How would one live in godless world?

What is right? Is there right? Are you right?

Re: How would one live in godless world?

Post by weekend hacker on Sun Mar 08, 2009 8:06 pm
([msg=19598]see Re: How would one live in godless world?[/msg])

eMpTy89 wrote:but you're moral still originate from Christianism,

First off, there are plenty of religions that whine about their morals, there are also plenty of religions that are a lot older then "Christianism"

People get their idea of morals from whoever raises them, if your parents are weird religious folks who like to believe in an imaginary guy for that, then chances are you'll do the same.
In a world with no God (I take this to mean a world where everyone else realises there is no God) people wouldn't do bad things because I'd fuck up their afterlife but because they'd be jailed and because this could be bad for their offspring.
Their biological urges should be more then enough to try to do whatever they can to ensure their DNA spreads across the globe.
Sure people would still group together (countries? continents?) and fight eachother for no reason, but atleast the reason will never again be "my imaginary guy is better then your imaginary guy" and that would be a great improvement for all mankind.
<Yoda> if someone says something i don't like, i ban him, ban whoever defends him, and then ban the witnesses...
User avatar
weekend hacker
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 2:39 pm
Location: 127.0.0.1
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: How would one live in godless world?

Post by Memphisis on Mon Mar 09, 2009 4:18 pm
([msg=19676]see Re: How would one live in godless world?[/msg])

easly almost 45% of the world dont beleive in gods (or god) using the way their family taught them to live.
Memphisis
New User
New User
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: How would one live in godless world?

Post by radicool_systemite on Sat Mar 28, 2009 4:23 am
([msg=20777]see Re: How would one live in godless world?[/msg])

easly almost 45% of the world dont beleive in gods (or god) using the way their family taught them to live.


Ha, chapter and verse please, Memphis. Surely you don't expect people to believe your "statistics" on the basis that you are telling them what they want to hear (or maybe just what you want to hear)?

if your parents are weird religious folks


I probably know what you mean, but intelligent discussion along these lines really does need to be clarified with examples of some kind rather than assumption that everyone knows what you mean by "weird".

In a world with no God (I take this to mean a world where everyone else realises there is no God)


Actually, I think Cereal's earlier comment is more accurate, in that all it takes for there to be no God is to just ignore him (on the assumption that he really IS there to be ignored). It may be just semantics to say that to cause something which does exist to cease to exist is simply to ignore it, but I think the example fits the context because my understanding of God is that he is more interested in the individual rather than the group (and since individuals ultimately end up making the group anyway he wins both ways)

As for the question "how would one live in a Godless world" I think there are already a lot of really good examples of that in the world today. It may be pointless arguing about where the line is drawn between "Godless world" and "still a bit of Godness left there" but my personal view is that if there is even 1 person trying to walk in all the light that he has (i.e. do the best he can to love others) then there is a bit of God left in the world. Jesus talked about this when he called his followers the "salt" of the Earth. He was talking about how those who genuinely seek after a life of service and love to others are the ones who will, like salt, preserve whatever little goodness remains in this world.

Also, concerning sincerity, the Bible says "ANYONE who loves is born of God". Yeah, it really is that simple. Of course, there are always BETTER ways of showing love to others than what we already know or participate in, and I think that is what real sincerity is about i.e. always seeking out those better ways. Being good is good, but trying to be better is better.
User avatar
radicool_systemite
Experienced User
Experienced User
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 7:58 am
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: How would one live in godless world?

Post by NightStalker111 on Sat Mar 28, 2009 9:57 pm
([msg=20823]see Re: How would one live in godless world?[/msg])

Mortecai4 wrote:How would one live life in a godless world?
Should one remain ethical and reasonable, or should on just tear the world apart with anarchy?
Does a world with no god mean no morals?



Since you asked three different questions, I'll give my rebuttal with three different answers.

1. How would one live life in a godless world?

Do you mean literally? Probably not. But just in case here it is: One would live in a godless world by living. One would do what is necessary to survive. Or one would not. It is by mere choice. Simple.

Do you mean philosophically? They would live their lives however they thought best.

2. Should one remain ethical and reasonable, or should one just tear the world apart with anarchy?

A meaningless question. "Should" is variable and subjective. One will do whatever they choose to do.

3. Does a world with no god mean no morals?

Another meaningless question. Morals are subjective.
NightStalker111
New User
New User
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 9:20 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: How would one live in godless world?

Post by radicool_systemite on Sun Mar 29, 2009 5:08 am
([msg=20836]see Re: How would one live in godless world?[/msg])

2. Should one remain ethical and reasonable, or should one just tear the world apart with anarchy?

A meaningless question. "Should" is variable and subjective. One will do whatever they choose to do.


I think I understand what you mean, but I also think you've misunderstood the point of the topic at hand. Being "subjective" does not make something meaningless. However, if we put "subjective" and "objective" into proper context regarding this topic, I'd say that the word "should" is probably the most objective word we can use because the whole point of morals and ethics is about understanding, and then doing, what we should do.

Because no one is perfectly good and loving, true morals and ethics really only can be framed in terms of what we should do, and after that we just hope that people WILL do. By claiming that the world "should" in relation to ethics makes the situation meaningless basically implies that everyone makes their own rules about what is "right" or "wrong", which I think is a very slippery slope. That kind of reasoning is what has led some people over on the child porn thread to justify watching child porn (not supporting it, mind you, but just cramming as much of it as they can possibly find onto their computers!) on the basis that it's so very enjoyable for them.

Also, I think you've made a leap in logic by suggesting that if people do what they should do, then they are acting subjectively and is different to doing what they choose to do. Obviously, people always do what they choose to do. As the saying goes, if you choose not to decide, you've still made a choice. The point of ethics is in getting people to choose to do what they should do, (i.e. rather than "should" and "choose" being opposing forces, they work together)
User avatar
radicool_systemite
Experienced User
Experienced User
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 7:58 am
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: How would one live in godless world?

Post by Trace09 on Sun Mar 29, 2009 8:54 pm
([msg=20873]see Re: How would one live in godless world?[/msg])

As an atheist, I find it easy to live in a godless world. In Fact, I believe that if you have to have God in your life to enforce morals, you are pathetic in the fact that you can not control yourself.

What I find to be funny is the people who believe in God, but have never read the bible. People are sheep and preachers are shepherds, except the sheep don't know that they are making the shepherd a profit via their wallet that is not taxed. In fact, in some religions, the shepherd takes the sheep to the slaughter house.

Ask any Christian "Do you believe in God?" they will say "yes of course!" Ask them if they believe in Santa Clause they will say "I'm not 9 years old anymore, I'm smarter than that!" Apparently not if you do not believe in a guy who gives presents to all the good boys and girls once a year, but instead you follow blindly to a "Being" that can be everywhere at once, can lift you up to his plane of existence if he so chooses, can hear what we think, and created the universe in 6 days.

Any christian who says that the bible is proof that god exists has lost his mind. Anyone who can read knows that the bible was written by man. Anyone who has a clue knows that the bible was EDITED several times. And Anyone who has in fact READ the bible knows that the people who wrote it didn't all write the same things! Only 3 out of 4 followers of Jesus even recognized the fact that he was born from a virgin!

Whats Really interesting is the fact that the story of Jesus is not the first time the story was ever told. The Egyptian god Horus has the same story as Jesus. Google it and be careful of your sources.

Ever wonder why 98% of scientists are atheist or agnostic? Because they know how to think for themselves. A good example would be Bush, Christian and could not think for himself. Thomas Jefferson, might have well have been atheist(rewrote the bible without god or Jesus), helped create a country.

Another thing to look at would be the fact that 90% of war is over one of 3 things, Land, Resources, and last but not least, because my imaginary friend is better than yours!

If all religions were true, no one would go to heaven.

A religion is simply a step above a cult. Except for the fact that religion typically doesn't involve the slaughtering of animals and drinking blood like cults do. They just pretend to instead.

I'm not trying to bash on religion or Christianity, I'm just stating that people who believe in god need to know what they are believing in. If you follow blind when you can see perfectly fine, your are an idiot. Doing something multiple times and expecting different results is the definition of insanity. If you expect religions to ever stop fighting you are insane because the religions haven't changed.

Religion simply needs to stay in homes, away from the streets, politics, and states. To prove a point, you can not buy alcohol in Arkansas on a Sunday. It is a state law. This has gone to far.
Trace09
New User
New User
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 8:43 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: How would one live in godless world?

Post by radicool_systemite on Mon Mar 30, 2009 9:30 am
([msg=20889]see Re: How would one live in godless world?[/msg])

Hi Trace,

Generally speaking I don't mind discussing these things with atheists, but I did notice that in your post, you seemed to be much more intent on discrediting Christianity in general rather than sharing about the morals in your life. For example, if you've found that it is possible to live in a godless world, why not share about those personal experiences?

The reason I say this is because you post comes across as rather angry. You do make some attempts, at the very end, to explain that you are not trying to "bash" anyone, but some of the conclusions you've shared make that kind of statement sound rather hollow.

You say...

I'm not trying to bash on religion or Christianity, I'm just stating that people who believe in god need to know what they are believing in.


That actually sounds pretty good, but don't you think that's also true for people who don't believe in a God, too? Or are you saying that not believing in God is your excuse for not knowing what you believe in?

but instead you follow blindly to a "Being" that can be everywhere at once,


The start of the paragraph where this sentence is found starts off by saying "Ask any christian...". That means the context of this statement about blindly following pertains to every Christian on the planet. That's quite a statement, don't you think, Trace? Do you really expect people to believe that you've personally interviewed every single Christian to accurately determine that your statement is true? Just in case you really have accomplished such a miracle, what criteria did you use for establishing that they blindly follow a God? Can you see how such extreme statements tend to undermine your credibility in everything else that you say?

Any christian who says that the bible is proof that god exists has lost his mind. Anyone who can read knows that the bible was written by man.


Have you ever looked at a globe of the Earth? You probably have, and so you have probably noticed there is a hell of a lot of places on the Earth that you've not personally visited. Did you know that these maps and globes were also written by man? According to your argument, any person who considers that maps could be proof of the existence of a particular place which they've never personally seen or experienced is a person who has lost his mind. Of course, it is possible that there is some kind of global conspiracy of map makers who invent fictional places and stick them at random on the maps just to fuck with people, but that's fairly unlikely. Would you agree with that?

Personally, I'd prefer for Christians and atheists to just get on with doing what they are supposed to do rather than getting into proof battles. My understanding of Christianity is that Jesus would agree with me on this point. He is recorded as having told his followers that their love for one another would be their best "proof" to the world around them.

Anyone who has a clue knows that the bible was EDITED several times.


So what? Like, if someone says "you should love one another" and then someone else comes along later and rewrites it as "you should all really really love one another" you're going to say people who still accept the teaching have lost their minds? Did you know that the Bible itself does not claim to be infallible, perfect, or complete? There is a big difference between being inspired and being infallible. You're "editing" argument says nothing in itself except to express a personal distaste or dissatisfaction with editing in general.

And Anyone who has in fact READ the bible knows that the people who wrote it didn't all write the same things! Only 3 out of 4 followers of Jesus even recognized the fact that he was born from a virgin!


Hey, 3 out of 4 ain't bad. However, I notice that you've done something tricky here. Obviously you're "3 out of 4" is a pointer to the 4 gospels, and it is the Gospel of John which leaves out the virgin birth story. But did Jesus really only have 4 followers? Are you suggesting that there is NO other reference to a virgin birth from any other writer in the whole Bible than Matthew, Luke, and Mark? I can tell you right now there is, so either you've posted in ignorance (which we all do from time to time) or you've been dishonest in the way you presented your case. Either way you've undermined your credibility once again.

You've also done something dishonest with the part about everyone writing the same things. Did you know that not all the moderators on this forum write the same things? You see, if someone feels that a different person has already covered a particular issue sufficiently, do they then discredit those other arguments if they choose NOT to write about it AGAIN as opposed to covering some OTHER aspect of the story? Are you suggesting that every time one moderator says something, then every other moderator must also make separate posts saying the same thing, so that you can be sure what they are saying is true and accurate? Of course not, so why do you use such logic for the Bible? Do you really think it's fair to use one set of standards for yourself, and another set of standards for the Bible? Some may even dare to call that hypocrisy.


Whats Really interesting is the fact that the story of Jesus is not the first time the story was ever told.


It's usually helpful with these kind of statements to try to include a point with it. Seriously, what are you trying to say?

Ever wonder why 98% of scientists are atheist or agnostic? Because they know how to think for themselves.


Ouch, I guess this is you not bashing Christianity. BTW, how did you arrive at the conclusion of 98%? What criteria was used to arrive at that figure. Hopefully you've not just made it up like so many other of your arguments just because you think it sounds good.

A good example would be Bush, Christian and could not think for himself.


Actually, I disagree with Bush being a good example of Christianity and I think you once again undermine your credibility by looking for the worst possible examples to support your case. What about MLKjr or Gandhi? Were they guilty of not thinking for themselves?

Another thing to look at would be the fact that 90% of war is over one of 3 things, Land, Resources, and last but not least, because my imaginary friend is better than yours!


Actually, if you look a bit closer, 99% of war is about money and religious is generally used to justify getting more of it. I agree with you that there is a lot of problems with the way religion works today, but you don't stop looking for Gold just because there are so many worthless rocks in the ground. The Bible is recorded as saying that true religion is about helping orphans and widows. God help those blind idiots who try to do something like that, right Trace?

If all religions were true, no one would go to heaven.


More extreme statements, except that this time we don't get any attempt to even try to justify such an erroneous statement.

A religion is simply a step above a cult. Except for the fact that religion typically doesn't involve the slaughtering of animals and drinking blood like cults do. They just pretend to instead.


So, cults are defined by the slaughtering of animals and drinking of Blood? Well that's great. I guess that excludes most of India since most of the people living there don't slaughter animals, seeing as how they are vegetarians. Seriously, Trace, can't you see how dumb the criteria for your cult argument is? Slaughtering animals? And, what is it that religions pretend to do? Slaughter animals and drink blood? Aside from the pointlessness of the argument in general, I can only think of one mainstream religion which gets even close to your statement, and that would be the Catholic church pretending that the communion bread and wine really change into the blood and flesh of Jesus, though they don't pretend to slaughter animals.

Doing something multiple times and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.


Hahaha I really got a laugh out of this one, Trace. Would this include your 98% of agnostic and atheist scientist friends? Goodness you've put them in a very difficult position and I wonder what they would think of your logic defying comments. Imagine a scientist who gets ONE chance at an experiment and after that he has to move on to something totally different or risk being accused of being insane by Trace if he wanted to try the experiment more than once, hoping for different results.

If you expect religions to ever stop fighting you are insane because the religions haven't changed.


People will always let us down, but you make it a very difficult world to live in when the only hope you've got to offer them is to just give up trying. While the Bible does talk about speaking the truth in love, I seriously doubt that your efforts to convince people of faith that they are blind idiots is really done out of love, though I am open to being wrong about that.
User avatar
radicool_systemite
Experienced User
Experienced User
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 7:58 am
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: How would one live in godless world?

Post by Memphisis on Mon Mar 30, 2009 11:02 am
([msg=20894]see Re: How would one live in godless world?[/msg])

radicool_systemite wrote:
easly almost 45% of the world dont beleive in gods (or god) using the way their family taught them to live.


Ha, chapter and verse please, Memphis. Surely you don't expect people to believe your "statistics" on the basis that you are telling them what they want to hear (or maybe just what you want to hear)?

i dont care if people believe or not. i posted my comment because its 20 years of research and is also a leading stastic so if your gonna slandered down my comments please do it with some respect and not sarcasticly because if i think your comment is the right one and my is wrong ill admit it.
Memphisis
New User
New User
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: How would one live in godless world?

Post by Trace09 on Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:21 am
([msg=20930]see Re: How would one live in godless world?[/msg])

radicool_systemite wrote:Hi Trace,

Generally speaking I don't mind discussing these things with atheists, but I did notice that in your post, you seemed to be much more intent on discrediting Christianity in general rather than sharing about the morals in your life. For example, if you've found that it is possible to live in a godless world, why not share about those personal experiences?

The reason I say this is because you post comes across as rather angry. You do make some attempts, at the very end, to explain that you are not trying to "bash" anyone, but some of the conclusions you've shared make that kind of statement sound rather hollow.

You say...

I'm not trying to bash on religion or Christianity, I'm just stating that people who believe in god need to know what they are believing in.


That actually sounds pretty good, but don't you think that's also true for people who don't believe in a God, too? Or are you saying that not believing in God is your excuse for not knowing what you believe in?

but instead you follow blindly to a "Being" that can be everywhere at once,


The start of the paragraph where this sentence is found starts off by saying "Ask any christian...". That means the context of this statement about blindly following pertains to every Christian on the planet. That's quite a statement, don't you think, Trace? Do you really expect people to believe that you've personally interviewed every single Christian to accurately determine that your statement is true? Just in case you really have accomplished such a miracle, what criteria did you use for establishing that they blindly follow a God? Can you see how such extreme statements tend to undermine your credibility in everything else that you say?

Any christian who says that the bible is proof that god exists has lost his mind. Anyone who can read knows that the bible was written by man.


Have you ever looked at a globe of the Earth? You probably have, and so you have probably noticed there is a hell of a lot of places on the Earth that you've not personally visited. Did you know that these maps and globes were also written by man? According to your argument, any person who considers that maps could be proof of the existence of a particular place which they've never personally seen or experienced is a person who has lost his mind. Of course, it is possible that there is some kind of global conspiracy of map makers who invent fictional places and stick them at random on the maps just to fuck with people, but that's fairly unlikely. Would you agree with that?

Personally, I'd prefer for Christians and atheists to just get on with doing what they are supposed to do rather than getting into proof battles. My understanding of Christianity is that Jesus would agree with me on this point. He is recorded as having told his followers that their love for one another would be their best "proof" to the world around them.

Anyone who has a clue knows that the bible was EDITED several times.


So what? Like, if someone says "you should love one another" and then someone else comes along later and rewrites it as "you should all really really love one another" you're going to say people who still accept the teaching have lost their minds? Did you know that the Bible itself does not claim to be infallible, perfect, or complete? There is a big difference between being inspired and being infallible. You're "editing" argument says nothing in itself except to express a personal distaste or dissatisfaction with editing in general.

And Anyone who has in fact READ the bible knows that the people who wrote it didn't all write the same things! Only 3 out of 4 followers of Jesus even recognized the fact that he was born from a virgin!


Hey, 3 out of 4 ain't bad. However, I notice that you've done something tricky here. Obviously you're "3 out of 4" is a pointer to the 4 gospels, and it is the Gospel of John which leaves out the virgin birth story. But did Jesus really only have 4 followers? Are you suggesting that there is NO other reference to a virgin birth from any other writer in the whole Bible than Matthew, Luke, and Mark? I can tell you right now there is, so either you've posted in ignorance (which we all do from time to time) or you've been dishonest in the way you presented your case. Either way you've undermined your credibility once again.

You've also done something dishonest with the part about everyone writing the same things. Did you know that not all the moderators on this forum write the same things? You see, if someone feels that a different person has already covered a particular issue sufficiently, do they then discredit those other arguments if they choose NOT to write about it AGAIN as opposed to covering some OTHER aspect of the story? Are you suggesting that every time one moderator says something, then every other moderator must also make separate posts saying the same thing, so that you can be sure what they are saying is true and accurate? Of course not, so why do you use such logic for the Bible? Do you really think it's fair to use one set of standards for yourself, and another set of standards for the Bible? Some may even dare to call that hypocrisy.


Whats Really interesting is the fact that the story of Jesus is not the first time the story was ever told.


It's usually helpful with these kind of statements to try to include a point with it. Seriously, what are you trying to say?

Ever wonder why 98% of scientists are atheist or agnostic? Because they know how to think for themselves.


Ouch, I guess this is you not bashing Christianity. BTW, how did you arrive at the conclusion of 98%? What criteria was used to arrive at that figure. Hopefully you've not just made it up like so many other of your arguments just because you think it sounds good.

A good example would be Bush, Christian and could not think for himself.


Actually, I disagree with Bush being a good example of Christianity and I think you once again undermine your credibility by looking for the worst possible examples to support your case. What about MLKjr or Gandhi? Were they guilty of not thinking for themselves?

Another thing to look at would be the fact that 90% of war is over one of 3 things, Land, Resources, and last but not least, because my imaginary friend is better than yours!


Actually, if you look a bit closer, 99% of war is about money and religious is generally used to justify getting more of it. I agree with you that there is a lot of problems with the way religion works today, but you don't stop looking for Gold just because there are so many worthless rocks in the ground. The Bible is recorded as saying that true religion is about helping orphans and widows. God help those blind idiots who try to do something like that, right Trace?

If all religions were true, no one would go to heaven.


More extreme statements, except that this time we don't get any attempt to even try to justify such an erroneous statement.

A religion is simply a step above a cult. Except for the fact that religion typically doesn't involve the slaughtering of animals and drinking blood like cults do. They just pretend to instead.


So, cults are defined by the slaughtering of animals and drinking of Blood? Well that's great. I guess that excludes most of India since most of the people living there don't slaughter animals, seeing as how they are vegetarians. Seriously, Trace, can't you see how dumb the criteria for your cult argument is? Slaughtering animals? And, what is it that religions pretend to do? Slaughter animals and drink blood? Aside from the pointlessness of the argument in general, I can only think of one mainstream religion which gets even close to your statement, and that would be the Catholic church pretending that the communion bread and wine really change into the blood and flesh of Jesus, though they don't pretend to slaughter animals.

Doing something multiple times and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.


Hahaha I really got a laugh out of this one, Trace. Would this include your 98% of agnostic and atheist scientist friends? Goodness you've put them in a very difficult position and I wonder what they would think of your logic defying comments. Imagine a scientist who gets ONE chance at an experiment and after that he has to move on to something totally different or risk being accused of being insane by Trace if he wanted to try the experiment more than once, hoping for different results.

If you expect religions to ever stop fighting you are insane because the religions haven't changed.


People will always let us down, but you make it a very difficult world to live in when the only hope you've got to offer them is to just give up trying. While the Bible does talk about speaking the truth in love, I seriously doubt that your efforts to convince people of faith that they are blind idiots is really done out of love, though I am open to being wrong about that.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

You my friend can see both sides to this and make logical statements! Thank you! Someone worth talking to. You make several good cases and I would like to follow up on them!
First,
"you've found that it is possible to live in a godless world, why not share about those personal experiences"
I have found that humanity, in of itself, is sustainable without religion. Morals are, for the most part, hardwired into societies laws. One thing Jesus did get right was "Do on to others as you wish to be done on to you". I believe that if this was used as law, or at least if everyone followed it, harmony would soon follow. However, people who need God to reinforce that rule are, as I stated above, pathetic. Must humans use god as a parental figure? Why not grow up?

When I said "people who believe in god need to know what they are believing in" I am generally talking about people who call themselves a faith and yet don't understand what that faith entails or the history of such faith.

I admit, "ask any christian" was a bit much on my part and I'm sincerely sorry for such a crude over statement

As for your map point, I simply want to interject that the bible is such a smaller scale item compared to a map, however, good analogy. The main point I was making about the bible is that religion is a business, a tax free one, and by altering the bible to suit ones needs, it can be a very profitable business, unlike map making. Also, in maps, proof still exists of what the map is based on, Jesus is not still alive today.

As for 3 out of 4, I was referring to the fact that one of Jesus' best buddies simply "forgot" to mention he was born from a virgin, which, although isn't that big of a deal, you would think it would be important to write about. If I'm not mistaken, the virgin birth WAS in fact an EDIT by king James. Am I not correct?(really not sure)
I do however feel that in a historical writing such as this, that a VIRGIN BIRTH would be important... you do make a point though.

"It's usually helpful with these kind of statements to try to include a point with it. Seriously, what are you trying to say?"
the Egyptian god Horus has almost the same exact life Jesus lived, just saying it disputes the life of Jesus... as if it was simply written... not lived. Follow link...
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5.htm

"Ouch, I guess this is you not bashing Christianity. BTW, how did you arrive at the conclusion of 98%? What criteria was used to arrive at that figure. Hopefully you've not just made it up like so many other of your arguments just because you think it sounds good."

Haha! No, it is an actual number. It was an actual poll. I did a project on it for a philosophy class a couple years back. I was getting on to the bashing side, sorry if it sounded to harsh. I get to ranting sometimes.

Gandhi, nice. I like the way you think. But the Bush thing was simply a Christians of today's world point. Along with the president point. I do believe Gandhi was a great man, MLK as well, not saying they weren't, they weren't following blind =]

"God help those blind idiots who try to do something like that, right Trace?" Yes, and I never said that Religion was a bad thing, just that it was corrupt. As for me only putting 90% and you putting 99%, there were several wars fought over women, rights, and simply because one guy pissed off another. Not just money!

"So, cults are defined by the slaughtering of animals and drinking of Blood? Well that's great. I guess that excludes most of India since most of the people living there don't slaughter animals, seeing as how they are vegetarians. Seriously, Trace, can't you see how dumb the criteria for your cult argument is? Slaughtering animals? And, what is it that religions pretend to do? Slaughter animals and drink blood? Aside from the pointlessness of the argument in general, I can only think of one mainstream religion which gets even close to your statement, and that would be the Catholic church pretending that the communion bread and wine really change into the blood and flesh of Jesus, though they don't pretend to slaughter animals."

Take a step off the literal train... No, not all cults are not defined by the slaughtering of animals and drinking of Blood... yes I was referring to Catholicism... take a joke once in a while? In all technicality, humans are animals... if you want to take it that far.

"Hahaha I really got a laugh out of this one, Trace. Would this include your 98% of agnostic and atheist scientist friends? Goodness you've put them in a very difficult position and I wonder what they would think of your logic defying comments. Imagine a scientist who gets ONE chance at an experiment and after that he has to move on to something totally different or risk being accused of being insane by Trace if he wanted to try the experiment more than once, hoping for different results."
And that is where you are wrong... scientist hope for the SAME results when doing the same experiment.... are you retarded? Why would they hope for something different to happen? Use that literal brain of yours? =] Haha!

"I seriously doubt that your efforts to convince people of faith that they are blind idiots is really done out of love, though I am open to being wrong about that."
It is done out of love, I want them to realize what they are going to church FOR, WHY they go, Why they SHOULD read and study the bible, not just go because "momma said"... does that make since? I want people to make an educated choice when it comes to Faith, it is their life we are talking about. God is for some and not for others... I just want everyone to realize that believing in God requires(or at least it should) more than JUST faith to begin with... If you were never told God exists, how would you live your life? In crime? I hope not, I believe you would live it the same way you have for the last several years of your life except for the fact that you would have Sundays free. That is how Ive lived and Ive never felt better. I don't feel like I have this extra person to impress... That I don't have to have an imaginary person to take all my problems away. I learned to deal with them myself. I want others to know that feeling. Again, sorry for the unnecessary bashing, some I do feel was required though.
Trace09
New User
New User
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 8:43 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: How would one live in godless world?

Post by radicool_systemite on Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:02 pm
([msg=20938]see Re: How would one live in godless world?[/msg])

Hi Memphis,

i dont care if people believe or not. i posted my comment because its 20 years of research and is also a leading stastic so if your gonna slandered down my comments please do it with some respect and not sarcasticly because if i think your comment is the right one and my is wrong ill admit it.


I wasn't asking you to admit that you were wrong. If you look back at what I was saying, you'll see that I was actually leaving room for you to be right. However your number sounds quite high (i.e. 45% of the world not believing in God) so I wanted some clarification as to how you arrived at that conclusion.

"20 years of research" isn't much of an answer, btw. I hope you won't take that the wrong way as it's not meant to be personal, but if I told you that 67% of all people who expressed faith in a God of some kind lived much more happy and fulfilling lives than people who don't express any faith in a God, would you accept my statement as being correct simply because I told you there is a lot of "research" behind me to prove it?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Trace,

Thanks for responding and thanks for the compliment.

When I said "people who believe in god need to know what they are believing in" I am generally talking about people who call themselves a faith and yet don't understand what that faith entails or the history of such faith.


Thanks for clarifying this point of yours and I accept it as a very relevant point to make. I think I share your frustration in this area, though we may go about expressing that frustration in different ways, which is fine, too. This is why I had a problem with you using the Bush example, because he really does not represent what Christianity entails.

I have found that humanity, in of itself, is sustainable without religion. One thing Jesus did get right was "Do on to others as you wish to be done on to you". I believe that if this was used as law, or at least if everyone followed it, harmony would soon follow.


I think that "religion" in general has been heavily abused, which you touched on in your letter, and I'm sorry it is that way. In your previous post I was a bit worried that perhaps you had allowed your (understandable) frustration with the state of religion to prevent you from seeing any good in Christianity, but it's great to see that you are able to chew the meat and spit out the bones on at least some of Jesus' teachings, like the golden rule. You've really encouraged me with that comment. If you are promoting the Golden Rule then I'd say you've probably got a bit more salt in you than you realise. ;)

However, people who need God to reinforce that rule are, as I stated above, pathetic. Must humans use god as a parental figure? Why not grow up?


Actually, my understanding of Christianity is that God DOES want us to become spiritually mature, but I think there is a difference between "growing up" for the sake of gaining more maturity and "growing up" for the sake of saying "I don't need you anymore". It seems reasonable to me that if I were God and I created life, I would want that life to understand my role in it's creation and to respect that role. If you feel that is unreasonable, then maybe you can elaborate a bit more on that.

As for people needing God to reinforce a rule, I think that is a slight misunderstanding of what it means to have a healthy relationship with God. We all need guidance from time to time and we all need discipline MOST of the time. Discipline should not be a dirty word, but it seems to be a natural human instinct that we really do not like being told what to do and what not to do. I see it as a problem with US more than a problem with a higher intelligence because if it really IS a higher intelligence making demands of us then it seems a bit silly to ignore that. Common sense implies that we will bow to a higher intelligence than our own in these kinds of matters, if we can only get over our pride at being told what's good for us and what's not good for us.

The main point I was making about the bible is that religion is a business, a tax free one, and by altering the bible to suit ones needs, it can be a very profitable business, unlike map making.


Well, I'm not sure that a business angle was really the point of your comments about the Bible being edited, though I can see how it applies and I agree with you that there is far too much abuse. Just for clarity I'd like to list a few examples of What Jesus really did say about money. Believe it or not there really are people out there who honest to God apply these teachings.
"you can't work for God and money at the same time"
"forsake all you have if you want to follow me"
"Heaven belongs to the poor"
"Beware the deceitfulness of riches"

As for 3 out of 4, I was referring to the fact that one of Jesus' best buddies simply "forgot" to mention he was born from a virgin, which, although isn't that big of a deal, you would think it would be important to write about. If I'm not mistaken, the virgin birth WAS in fact an EDIT by king James. Am I not correct?(really not sure)
I do however feel that in a historical writing such as this, that a VIRGIN BIRTH would be important... you do make a point though.


Actually while I can appreciate what the virgin birth is meant to convey, personally I almost prefer if it had never even been mentioned, as it seems people always end up arguing over the "miraculous" stuff and they forget all about the actual teachings of Jesus, which is the point you were making earlier about people not even understanding what they get into when they decide to become a Christian. In fact, Jesus himself got a bit sick of people demanding miracles and told the people that an evil generation seeks a sign (as opposed to just listening to him). Pretty amazing considering how important miracles are to most people these days!

the Egyptian god Horus has almost the same exact life Jesus lived, just saying it disputes the life of Jesus... as if it was simply written... not lived. Follow link...
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5.htm


Hmmm, I still don't see how someone living a similar life to Jesus actually disputes the life of Jesus. Can you elaborate on that a bit more?

Haha! No, it is an actual number. It was an actual poll. I did a project on it for a philosophy class a couple years back. I was getting on to the bashing side, sorry if it sounded to harsh. I get to ranting sometimes.


Thanks for that explanation, though I still feel a bit more clarification is necessary. 98% is a HUGE number but what kind of sample area are we talking about? Your town? A particular school or series of schools? Your country? An entire continent? Can you see how knowing that information makes a huge difference in how people will interpret your information? Just saying that 98% of scientists are atheists is a bit misleading, I feel.

As for me only putting 90% and you putting 99%, there were several wars fought over women, rights, and simply because one guy pissed off another. Not just money!


Of your right, you did say 90%. I misread it; sorry. However, I think that if you look deeply enough at women and rights you'll see some very strong connections to greed in general. I used the word money in my earlier post but a better word would be greed, which includes situations that may not directly involve money, but still represent the same general problem of fighting to get more in some way.

Take a step off the literal train... No, not all cults are not defined by the slaughtering of animals and drinking of Blood... yes I was referring to Catholicism... take a joke once in a while? In all technicality, humans are animals... if you want to take it that far.


Hmmm, perhaps you should try to make your jokes more funnier? :geek:

And that is where you are wrong... scientist hope for the SAME results when doing the same experiment.... are you retarded? Why would they hope for something different to happen? Use that literal brain of yours? =] Haha!


Yes occasionally I am retarded, but I think my point still applies in this situation. A scientist does NOT hope for the same failed results when attempting successful results for a particular experiment. Scientists have been repeating experiments for a cure to cancer for God knows how many years now always hoping for success, but never quite finding it exactly; yet they continue with the same quest over and over again...nukin futs, right?

It is done out of love, I want them to realize what they are going to church FOR, WHY they go, Why they SHOULD read and study the bible, not just go because "momma said"... does that make since?


It makes sense only to the extent that you actually do have something better to offer them. Obviously you think you do, ,but I don't think you've presented that case very well except for that part about the golden rule.

That is how Ive lived and Ive never felt better. I don't feel like I have this extra person to impress... That I don't have to have an imaginary person to take all my problems away. I learned to deal with them myself. I want others to know that feeling. Again, sorry for the unnecessary bashing, some I do feel was required though.


I don't believe you never try to impress people. Perhaps you are saying that your problem is in trying to impress someone you feel is not really there, you can't see, who does not talk back to you if you try to talk to him, etc. However, I don't see a problem with people trying to impress an invisible God. I think the problem comes in HOW people try to impress him, and to some extent I don't think it really matters to God whether you believe in him or not; I think he will be impressed REGARDLESS of your personal belief in his existence or lack of it because what he is most concerned about in life is our actions and our motivations for doing them.

For example, an atheist who does his best to love others will be more impressive to God than a supposed Christian who gives lots of tithes to the church, says his prayers, sings beautifully, prays beautifully, etc...Jesus said there will be some big surprises in the end, when the children are cast out of the kingdom and in their place they see strangers (like Gandhi) strutting in. :D

anyway, gotta go. late for my movie!!!

BTW, if you feel some bashing is necessary, then perhaps it's fair enough for that parental figure you mentioned earlier to also feel like some "bashing" is necessary at times too, right? Maybe the issues are a bit more gray than you give them credit for. ;)
User avatar
radicool_systemite
Experienced User
Experienced User
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 7:58 am
Blog: View Blog (0)


PreviousNext

Return to Ethics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests