourself only because you hope to be rewarded in an afterlife, how is that not essentially selfishness?
The people who give, not because they hope to one day be rewarded, but because they identify, deeply and meaningfully, with the people they are sharing their own resources with, are the truly moral among us. Regardless of their beliefs or lack thereof.
I do not know a honest answer to this, because I can see yes or no. Depending on one's belief determines yes or no.
But as long as true Christians not in name only, don't push there religion and chop people's heads off for not believing, bury people alive, set people on fire who are in cages, chop the heads off of those non believers, then yes.
I do not see any Christians I know doing any of those things do any of you.
The problem exist when a religion has an agenda, other then what they stand for. And when the religion or the belief system is so way off base for what it should stand for, and is a farce, then it is obsessive and in no way good.
I do not know a honest answer to this, because I can see yes or no. Depending on one's belief determines yes or no.
But as long as true Christians not in name only, don't push there religion and chop people's heads off for not believing, bury people alive, set people on fire who are in cages, chop the heads off of those non believers, then yes.
I do not see any Christians I know doing any of those things do any of you.
You don't see any Christians pushing their religion?
Without Christianity, there is no America. It is just a bunch of corporations and Hollywood, a big shopping-mall full of degeneracy and decadence.
In any case, what is the point of talking about "better"? What do you mean by better? Better at what exactly? On what basis could you possibly argue that anything is better than anything else? Any attempt at defining "good" or "better" without some objective standard, is nothing but conjecture and pseudo-science, which itself is based purely on social-conditioning.
...
Basically, without god, there is no objective standard of which to judge good or better. And any attempts to the contrary become an exercise in absurdity.
America being the US, I assume. It's interesting that the Pilgrims formed a corporation to finance their movement to the New World. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilgrim_Fathers
"Weston did come with a substantial change, telling the Leiden group that parties in England had obtained a land grant north of the existing Virginia territory, to be called New England. This was only partially true; the new grant did come to pass, but not until late in 1620 when the Plymouth Council for New England received its charter. It was expected that this area could be fished profitably, and it was not under the control of the existing Virginia government.[24][25]
"A second change was known only to parties in England who chose not to inform the larger group. New investors who had been brought into the venture wanted the terms altered so that, at the end of the seven-year contract, half of the settled land and property would revert to them. Also, another provision was dropped which allowed each settler to have two days per week to work on personal business.[24]"
(My emphasis - more detail @ the URL - & there was lots of economic & political & religious maneuvering involved in getting the Pilgrims to the New World)
& the British, of course, were the last in a series of colonial attempts here. The chartered companies that transported settlers to N. American British colonies were shameless in their lies about the life & expectations that colonists might reasonably have. Copies of the fliers & pamphlets they published still exist - & are a tribute to the technique of the big lie.
Is belief in God an objective standard? It might be a standard, but the objectivity of it escapes me. I think rational people can agree to common understandings of government, law, education, property, representation, the role of religion, & so on. However, given the variety of peoples, nations, religions & beliefs in the British colonies (& as they subsumed Dutch, French, Spanish colonization & the Native Peoples ), I think it was wise to make the national government secular, & establish no religious tests for holding office.
America being the US, I assume. It's interesting that the Pilgrims formed a corporation to finance their movement to the New World. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilgrim_Fathers
"Weston did come with a substantial change, telling the Leiden group that parties in England had obtained a land grant north of the existing Virginia territory, to be called New England. This was only partially true; the new grant did come to pass, but not until late in 1620 when the Plymouth Council for New England received its charter. It was expected that this area could be fished profitably, and it was not under the control of the existing Virginia government.[24][25]
"A second change was known only to parties in England who chose not to inform the larger group. New investors who had been brought into the venture wanted the terms altered so that, at the end of the seven-year contract, half of the settled land and property would revert to them. Also, another provision was dropped which allowed each settler to have two days per week to work on personal business.[24]"
(My emphasis - more detail @ the URL - & there was lots of economic & political & religious maneuvering involved in getting the Pilgrims to the New World)
& the British, of course, were the last in a series of colonial attempts here. The chartered companies that transported settlers to N. American British colonies were shameless in their lies about the life & expectations that colonists might reasonably have. Copies of the fliers & pamphlets they published still exist - & are a tribute to the technique of the big lie.
Is belief in God an objective standard? It might be a standard, but the objectivity of it escapes me. I think rational people can agree to common understandings of government, law, education, property, representation, the role of religion, & so on. However, given the variety of peoples, nations, religions & beliefs in the British colonies (& as they subsumed Dutch, French, Spanish colonization & the Native Peoples ), I think it was wise to make the national government secular, & establish no religious tests for holding office.
Don't forget that if you were not part of the church, you could not vote, not even on the Mayflower Compact.
I know that you are sincere in this belief, and I'm sorry that you are.
Morality exists separately from religion. The overwhelming bulk of atheists that I know are entirely moral people. They are thoughtful people, who nurture empathy. And it is empathy, not religion, that is the source of morality. The ability to imagine what it is like to be another, the ability to consider the challenges that another faces, is what allows us to put others before ourselves.
I've seen many Christians who are devoid of empathy. And if you give of yourself only because you hope to be rewarded in an afterlife, how is that not essentially selfishness?
The people who give, not because they hope to one day be rewarded, but because they identify, deeply and meaningfully, with the people they are sharing their own resources with, are the truly moral among us. Regardless of their beliefs or lack thereof.
I don't entirely agree that heaven and hell are the primary motivation behind religion. But I'll say this, what a belief in god does, is encourage someone to be unselfish(and appreciative).
What is morality really? All morality is selflessness. As a general-rule, putting the interest of others/society, above individual interests. All humans, by their nature, despise selfishness.
The collapse of religion, tends to create a bunch of selfish/narcissistic/entitled people, who believe the only purpose of life, is pleasure(hedonism/materialism).
What's the opposite of pleasure? Misery. Who the hell wants that in their lives. Sure, we all go through tough times. However, I don't know one person that wakes up and says "I hope I have a miserable day." We ALL seek pleasure it's human nature. It's we have our own hobbies, why we have sex, why do you think the sex toy industry is a billion dollar industry? It's even why, in many cases people turn to drugs, like the pain killer epidemic we have now, (although I don't condone it),.
Not everyone seeks pleasure from material items
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.
A different view
