For me it was when somebody I was going to church with actually believed that God made the rain, which I talked about more here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcUZZ8uJN6g
Right now believing in an actual rain God is probably the most ignorant thing I've heard a Christian say to my face, what about you?
Funny thing, today my aunt visited my mum when I was there, and despite my aunt not actually calling herself a christian, she has all the hallmarks of a theist.
Today, she talked about The theory of everything, how she loved the movie.. but not for the reasons you might think. she loved it, because she says he loves how hawkins (character) talked about the big bang theory, but later in life discusses how it might not be the answer for the universe. She loves it because she loves the idea of a man like hawkins "being wrong", and that her idea of the universe is the only real one.
Also, she once said, with my brother there too, that evolution was utter rubbish, it doesn't exist. My brother was so dumbfounded by this, he had to leave the house instead of exploding at my aunt. He later texted mum yelling all manner of stuff at how stupid our aunt is, which mum agrees, she is stupid, but puts up with it because she's family.
It's hard to decide the most ignorant thing a Christian has told me, simply because the inventory of ignorant things Christians have told me is far too large to keep track of, but a few years ago, I had a discussion about illogical inconsistencies of the Bible with a theist. Granted this fellow was ignorant from the get go about almost everything. He was a know it all with an unusually limited knowledge base (Get the picture?). His comment was, "No, no. The Bible is completely logical!"
OK, now that statement in isolation is not ignorant. It was ignorant because he offered no context for the claim. In other words he did not bother to even attempt to demonstrate how the Bible was logical. It was ignorant because he was apparently ignorant of what logic is. You can't just say something is logical on the grounds that you say it's logical. Logic is a process and it begs to be organized, contemplated, and demonstrated. Nothing is logical just because it is claimed to be logical. To think that such a claim is worthy of argument, is just plain ignorant.
OK, now that I'm thinking about that particular guy, here's another ignorant comment: "Gays are not discriminated against. They pay taxes like everyone else." I won't even attempt to deconstruct that. LOL
"Our god is an awesome god!"
Enough said.
a catholic told me im going to hell for not being catholic
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on February 26, 2015, 10:40:03 PM
a catholic told me im going to hell for not being catholic
Similarly, a Catholic and a Evangelical told me that I am going to hell, no matter how nonexistent my evil is with me only doing good deeds because I don't accept Jesus as my savior.
They
were my friends. Not anymore.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on February 26, 2015, 10:40:03 PM
a catholic told me im going to hell for not being catholic
Most protestants say the same thing about Catholics and nonchristians religions.
Apparently most people will go to hell. There is only 700-800 million protestants from 7 billion people in the world. Muslims say the same shit about non muslim people. Same bullshit.
Quote from: leo on February 26, 2015, 10:58:27 PM
Apparently most people will go to hell. There is only 700-800 million protestants from 7 billion people in the world. Muslims say the same shit about non muslim people. Same bullshit.
Good point. Everyone is pointing the finger at everyone else. I knew one of those 144,000 seats in heaven Christian women that somehow believed she and her husband were destined for two of those seats. This in spite of the fact that her husband refused to even attend church, and she herself gloated over everyone else who would eventually suffer in Hell. Now, maybe she's right. Who can say? I'm not sure how God will pick the winners. Maybe he likes gloaters brimming with hatred and vengeance and people who don't go to church. Anyway 144,000 is such a big number she would likely make the final cut, given that there are only a few billion people in the world.
I had a Christian accost me for reading a comic called Maus in the library (good comic) She said it was filthy jew material and that I should burn it in front of the library, literally. her actual words. She called me a bad person for reading it (I was just coming to terms with my atheism at the time, still didn't quite believe it)
I just went: Look lady, I was just reading a comic...
she sneered at me and called me a heathen. That was a surreal experience
i honestly doubt the after life more than anything, and ive decided personally that the afterlife isnt going to dictate my life
if i was forced to assume there was an after life i would be an annhilationist (hell=nonexistence)
YMIR, i am always amazed at how rude some people are
My absolute favorite: "I can sum it all up in three words: Evolution is a lie." It became a pretty memorable quote on FSTDT, but I was right there at the ground floor. That guy was an absolute nut, lol.
"Of course god exists. How could he not exist?"
"You can't trust science. It's an invention of man."
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on February 26, 2015, 11:27:26 PM
i honestly doubt the after life more than anything, and ive decided personally that the afterlife isnt going to dictate my life
if i was forced to assume there was an after life i would be an annhilationist (hell=nonexistence)
YMIR, i am always amazed at how rude some people are
But what's the point in believing christianity or any religion if death is the end ? No after life = any religion is a waste of your time and life.
"God did it " One of the most stupid religious lines ever.
eh, i dont think there is a universal answer for the purpise of life, but for me personally. the afterlife isnt the point, the point is trying to lead a selfless life and to be apart of a lovingb community. I will not go to a church where there is only preaching and no helping the local people. I have been suicidal in the past, so i personally needed to find something outside myself to find a reason to live, So far its worked and ive been happier somce ive lived for the sake of others
"God Will Provide"
I have yet to see God pay an electric bill or provide reliable transportation for someone in need.
"God Helps A Man Who Helps Himself"
That's not in the Bible and was more of a joke, tbh.
"Hate the Sin, Not the Sinner"
If that's the case, then why all the anti-gay laws?
"You Need God In Your Life"
I don't think so. I've seen what religion has done to you and I'm not eager to go down that rabbit hole.
"God doesn't hate gays, he was warning them because that's not how their bodies were designed, they could hurt themselves."
And what about all the straight couples who have anal sex? Or those who have some seriously rough sex?
"God doesn't make mistakes."
No mistakes? So down syndrome, sirenomelia, conjoined twins, cyclopia, anencephaly, crohn's disease, progeria, SCID, proteus syndrome, and countless other such mutations were all part of God's plan? Whatever plan involves an infant born without a brain is not one I wish to be part of, tbh.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on February 27, 2015, 10:03:06 AM
eh, i dont think there is a universal answer for the purpise of life...
There is one, but isn't particularly satisfying to sentient creatures such as ourselves.
Life originated from replicators which were a complex arrangement of chemicals that rearranged other molecules in their environment to form a duplicate replicator. To this day, life continues to try to replicate itself, whether in the same "body" or by helping another body with related genes (AKA advanced replicators). That's the meaning of life, faulty replication. Our intelligence, thoughts and emotions are merely a side effect produced by the path of evolution that error-prone replicators took in our ancestry.
I choose to help others around me because it provides a positive effect on my feeling of well being. Yes, altruism is a by-product of our evolution, but I don't mind since it appeals to me on both a logical and emotional level.
im going to be honest, im annoyed by your response
i am annoyed because it assumes i dont support gay rights, which i do, because ive read important documents about the United States Government and concluded that there is no reason to ban gay marriage
Second, you explained how life came to be
if i say why do i exist, im not asking how i came to be, i understand prenatal development, i asked why not how. i said there is probably no answer to the why, the how questions are answered impeccably by science, but science doesnt explain why im here and what should i do
those questions are answered to me by a guiding force that i call God, others call it a moral compass or a biological drive to be a part of a community. in all honesty i dont much but i know something makes me want to do good and love others even when its hard, im not concerned with defining it because i know its there and i dont want to waste a minute asking questions when i already know what i should do
if i didnt understand your point, please correct me
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on February 27, 2015, 11:44:25 PM
im going to be honest, im annoyed by your response
i am annoyed because it assumes i dont support gay rights, which i do, because ive read important documents about the United States Government and concluded that there is no reason to ban gay marriage
Second, you explained how life came to be
if i say why do i exist, im not asking how i came to be, i understand prenatal development, i asked why not how. i said there is probably no answer to the why, the how questions are answered impeccably by science, but science doesnt explain why im here and what should i do
those questions are answered to me by a guiding force that i call God, others call it a moral compass or a biological drive to be a part of a community. in all honesty i dont much but i know something makes me want to do good and love others even when its hard, im not concerned with defining it because i know its there and i dont want to waste a minute asking questions when i already know what i should do
if i didnt understand your point, please correct me
To answer that question: There may not be an answer to "why are we here" or "what is our purpose". If there is, we don't know yet. Religion doesn't really offer much of an answer other than "to get to the afterlife" and even that isn't REALLY an answer to why we are here.
And another question we should be asking, if we are worrying about finding the answer to why we are here is "what if it turns out there isn't a reason?"
Everyone here is going to tell you the same thing, more or less... maybe different ways, but there is no reason for us to be here other than a long process of natural selection that started by an incredibly "lucky" instance of chemical chance (which still isn't a real "purpose").... but in the end, because as we explore the universe it is increasingly alluding to the fact that. There is no "why we are here"; we just are.
"What is my purpose?"
You pass on genes.
[spoiler](http://i.imgur.com/IxC2SCj.gif)[/spoiler]
Did I get your question right, CP?
Stupidest thing I've ever been told by a christian? Easy. That the bad things that have happened to me happened because I'm not a christian myself and that god was trying to get my attention by causing them to happen, and that I deserved to have them happen because I don't go to church.
Even worse, the christian that said that to my was my own mother.
Gonna have to go with Stephen Weinberg here: "[F]or good people to do evil things, that takes religion." I mean, really, how sick do you have to be to say that to your own child?
And she wonders why I won't talk to her anymore.
"I accidently left my come-along out in the pasture while I was fixing the fence. When I went back to get it, I looked all over the place, and I couldn't find it. So I prayed real hard and 6 months later, I found my come-along, right where I left it. Was this a coincidence? I think not!"
Quote from: trdsf on February 28, 2015, 02:06:07 AM
Stupidest thing I've ever been told by a christian? Easy. That the bad things that have happened to me happened because I'm not a christian myself and that god was trying to get my attention by causing them to happen, and that I deserved to have them happen because I don't go to church.
Even worse, the christian that said that to my was my own mother.
Gonna have to go with Stephen Weinberg here: "[F]or good people to do evil things, that takes religion." I mean, really, how sick do you have to be to say that to your own child?
And she wonders why I won't talk to her anymore.
Sorry to hear that about your mom dude. Dealing with the stupidity of theism is one thing, having it come from someone close to you, when your someone who rationalizes the world around you, is the worst.
I wonder if this is why my cousin moved like 300 miles away from home, to get away from her nutball mother.
"God is real because it says so in the Bible. And the Bible is the word of god, so it can't be false."
Quote from: Atheon on February 28, 2015, 08:02:17 AM
"God is real because it says so in the Bible. And the Bible is the word of god, so it can't be false."
I've often thought, isn't that kind of theistic 'logic' a paradox in of itself?
I don't know what was the most ignorant, but that "god-shaped hole in your heart" bollocks was particularly dreadful.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on February 27, 2015, 11:44:25 PM
im going to be honest, im annoyed by your response
i am annoyed because it assumes i dont support gay rights, which i do, because ive read important documents about the United States Government and concluded that there is no reason to ban gay marriage
You make a lot of assumptions that I am attacking you directly. I'm not.
If you are a Christian then it is part of your doctrine to at worst kill gays and at best, take the "hate the sin, not the sinner" approach.
Rather than taking my words as a personal affront because you do not agree with them, take a closer look at your religion and if you find that it does not match up with your sense of morality and logic, then discard it in favour of a philosophy that actually fits your world view.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on February 27, 2015, 11:44:25 PM
Second, you explained how life came to be
if i say why do i exist, im not asking how i came to be, i understand prenatal development, i asked why not how. i said there is probably no answer to the why, the how questions are answered impeccably by science, but science doesnt explain why im here and what should i do
those questions are answered to me by a guiding force that i call God, others call it a moral compass or a biological drive to be a part of a community. in all honesty i dont much but i know something makes me want to do good and love others even when its hard, im not concerned with defining it because i know its there and i dont want to waste a minute asking questions when i already know what i should do
if i didnt understand your point, please correct me
There isn't any evidence in support of a guiding force, in fact, there is no evidence of us having any particularly showy reason for being. Our existence is as trivial as a hunk of space debris to be honest. Your search for a "reason" stems from the fact that our species are pattern seekers which was forged into our DNA by the pressures of evolution. This process is prone to error because sometimes we make assumptions rather than being perfectly honest with ourselves as a way of pacifying our emotional distress.
Your desire to be part of a community stems from behaviours which proved to be beneficial to our species. It feels good to do these things, because our ancestors who derived pleasure or well being from the act had a better chance of survival. We feel angst when there is discord within our family or friends and desire to make amends because it proved evolutionarily beneficial for our species. Tribes with disunity did not survive as well.
It is vital to investigate the source of your motivations and the reason for the incentives. Relying on purely emotional responses offers no guarantee that your choices will produce favourable results for you or those around you. Plenty of Christians "feel" they are doing the right thing - their conviction isn't much different than your own. However, the results of their actions have far-reaching and often devastating consequences for themselves, those around them, and the environment for which we are extremely dependant.
Professing to know what you need to do without taking into consideration why you do these things and stating that you do not want to waste a minute asking questions is a blind path to take. You seek answers to your questions, but refuse to do proper research. It would be more honest to say that you are not interested in answers but desire to sooth your emotional distress. This is where the appeal of religion and the concept of a "higher power" originates. The questions you initially have either have no answer or the answer is unsatisfactory, so the incentive to fall into a world of delusion becomes much too tempting.
I can appreciate your discomfort, but life is full of harsh realities that we must accept or risk falling into delusion. Reality will affect you whether you choose to notice or not. Why not come to terms with reality as it is? Just because we are not center stage in the universe does not mean we cannot appreciate the view and be content that we are alive. Why is it not grand enough that you are alive?
Pickled-thanks
I am not satisfied with that philosophy (of only accepting what i can prove) because i do think there are things we cant aee, so i see an evidence based philosophy as a bAd idea because of that limitation. it will only ever go as far as the human capacity to understand, i think the universe will never be fully understood,
as for the guiding force, i know that cant be proven, but for me, personal experience is sufficient to believe to there must be something. Take Schindler for instance, he gave up all his money to save some Jewish people, or how some jews forgave the Nazis, or how Louis Zamperini forgave his Japanese captors
i just dont think morality is so simple as biological drives
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on February 28, 2015, 10:48:58 AM
I am not satisfied with that philosophy (of only accepting what i can prove) because i do think there are things we cant aee, so i see an evidence based philosophy as a bAd idea because of that limitation.
It's not about only accepting what is proven as much as not making up and believing any old bullshit.
Evidence based philosophy may have limitations, but making up shit is itself a limitation.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on February 28, 2015, 10:48:58 AM
Pickled-thanks
I am not satisfied with that philosophy (of only accepting what i can prove) because i do think there are things we cant aee, so i see an evidence based philosophy as a bAd idea because of that limitation. it will only ever go as far as the human capacity to understand, i think the universe will never be fully understood,
as for the guiding force, i know that cant be proven, but for me, personal experience is sufficient to believe to there must be something. Take Schindler for instance, he gave up all his money to save some Jewish people, or how some jews forgave the Nazis, or how Louis Zamperini forgave his Japanese captors
i just dont think morality is so simple as biological drives
I can appreciate your desire to want more out of life, but the fact remains that an evidence based philosophy is the only way to understand reality and that we as a species are limited by our capacity to learn.
Yes, our acts of morality can be profound, but their origins are found in our biological drives and tempered by logic in many cases.
As usual, I thank you for your honesty.
Here is a more logical approach to morality that you might find intriguing, if nothing else:
I was trying to be subtle hut i think arguing about the existence of God is pointless, yall already all the christian arguments and i have been exposed to plenty of the atheistic arguments
so instead of posting apologetics ad naseum, im going to say the truth and that is i dont think anyone can be sure on this topic
alethia-thanks, will watch the video
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on February 28, 2015, 11:05:16 AM
I was trying to be subtle hut i think arguing about the existence of God is pointless,
What's a god?
to me its a moral guiding force
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on February 28, 2015, 11:16:53 AM
to me its a moral guiding force
That is not a definition. That is a job description.
If you had never seen a cat and asked me was a cat was and I told you that a cat is what took a shit behind the television, you would find that response unhelpful.
i disagree, i think iob description is sufficient, such as what is a television, the box that shows pictures
:eek: Catholic: "Pain and suffering bring you closer to God!" Solitary
Its hard to say what specifically is the "most ignorant" but, one that was memorable was that a Christian said I couldn't use the Bible to show the Bible is inconsistent because I don't believe in it.
Quote from: Munch on February 28, 2015, 07:46:33 AM
Sorry to hear that about your mom dude. Dealing with the stupidity of theism is one thing, having it come from someone close to you, when your someone who rationalizes the world around you, is the worst.
I wonder if this is why my cousin moved like 300 miles away from home, to get away from her nutball mother.
In the main, I'm not surprised. Addictive personality runs in that side of the family; I have to keep an eye on it myself. Her mom was an alcoholic; she herself swung so hard the other way she wouldn't even take communion wine... and of course, because I won't go to church, she's decided I must be an alcoholic too. She already tried to get my ex to go in on an intervention against me. Because, you know, I'm an atheist so I must also be an alcoholic. *eyeroll*
I just don't care anymore. As soon as she apologizes to my sister and my dad for lying to them (and I'm sure there have been others, but I can document her lies to them), and then apologizes to me, she can be mom again -- not that I'll ever trust her again, but it'd be nice to see the rest of the family again (she is rather an extreme control freak and everything in the family has to revolve around her).
Until then. shes just some crazy old lady wrapped up in her sick little fantasy world and I am just not going to deal with her. At least my nieces have their heads screwed on straight -- I don't know what (if anything) they believe (that's not a conversation I've ever had with either of them: one's still a minor so it's not my place, and the one that isn't hasn't asked and it just hasn't come up), but they don't think it's their responsibility to cram it down my throat, and then lie about me when they don't get their way.
I mean, I have much better things to do with my life than deal with a hysterical, dishonest, selfish and self-righteous hypocrite.
I like the ones that claim they believe in God and Jesus but not the God and Jesus of the babble,,,,"because you know, that book that defines them must not be the book that defines them because that book makes it sound like God and Jesus are bad sometimes and I know that God and Jesus are good because I can feel it…" you know,,,that kind of stupidity
My mother told me I was going to "ruin heaven" for her. Then she told me, as if divulging a pearl of wisdom, that "there are no atheists in foxholes". Sigh.
I needed a drink after that conversation.
Quote from: Aroura33 on February 28, 2015, 07:04:53 PM
My mother told me I was going to "ruin heaven" for her. Then she told me, as if divulging a pearl of wisdom, that "there are no atheists in foxholes". Sigh.
Yep, every atheist prays to God when he's going to die... Except my uncle, who threw the minister out of the house when he had terminal cancer. My family still talks about it.
Edit: It's a clever saying, sounds like a pearl of wisdom, except that it was coined by some theist that didn't have a clue about atheism.
I've been very thankful that the the last funerals I've been to have been humanist ones, where they talk in reflection about their lives and doesn't preach some afterlife crap. my grandmother and dad where neither religious, and mum didn't want some religious service.
Sad thing was, there wasn't much reflection for dad and his life, we didn't talk about much at the wake, and that was probably the last time I'd see his relatives.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on February 28, 2015, 11:53:48 AM
i disagree, i think iob description is sufficient, such as what is a television, the box that shows pictures
That's more descriptive than what you'd said earlier.
But whatever. Let's work with that definition. You said it was a force. What kind a force and how does this force interact with objects?
i said a moral guiding force, it interacts with people by prompting them to make moral actions, when a person feels like they should do something even when they dont want to, say sit with an annoying kid but lonely kid at lunch
by being friend a friend to the friendless, the right thing was done, i would attribute that decision to God because it was something i wouldnt had done if i hadnt been pushed to do it by a moral guiding force
"Kill them all and let God sort them out."
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on February 28, 2015, 11:55:40 PM
i said a moral guiding force, it interacts with people by prompting them to make moral actions, when a person feels like they should do something even when they dont want to, say sit with an annoying kid but lonely kid at lunch
by being friend a friend to the friendless, the right thing was done, i would attribute that decision to God because it was something i wouldnt had done if i hadnt been pushed to do it by a moral guiding force
Has it ever occurred to you that you aren't a completely selfish prick who requires an outside force to make you a selfless person who wants to do good things?
Those good acts stem from your own desires and are part of who you inherently are. There's no need to attribute these qualities to some intangible entity. They come from you and only you.
thats the thing, i do think people are inherently egotistical and cowardly. that for a person to be concerned with something outside of themselves takes a great deal of maturity, but that to take action requires even more
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on February 28, 2015, 11:55:40 PM
i said a moral guiding force, it interacts with people by prompting them to make moral actions, when a person feels like they should do something even when they dont want to, say sit with an annoying kid but lonely kid at lunch
by being friend a friend to the friendless, the right thing was done, i would attribute that decision to God because it was something i wouldnt had done if i hadnt been pushed to do it by a moral guiding force
Science has not detected anything like radio waves carrying moral instructions that our brains detect. However, this would account for why morals change. The thing in charge of moral broadcasting, could send out different signals if he decides that slavery is unacceptable, or that gay marriage is now acceptable. Of course, Christians are not all receiving the same message, so the signal must not be clear. This is why God uses the same broadcasting system to send out special waves that can only be picked up by Pat Robertson, who is in charge of relaying these special announcements to the public. There are also special frequencies for the Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas, but these are encrypted and require a special decoder ring.
However this is done, it is apparent that morality most certainly comes to us through space from a moral leader. Otherwise, everyone would be running around killing each other. Well, a lot of us do run around killing each other, but this is probably because the Devil or something is jamming the signals.
While I can't prove that such signals exist, their presence should be self evident. How else could we know right from wrong?
eh, i think people will lie cheat and steal to get what they want and to justify their actions
which goes back to my intial premise that people are not good
Why people aren't good?
i think people are not good nevause they are selfish and complacent. people need to stand up and say no, speak out against slavery (which still existd even in the west) and no more disenfranchisement of poor people. Oust the politicians who wont do anything to help the people
You don't answer my question. Why people aren't good? What's the cause of people being assholes ?
Why you say your goodness came from the biblical god ? The biblical god is a asshole. Slavery is ok in the bible. God commanded people to kill others for breaking stupid rules, like working in the sabbath for example.
i am not sure about the biblical god, and i dont know why people are not good but it seems to me that people suck
which is why i think some outside factor must be at play when a person is good
What about millions of buddhists and Jains that are good people? They don't believe in a creator god. What about millions of atheists worldwide that are good people? Of course millions of atheists are assholes. Millions of buddhists are assholes. Many Jains are assholes. The point is that many people in the world are legit good without the belief in the creator god.
i never said that belief in God makes people good
and if there are so many good people, why do these persons allow atrocities to exist
You said in other posts the belief in your god make or help you to be a good person. Are you serious ? There are many good people in the world but not all of them can help to stop the atrocities in the world. I could ask you , what are you doing to stop the atrocities in the Middle East by ISIS ? The better question is : where is your god ( remember your god is all powerful and all knowing ) when atrocities happen in the world since the beginning of the human race ? Why so much suffering in the animal kingdom?
you make a fair point, i am powerless to stop ISIS, because i dont think our politcians care about the individual
however as a collective whole, we do have the capabity of making a stand
i lack an answer to your final question but i suppose that what goes on in the middle east was caused by the West and we have the resources to fix the problem but we dont
the problem is that simple, we wont clean up our own mess despite having the capability to do so
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on March 01, 2015, 09:02:47 AM
i never said that belief in God makes people good
and if there are so many good people, why do these persons allow atrocities to exist
By the way , this post is one of the most ignorant you ever written.
how is blaming people for the enslavement of people, ignorant?
the fact that sex slavery exists is soley because our police and our public is not harsh enough on human trafficing
not to mention the people who hire prostitutes
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on March 01, 2015, 10:02:46 AM
how is blaming people for the enslavement of people, ignorant?
the fact that sex slavery exists is soley because our police and our public is not harsh enough on human trafficing
not to mention the people who hire prostitutes
Your ignorant post was about the claim that many good people don't exist in the world because the worldwide atrocities aren't stopped by them. By that standard, you would be a very bad person or asshole.
Quote from: leo on March 01, 2015, 09:34:14 AM
You said in other posts the belief in your god make or help you to be a good person. Are you serious ? There are many good people in the world but not all of them can help to stop the atrocities in the world. I could ask you , what are you doing to stop the atrocities in the Middle East by ISIS ? The better question is : where is your god ( remember your god is all powerful and all knowing ) when atrocities happen in the world since the beginning of the human race ? Why so much suffering in the animal kingdom?
I think Stephen Fry said it best.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-d4otHE-YI
I asked Billy Graham this very question when I met him in an art gallery in Scottsdale Arizona. He said he didn't know, but he would ask God when he dies because he was troubled by all the pain and suffering in the world. I told him I was an atheist and asked him how a God of love could allow it? This was before he bought a $22,000 piece of art work, and got into his custom car. I told him that being in the religion business must be profitable. He winked at me and said it was. I don't blame him, stupid people that don't question authority deserve to be fleeced of their hard earned money.. Solitary
I love the point Fry makes and highlights one of the major problems with theism today, people like Christians believe their god is such a divine being, that he is without fault or hubris, that everything he does is with love and good nature, even when he commits acts that would put people like Jeffery Dahmer to shame, yet, still claim he is beyond fault. At least the ancient religions had gods that were at fault and in their beliefs didn't hide this, they commited the same kind of cruel and malicious acts that any human being would.
God exists because mankind is so at fault in their own being, that made up a deity they wanted to aspire to, but in doing so put the same kind of cruelty and malicious behavior in their god as people, but tried to write it off as divine. When god kills millions its a divine act of his guidance, when mankind does the same, its called genocide. When god kills children or spreads disease, its called love and forgiveness, when mankind does it its filicide and chemical warfare.
The threads kind of getting off tilt, but I just think of it on the level of theistic ignorance, when you hear groups like christians and muslims calling out to be taken seriously and saying they are being oppressed, when they themselves don't know the meaning of the word and can't even acknowledge it in their own theism.
i do indeed consider myself a bad person
i have done bad things and will likely make more mistakes in the future
i try to do good but to call myself good would be deceiving
This i
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on March 01, 2015, 11:27:06 AM
i do indeed consider myself a bad person
So, you attribute all bad acts to human nature, and all good acts to an invisible moral force...that kind of "makes" us behave? But it only does that sometimes, and I fails the vast majority of the time, if you re right and people are still mostly bad.
So this force you believe in, could it cause people to not be bad people all the time, instead of randomly just some of the time? If it can, why doesn't it?
Why does it make atheists behave more morally (as they commit less serious crimes overall than beleivers), than those who believe in it? That doesn't make much sense does it?
I'm a bad person too, sometimes, and sometimes I'm a good person. Both of these things are natural, normal, and inside me. They come from my geneics and they way I was raised.
Let's say you have a dog, and it is usually well behaved, but one day it gets into your garbage and strews it around your house. Was this moral force guiding the dog most of the time, but the dogs evil nature comes through to make it wreck your house? No I bet you are thinking this is a human thing. So riddle me this CP, in your worldview, how come a dog has more moral freedom of action (Can be good or bad naturally, on it's own, without god interfering), than a human does?
i think the force is constant but that i chose to ignore it and do what i want inStead
Please define good and please define bad. What's good and what's bad?
good is what is helpful to the community while bad is either harmful to the general well being and selfish
When I was young, I stole things from shops under my coat. I would torment my cat by chasing and scaring him though the house. I hit other kids in my class for no reason at all. I even one time ripped a girls scab on her arm she was showing.
You learn how to be a decent human being by knowledge, education, and developing an empathy for the world around you. I was raised in the mixed household of a loving mother, a loveless father, and an older brother who was always ahead of me in everything. I think it was my mothers strength of character they made me understand empathy and knowing right from wrong in the end.
Really, its all chance. Chance that your be brought up in a home that teaches you right, chance that your generics aren't screwed up and causing an imbalance in your brain activity, and chance for the people you meet and interact with.
by that logic people like me, who have a good upbringing, have no reason to be immoral
and uneducated orphans have no obligation to be moral
He means that the choice of being moral depends of several factors.
alright, i understand now
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on March 01, 2015, 12:11:33 PM
by that logic people like me, who have a good upbringing, have no reason to be immoral
and uneducated orphans have no obligation to be moral
from your "wa-wa" thread:
Quotemy original life span was supposed to be 3 years, so i was once considered one of the ones who wouldnt make it
when i was in Africa, in the slums particularly,
so were you born in the slums or not? It appears that you implied you were born in the slums but you had a good upbringing eh?
Yeah. I think you're all candy and crap, you spin nonsense and believe it and somehow think we can't see its really really stupid excuses to make you think that some wishy washy god out there is not responsible for your conditions because you don't want to admit that shit happens.
It happened to you and it is nothing except chance and you can't handle the fact that your life and death will be all their is. Frankly I don't blame you for feeling pissed off about it, but that doesn't change a thing. Inventing your own wishy washy version of a god based on parts of this or parts of that and bits of this and ignoring all of this and that is rather Ron Hubbard. Invent your own religion, good luck with that, but don't expect anyone with a better than fifth grade education to buy your particular pile of shit.
Contemporary Protestant, you bring up a false dichotomy. For you, a person is either good or they are bad, but that's not how human beings are in reality. We are a mixture of good and bad behaviours with the balance varying between individuals. This distribution of good and bad qualities can change over time based on a person's experiences and how they interpret those experiences. That's why the world has good and bad things in it because it is a reflection of our dualistic nature - emotion and logic. Remember, we are one of the very few animals to have a mind like ours (other hominid species died out). Our animal origins are present in our behaviours, instincts, and natural incentives. This can align or be at odds with our logic.
You don't need an external source for your morality. You need only to cultivate your own sense of morality using logic and behaviour modifications.
This short book provided more insight into the dualistic nature of a human being in a more concise way than any other book I've encountered. You want to find the answers, then start with yourself:
As a Man Thinketh (http://jamesallen.wwwhubs.com/think.htm)
QuoteThe aphorism, "As a man thinketh in his heart so is he," not only embraces the whole of a man's being, but is so comprehensive as to reach out to every condition and circumstance of his life. A man is literally what he thinks, his character being the complete sum of all his thoughts.
As the plant springs from, and could not be without, the seed, so every act of a man springs from the hidden seeds of thought, and could not have appeared without them. This applies equally to those acts called "spontaneous" and "unpremeditated" as to those which are deliberately executed.
Act is the blossom of thought, and joy and suffering are its fruits; thus does a man garner in the sweet and bitter fruitage of his own husbandry.
Thought in the mind hath made us. What we are
By thought we wrought and built. If a man's mind
Hath evil thoughts, pain comes on him as comes
The wheel the ox behind . . . If one endure in purity
of thought joy follows him as his own shadow - sure.
Man is a growth by law, and not a creation by artifice, and cause and effect is as absolute and undeviating in the hidden realm of thought as in the world of visible and material things. A noble and Godlike character is not a thing of favor or chance, but is the natural result of continued effort in right thinking, the effect of long-cherished association with Godlike thoughts. An ignoble and bestial character, by the same process, is the result of the continued harboring of groveling thoughts.
Man is made or unmade by himself; in the armory of thought he forges the weapons by which he destroys himself. He also fashions the tools with which he builds for himself heavenly mansions of joy and strength and peace. By the right choice and true application of thought, man ascends to the Divine Perfection; by the abuse and wrong application of thought, he descends below the level of the beast. Between these two extremes are all the grades of character, and man is their maker and master.
I have traveled to the African Slums, but I was born with a large brain tumor, the tumor is what threatened my life span
on behavior modification, what about cognitive dissonance?
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on March 01, 2015, 01:30:51 PM
on behavior modification, what about cognitive dissonance?
Cognitive dissonance happens when you fail to make a choice. You use logic to pick the one that is most honest and fits best with reality. Until you make that choice, cognitive dissonance will continue to cause you distress. The final choice will not necessarily be pleasant, but it will prove advantageous in time.
Really, I thought cognitive dissonance was when a person made a bad decision but changed their thoughts to justify their actions
anyhow, despite my poor vocabulary, how can a personal morality be effective in the face of hypocrisy in everyday individuals
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on March 01, 2015, 01:37:02 PM
Really, I thought cognitive dissonance was when a person made a bad decision but changed their thoughts to justify their actions
anyhow, despite my poor vocabulary, how can a personal morality be effective in the face of hypocrisy in everyday individuals
No worries. We make mistakes and learn from them all the time.
Cognitive dissonance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance)
QuoteIn psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values.
Personal morality can be effective in the face of hypocrisy in everyday individuals by affecting others who do not value hypocrisy. Plenty of people want to do the right thing, but not everyone is courageous enough to endanger their livelihood or reputation. However, sometimes when they see someone else braver than them with a similar stance, they feel empowered. This can produce solidarity in the group. Yes, the hypocrit remains, and is unlikely to change, but in time through your behaviour and actions, you attract like-minded people to you. They offer emotional support, and sometimes, will step up to the hyprocrit just as you have - often times by using work-related policy to remove or limit the power of the hypocrit.
So much of life stems from minor changes that have a cumulative effect. If you are patient and observant, you'll notice them.
QuoteMen are anxious to improve their circumstances, but are unwilling to improve themselves. They therefore remain bound. The man who does not shrink from self-crucifixion can never fail to accomplish the object upon which his heart is set. This is as true of earthly as of heavenly things. Even the man whose sole object is to acquire wealth must be prepared to make great personal sacrifices before he can accomplish his object; and how much more so he who would realize a strong and well-poised life?....
....Circumstances, however, are so complicated, thought is so deeply rooted, and the conditions of happiness vary so vastly with individuals, that a man's entire soul condition (although it may be known to himself) cannot be judged by another from the external aspect of his life alone.
A man may be honest in certain directions, yet suffer privations. A man may be dishonest in certain directions, yet acquire wealth. But the conclusion usually formed that the one man fails because of his particular honesty, and that the other prospers because of his particular dishonesty, is the result of a superficial judgment, which assumes that the dishonest man is almost totally corrupt, and honest man almost entirely virtuous. In the light of a deeper knowledge and wider experience, such judgment is found to be erroneous. The dishonest man may have some admirable virtues which the other does not possess; and the honest man obnoxious vices which are absent in the other. The honest man reaps the good results of his honest thoughts and acts; he also brings upon himself the sufferings which his vices produce. The dishonest man likewise garners his own suffering and happiness
It is pleasing to human vanity to believe that one suffers because of one's virtue. But not until a man has extirpated every sickly, bitter, and impure thought from his mind, and washed every sinful stain from his soul, can he be in a position to know and declare that his sufferings are the result of his good, and not of his bad qualities. And on the way to that supreme perfection, he will have found working in his mind and life, the Great Law which is absolutely just, and which cannot give good for evil, evil for good. Possessed of such knowledge, he will then know, looking back upon his past ignorance and blindness, that his life is, and always was, justly ordered, and that all his past experiences, good and bad, were the equitable outworking of his evolving, yet unevolved self.
thanks, i will take time o reflect on that
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on March 01, 2015, 01:50:14 PM
thanks, i will take time o reflect on that
Feel fee to read the book. I think it's only 20 pages or so.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on March 01, 2015, 08:15:14 AM
eh, i think people will lie cheat and steal to get what they want and to justify their actions
which goes back to my intial premise that people are not good
Stating that people are inherently 'good' or 'evil' requires some sort of reasonably objective baseline to measure goodness and evilness against.
I might recommend the sections on the evolutionary purpose of altruism from
The Selfish Gene as a good place to start there. He makes a good (but by no means settled) case.
Anyway, 'good' and 'evil' are always determined on a sliding scale, as civilization advances. I mean, look at biblical passages on slavery, not a single one of which condemns the practice. I think with very few exceptions, you won't find a modern human who believes slavery should be reinstated. We've grown socially--become better--since then.
You can have a fine debate on whether humans are good or evil, but there's no question that how we define good and evil changes over time.
I prefer to think that humans are
natural, and that any good or evil within a particular human is going to depend on their circumstances. We're certainly pretty stupid as a species (
i.e., when acting as groups rather than as individuals), but that's not the same as being evil.
Quote from: GrinningYMIR on February 26, 2015, 11:24:49 PM
I had a Christian accost me for reading a comic called Maus in the library (good comic) She said it was filthy jew material and that I should burn it in front of the library, literally. her actual words. She called me a bad person for reading it (I was just coming to terms with my atheism at the time, still didn't quite believe it)
I just went: Look lady, I was just reading a comic...
she sneered at me and called me a heathen. That was a surreal experience
WTF does she not realize that the whole old testament is basically Jewish scripture? The freaking backbone to her religion is Judaism
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on February 28, 2015, 11:55:40 PM
i said a moral guiding force, it interacts with people by prompting them to make moral actions, when a person feels like they should do something even when they dont want to, say sit with an annoying kid but lonely kid at lunch
by being friend a friend to the friendless, the right thing was done, i would attribute that decision to God because it was something i wouldnt had done if i hadnt been pushed to do it by a moral guiding force
This is the problem with these sorts of debates. The atheistic explanation for such example tend to be a bit long winded and theists are notoriously impatient. "God did it" is so much simpler and shorter. Why should you have to learn about how humans are social animals who experience emotions such as empathy and sympathy which allow us to feel bad about another's misfortune as if it were happening to ourselves? That we had evolved these traits because working together as a group is more beneficial to survival, so those who had these traits tended to survive long enough to pass their social genes onto the next generation while those who did not have these traits did not. Death is the primary force that drives evolution, after all. Although, there are people who lack these traits. Watch the documentary
I, Psychopath to see what someone who lacks empathy is like. What would be your explanation for such a person? That god has forsaken him? Why? Because he's an asshole? By your logic and definition of god, the man is an asshole because god has forsaken him. This make god the asshole, then, for neglecting certain individuals for arbitrary reasons.
Morality is really way too complex a subject to go into on an internet forum. And even then, why should you believe me? Theists tend to prefer ignorance so that every blank can then be filled with god.
Even then, I find your assertion abhorrent. The only reason why someone would do something good is because of god? What a terrible worldview to have! What a sorry opinion you hold of your fellow humans and yourself! You have basically said that when people do good, it is only because of god. Guiding us. Like a puppet master pulling the strings. Therefore, when we do bad, that is our true nature taking over.
What a terrible view of humanity!
What a terrible view of god that it would control us so directly like that!
i mentioned either on this thread or maybe another im not sure
that people do wrong when they chose not to do what is right
which eliminates the point about a grand puppet master
and refutes the point about how people who are bad have been abandoned
i also refuse to accept that people are good
working together for survival isnt good, its an act of self preservation
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on March 02, 2015, 06:12:58 PM
i mentioned either on this thread or maybe another im not sure
that people do wrong when they chose not to do what is right
which eliminates the point about a grand puppet master
and refutes the point about how people who are bad have been abandoned
i also refuse to accept that people are good
working together for survival isnt good, its an act of self preservation
How often do you crap and fart ?
daily
Thank you very much. You are a very cool guy. Thanks for answering this important question.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on March 02, 2015, 06:12:58 PM
that people do wrong when they chose not to do what is right
Then where does this god-thing enter into it?
when i said guiding force, i included an anecdote about doing something uncomfortable for the sake of someone else, like being a friend to someone, i would dislike, cannot come from my own free will, it is contrary to human nature (portrayed by psychology) to go against the group to help the outsider, this action must be prompted by an outside force
this is assuming that people are all herd animals that are selfish and desire status qou
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on March 02, 2015, 06:12:58 PM
i mentioned either on this thread or maybe another im not sure
that people do wrong when they chose not to do what is right
People rarely choose specifically between doing what is right or wrong. Rather, people choose what is most beneficial for themselves and/or those they care about. It's because of this that people with good intentions can be conned into doing very harmful things.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on March 02, 2015, 06:12:58 PM
which eliminates the point about a grand puppet master
and refutes the point about how people who are bad have been abandoned
Precisely, which is why having a god or a moral guiding force is utterly useless and unnecessary. We don't need these things to assist our choices. We inherently are geared towards self-preservation and altruism - often times going back and forth between depending on the person and the given situation.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on March 02, 2015, 06:12:58 PM
i also refuse to accept that people are good
working together for survival isnt good, its an act of self preservation
Good implies that it is beneficial. Working together for survival is good because everyone benefits. Workloads per individual is reduced, security between individuals is increased, and more resources are accrued due to cooperation.
There are acts of genuine selflessness referred to as altruism. For example, a mother putting her personal safety in jeopardy to save her child, a bystander calling out for help to draw the attention away from the victim and putting his own personal safety at risk, or even a person who barely has enough to eat but makes sure their dog never runs out of food.
Refusing to accept that people are good does not change the facts of reality. People can be and have been demonstrably good toward each other. They have been documented to display altruism. These facts cannot be changed no matter what world view you wish desperately were true. This line of reasoning you have paints a corrupt, bleak world with no hope and will only lead to a yearning for death.
Accept people as they are - imperfect, but please do not condemn everyone as being evil or bad just because you feel without evidence that nobody is capable of being good on their own.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on March 02, 2015, 10:33:22 PM
it is contrary to human nature (portrayed by psychology) to go against the group to help the outsider, this action must be prompted by an outside force
Your view is incomplete. We also have an instinct to seek out others, one of the main reasons being to reduce inbreeding and to seek out allies with a common goal. They are not prompted by this outside force (aka guiding force, god, etc). It is a decision they make on their own that is a mix of instinct and logical thinking.
If you are going to quote the scientific research, then please make sure you have all the facts. Unlike the Bible, science cannot be cherry-picked.
ETA: We've all helped someone when we really didn't want to in an effort to either avoid feeling guilty about it or empathized with the state the person was in and really didn't want another person to suffer. Still, we have the choice to help the person or not - this does not mean we won't feel some averse effect from these choices.
i do agree that people are imperfect and that biology plays a role in morality but i see it as tragic that self preservation is such a strong influence on peoples actions
i am doing a horrible job at explaining this but i am mainly thinking about what prompts a person to stop worrying about the self and fix on the needs of others to the point of self sacrifice, my main line of reasoning is doubt that a person can overcome the natural urges of living reproducing and protecting their young at the cost of others
while i recognize people help others as a way of furthering self
i am currently in a psychology class and my studies are continuing to show that self preservation is greater than altruism in human nature, so i am curious about what would prompt a flip in these instincts
i am not trying to cherry pick, just trying to make prompt responses
im going to explain it another way
the id is selfish and about desire while the super ego is about morals, roughly
what would cause a person to act more on moral ideals rather than their own desires
i think it would take something that can really motivate
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on March 02, 2015, 10:33:22 PM
this action must be prompted by an outside force
No it isn't. See sympathy and empathy.
That morality comes from God.
one time a christian told me to stop taking my psych meds and go to church that was my real problem.
i dont think sympathy and empathy are strong enough to account for the actions of some individuals
if people were so sympathetic and empathetic, then why do so few give to charity
You are asumming too much. How do you know if few people give to charity ?
Hey contemporary protestant , what's the name of the protestant sect you belong ?
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on March 07, 2015, 10:59:59 AM
i dont think sympathy and empathy are strong enough to account for the actions of some individuals
That you cannot conceive or believe of it has no bearing on the case.
Your entire argument is based on your preconceived notions of how the world should work and your inability to deal with it when it does not conform to your ill-informed expectations and that explaining that discrepancy with this god-thing.
i know people dont give because the fact that so many people dont have enough, and im not talking just money, im talking about time
i dont identify with any sect in particular, i have a tendency to see tradition and ceremony as a waste, which is why i am not a catholic
if i have to don a lable, i most closely resemble the Quakers
sorry you feel that way about buddy, but i do not see humanity as innatley good, because if people had the natural capacity to be empathetic creatures they would be that way,
you are correct, i cannot concieve of a universe where there is no differece betweeen people like Stalin and people like Ghandi or Nelson Mandhela
i am not saying that christianity is that difference (hence the persons i chose) but i think there must be something
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on March 07, 2015, 10:59:59 AM
i dont think sympathy and empathy are strong enough to account for the actions of some individuals
if people were so sympathetic and empathetic, then why do so few give to charity
What are you basing this assertion on, that so few give to charity?
the fact that there is enough resources to accomplish alot of humanitarian projects but charities remain under funded
for example, a local soup kitchen i know of, is always in danger of running out
the fact that some people in the United States starve while others live in mansions
this is why i see the world as cold and unjust
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on March 07, 2015, 11:12:23 AM
sorry you feel that way about buddy, but i do not see humanity as innatley good, because if people had the natural capacity to be empathetic creatures they would be that way,
Human beings are empathic creatures, we are just not indiscriminately empathic. Try reading this article. (http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-monkeysphere.html) It's a humor article, but like most well-done humor, it also communicates a point.
But CP it doesn't bother you that protestantism exist after the 16th century ? All protestant sects are man made religions. ( like all religions by the way. ) . The first division of christians came in the 5th century when oriental orthodox christians separate themselves with the rest of christianity. The second division came in the 10th century when roman catholics and eastern orthodox broke away from each other. Then in the 16th century protestantism is created with over 30,000 denominations and interpretations of the bible. Protestants accuse roman catholic of inventing traditions. This is true but they can't see the irony . Protestant sects are inventing new shit all the time .
i will read it
Leo, in all honesty, i dont care about any traditions
the protestants still read the same text (minus some) that catholics read
and in truth; i do not think the wine is jesus' blood and i am not asking a dead woman to pray for my sins
You don't believe the wine and bread is the literal blood and body of christ because you are protestant. For the first 15 centuries of christianity , all christians believe in this literal shit. Oriental orthodox christians , eastern orthodox christians and roman catholics still believe in this literal blood and body of christ thing.
yes and i think being transfixed on any tradition like communion is a waste of resources. if a person is concerned about how they consume bread the right way or not, they might turn a blind eye to other things.
Say i consider myself a good person because i do 1000 hail marys a day, i do not think ritual would excuse any bad behavior my part. which is why i personally focus more on how i treat others and my own actions
The point is that you believe in made up BS. Protestantism is a recent phenomenon in the history of Christianity. Your interpretation is irrevelant. Protestants are basically saying that their interpretation of Christianity is better than the Christians of the first 15 centuries . VERY ARROGANT.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on March 07, 2015, 11:19:27 AM
the fact that there is enough resources to accomplish alot of humanitarian projects but charities remain under funded
for example, a local soup kitchen i know of, is always in danger of running out
the fact that some people in the United States starve while others live in mansions
this is why i see the world as cold and unjust
That does not mean few give to charity. It means needs are not met. Those are different things.
i dont think of my way as better, i simply reject alot of the practices of my catholic neighbors
i dont see them as different but i am called a fake and heretic, i dont see that as me being arrogant
furthermore, i dont see age as contributing to the validity of a claim
for example, if i said child molestation isnt okay, it shouldnt matter when i said it
if 1% of people hold majority of the wealth, i would call that lack of charity
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on March 07, 2015, 11:59:41 AM
i dont think of my way as better, i simply reject alot of the practices of my catholic neighbors
i dont see them as different but i am called a fake and heretic, i dont see that as me being arrogant
furthermore, i dont see age as contributing to the validity of a claim
for example, if i said child molestation isnt okay, it shouldnt matter when i said it
if 1% of people hold majority of the wealth, i would call that lack of charity
I think you are a good guy. I am sure I always sound argumentative with you, though.
The rich aren't rich and the poor poor because of lack of charity. This broadening disparity is a serious problem that won't be solved by charity.
i honestly think if the rich opened their hands, it would solve plenty
CP I disagree. WHEN YOU STUDY HOW THE NEW RELIGIONS ARE INVENTED, YOU WILL GET A GOOD PICTURE HOW ALL RELIGIONS WERE INVENTED.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on March 07, 2015, 11:12:23 AM
you are correct, i cannot concieve of a universe where there is no differece betweeen people like Stalin and people like Ghandi or Nelson Mandhela
Yes, but these are all exceptional cases in one way or another; while you can't judge humanity by Stalin, you also unfortunately can't judge humanity by Gandhi or Mandela. The vast billions of us fall somewhere in between, where we're all capable of small kindnesses and small cruelties within ten minutes of each other.
Biologically, there isn't any difference between Stalin, and Gandhi and Mandela. That's just simple biochemistry. Genetically, they're more similar to each other than they are to any other living thing.
Socially, sociologically, psychologically, behaviorally, that's where the difference lies. Some of that is genetic. Some of that is learned. The line between the two is fuzzy. I'm sure most of us would like to think that Stalin was not sane, due to some biochemical imbalance or gross physical defect of the brain -- I don't know, I haven't made a study of it, even cursorily.
That opens up the unusual possibility that if extreme 'evil'
à la Stalin is the result of a biochemical or biophysical imbalance, extreme 'good' might be too. And keep in mind, the authorities at the time certainly didn't consider Gandhi or Mandela to be exemplars of goodness -- Winston Churchill had a number of frankly racist things to say about Gandhi (http://www.thehindu.com/mag/2005/06/19/stories/2005061900060300.htm), and the
apartheid government's view of Mandela is pretty obvious.
i think more people should strive to be good like Ghandi, instead of settling for mediocrity
leo, i have taken a world history course, i fail to see your point
Maybe you don't want to see my point. You are a nice guy but talking to you is often like talking to a wall.
i think you are referring to mormonism and scientology, and i dont think that is a valid point because it assumes that all religions have some dark cloud over them, such as scientology is rumored to be a big ponzi scheme
i disagree with the assumption because it assumes all religons are dogmatic and organized as well as deceitful. in addition to having an under current of power struggle
Mormonism and scientology are examples . When you see how new religions are invented , you will get the picture how all religions are invented. When Christianity was invented mainly by Paul it was only one sect among many sects in the empire. Christianity exists as the largest religion in the world today mainly , because the Roman empire adopted Christianity as the main religion of the empire in the 4th century.
CP, if 1% of a country has the majority of the wealth, then that means that 1% is the most greedy. The rest of the population is living comfortably, living paycheck to paycheck, or are impoverished. From this segment of the population is where most the charity comes from. This means that plenty of people are charitable. The problem isn't a lack of empathy - it's a lack of money due to the 1% who do not participate in charities.
Furthermore, a truly empathetic person with no instinct for self-preservation would die quite easily due to saving someone from harm, starving so another can eat, dying from lack of medical attention, etc. Evolution cultivates life through culling. Yes, such a purely "good" person would be impressive to see, but it's not sustainable. A population of such people would give too much and none of them would be willing to receive anything for themselves. That's why human beings are not purely good.
The same is true if human beings were truly self-centered, short-sighted, and enjoyed death and destruction. Each person in such a population would steal from others and be stolen from as well, thus nobody would ever have enough sustenance to sustain themselves for long. The desire for bloodshed would mean each person who cannot fend off an adversary would die for the amusement of his brethren. Mating would be accomplished via rape, and the would-be mother could be killed if she's too weak in her pregnant state. Her children would die due to her lack of maternal instinct. A population of such people would not be sustainable.
Human beings are the result of a balancing act between behaviours that maintain self-preservation (at least long enough for viable offspring) and group cooperation where everyone sacrifices something to maintain the group. We are no different than any other creature striving to survive. There isn't a single entity in existence that is purely good or purely bad. Both extremes result in destruction of the individual.
Your belief that man is inherently evil and must be "guided" to do good things is unnecessary for a creature that naturally a balance of good and bad features. Furthermore, if you profess to be a Christian who believes in freewill, then no matter how gentle the nudge, any manipulation of a person's nature is in violation of freewill.
Yes, it is sad that human beings have so many flaws and the world isn't perfect even though we obviously have the intellect to design more harmonious societies. However, human beings are a mix of good and evil qualities naturally. There are also segments of the population that are genetically altered - psychopaths who lack empathy whose exploitation of group cohesion ultimately leads to the group failing and altruists in the extreme who burn out quickly. Then one has to take into account that some people are smarter than others, some are prone to accepting emotional reasoning over intellectual reasoning and vice versa, and that trauma can alter a person on an epigenetic level and cause their offspring to inherit these changes from birth.
A psychology course is not going to teach you everything about human nature. It is merely a single facet of an obviously multi-faceted creature.
The same thing all people who claim a god or gods "I have evidence".
what about religions without founders or philisophical roots such as buddhism or hinduism
yes christianity was influenced mainly by paul, but what about its jewish roots
i also think your premise of looking at roots assumes that all religions are false and that all supernatural beliefs are religion based
alethia-overall i think what you are saying is very sound but i disagree when you say that a purely good person would not receive and would only give, i disagree, i think that people would accept gifts/charity
i disagree because it assumes the giving individual wouldnt accept help, if misunderstood, please enlighten me
if toothfairysm were adopted as the main religion of the roman empire , tooth fairysm would be the largest religion of the world today. The same apply with any religion adopted by the roman empire instead of christianity. By the way in a very dark scenario in the future most nations of the world would be Islamic if this assholes ended conquering the world or most of the world. I hope this will never happens. This thought scare the shit out of me.
I don't assume all religions are false with only studying their origins. I'm a atheist because when you study the doctrine of all religions, you will realize is all BULLSHIT. Buddhism as practiced by most Theravada and Mahayana sects is bullshit too. By studying the NIKAYAS text you will have a clear picture of the original Buddha teachings.
yeah but tooth fairyism didnt catch
and i do agree sharia law is scary
but i still disagree, i dont think a political engine is enough to truly spread religion, yeah maybe people get scared and say whatever, so i retain my stance that focusing on the history of religion is insufficient
why are those sects not valid
Quote from: leo on March 07, 2015, 01:39:00 PM
if toothfairysm were adopted as the main religion of the roman empire , tooth fairysm would be the largest religion of the world today. The same apply with any religion adopted by the roman empire instead of christianity. By the way in a very dark scenario in the future most nations of the world would be Islamic if this assholes ended conquering the world or most of the world. I hope this will never happens. This thought scare the shit out of me.
I'm down with tooth fairysm if one of its teachings is to brush your teeth, some people have rotten fucking breath.
CP honestly I feel that I'm playing the last person to post wins game with you in this thread. You simply don't want to listen. You are ignoring my replies and the other members replies. I can play this circular game with you for a while, I don't mind.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on March 07, 2015, 01:35:05 PM
alethia-overall i think what you are saying is very sound but i disagree when you say that a purely good person would not receive and would only give, i disagree, i think that people would accept gifts/charity
i disagree because it assumes the giving individual wouldnt accept help, if misunderstood, please enlighten me
A self-less person does not think of his/her needs. Even if they were capable of accepting charity, their self-lessness would compel them to give these gifts to someone else. Self-interest is required to accept gifts - which according to you is a less desirable trait for a person to have.
alethia, i getcha, and correct putting self first is an undesirable triat
leo, how have i not addressed you, if anything you are not addressing me, and youre statements are too vauge, like how am i supposed to respond to "religion is bullshit" with anything other than a question
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on March 07, 2015, 01:49:32 PM
but i still disagree, i dont think a political engine is enough to truly spread religion, yeah maybe people get scared and say whatever, so i retain my stance that focusing on the history of religion is insufficient
The power of the state is plenty to enforce the spread of a religion; in point of historical fact, it's nearly necessary. And when the penalties for not adhering to the state religion include confiscatory fines, torture, and/or death, people are going to make whatever mouth-noises are necessary to keep the officials happy. And after a couple generations of making mouth-noises, people start to accept that as the 'natural' and 'normal' way to be, for lack of any experience with any alternative, and start believing it.
This is why the history of the spread of Christianity is one of first co-opting local traditions so as to appeal to the local peasantry, then of making themselves useful to the local lords by bringing a limited amount of literacy to support the operations of their fiefdoms (and the profoundly seductive idea of the divine right of rulership), and inevitably ended with the state-authorized legal abolition of all other forms of worship (with a grudging and not at all universal exemption "allowed" for Jews).
Christianity didn't sweep the West as a philosophical fire -- it came at the point of a sword.
alright, christianity become the official religion in 325 when it became a political weapon of sorts
what bout the first 250 years?
this is probably my last post today, my shift starts soon
The most idiotic thing I've heard recently is that the Earth is only 6,000 years old from a retard on CF known as Conamer.
That was bad, but we've all heard that stupid bullshit before. But what was worse was why he said it. He said something to the effect that he'd explored the subject outside the Bible, and then came back to the Bible.
He said that ultimately "my faith came first."
I said, that's why I didn't like religion. There was no reason for anyone on the planet to think planet fucking Earth is only thousands of years old (and I have no idea why it's specifically 6,000 either), but "your faith came first."
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on March 07, 2015, 02:25:47 PM
alright, christianity become the official religion in 325 when it became a political weapon of sorts
what bout the first 250 years?
this is probably my last post today, my shift starts soon
Christianity was a small Jewish sect in the first 250 years. Without the Roman Empire adopting christianity , christianity would probably exist today as a very small cult.
That there is an invisible God that all powerful, loving, and created the universe! How would he know? idiot! Solitary
Quote from: leo on March 07, 2015, 01:54:04 PM
CP honestly I feel that I'm playing the last person to post wins game with you in this thread. You simply don't want to listen. You are ignoring my replies and the other members replies.
He's here to defend the faith. Listening and responding would be unproductive. The idea is to invite reason and then ignore it. This gets God coupons, which can be traded in later on.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on March 07, 2015, 02:00:52 PM
alethia, i getcha, and correct putting self first is an undesirable triat
However, as we both now accept, a purely good individual would inadvertently die precisely because of excessive selflessness. Self-interest is a required trait insomuch that we need it so that we do not die from neglecting our needs. It does no good if everyone is willing to give but nobody is able to accept. Self-interest is a neutral trait - it is neither good or evil. It is necessary for our survival as an individual, and by extension, to those who depend on us.
You keep searching for a black and white world that conforms to your own simplistic views of morality, but the world is a multitude of shades of grey.
Funny the timing of this…quaffed a couple cold ones with the bro-in-law at a local pub today, somehow got talking about his kids and some issue at church that they send the kids to (he and the wife don't actually go of course) anyhow, he asks, "you're not particularly religious right, aren't you an atheist or something". I said, "yep". And he says, "so whats up with that?". And I said, "well I like shrimp and lobster and bacon"
"whats that got to do with it?"
"well, god says you can't eat that"
"what, no he doesn't"
"sure does, and your tat's are the same abomination as getting your ass hammered by a fag"
"what?"
"yep, and you can't shave your beard or get your hair cut and if some fuck rapes your daughter you have to let him marry hery".
"bullshit, you're fucking with me"
"read the piece of shit yourself"
"fuck that, hey have you tried that new IPA?"
i do see morality as black and white, it is obviously situational, but i do think it is foolish to say that such and such behavior cant be right or wrong
i think self interest, if put first can be very bad, when i say be selfless, i dont never fulfil your own needs, i just dont think that putting self first is moral
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on March 07, 2015, 07:22:01 PM
i do see morality as black and white, it is obviously situational, but i do think it is foolish to say that such and such behavior cant be right or wrong
Right and wrong is subjective. To some, it's wrong to have premarital sex. Or to go over the speed limit, or drink caffeinated beverages.
There is behavior that is widely accepted as wrong, such as murder, but almost anything can be justified and rationalized. Murder is wrong, but executing people on death row is righteous.
Morality is most definitely not black and white, and that is right there at the foundation of the problem with religious followers.
oh my, i am so embarrassed, thats a typo, i meant to say not black and white
oh! Hahahahaha
Quote from: aitm on March 07, 2015, 07:18:17 PM
"read the piece of shit yourself"
"fuck that, hey have you tried that new IPA?"
Sounds like a smart man to me. Which IPA was he talking about?
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on March 07, 2015, 02:25:47 PM
alright, christianity become the official religion in 325 when it became a political weapon of sorts
what bout the first 250 years?
this is probably my last post today, my shift starts soon
Initially, political power didn't matter -- the first generation of adherents thought Jeshua bar-Joseph was returning in their lifetimes. And it existed as another sect of Judaism more than it did as an independent religion.
After the first couple generations of believers died off, it settled in that the second coming wasn't imminent, and it became necessary to exist in the real world. And unlike Judaism or Roman religion (or really most others in that area, to the best of my knowledge), Christianity was (and is) a religion that assigns itself the "responsibility" to convert people to that belief. Judaism is non-proselytizing. The Romans weren't all that bothered with what was believed in their conquered territories as long as they paid their tribute/taxes and didn't revolt.
The simple path to survival, of course, is to take control of the leaders of the state. First, early Christians had to disassociate themselves from the Jewish community, which had engaged in several revolts against Roman authority from the late first to the middle second centuries. And second, they had to convert useful numbers of Roman citizens.
Interestingly, as the only (or one of very few) proselytizing religions in the area at the time, that put Christianity in the same position as a 'cheater' in the reciprocal altruism scenario posited by evolutionary biologist Robert Trivers: it engages in an activity that preys upon the rest of the community, which does not engage in that activity themselves.
And of course once in control of the state, it didn't take long for Christians to be given political and official preference over non-Christians, for the church to start wielding the political and financial power of the state, for other religions to first be elbowed aside, and then ultimately for them to be made illegal.
And in any case, what, really, does it matter what happened in the first two and a half centuries? It comes across like you're saying "Christianity was oppressed once, so that mitigates the oppression they've engaged in over the 18 centuries since then." I'm quite frankly more appalled by what Christianity did when it took and held political power for the most recent 90% of the last two millennia, than in what it suffered when it didn't have political power in the first 10%. Clearly, it did not learn what it means to be a victim, and a victimizer.
Quote from: Savior2006 on March 07, 2015, 09:44:38 PM
Sounds like a smart man to me. Which IPA was he talking about?
Whatever beer is the most nasty and bitter is what he loves. I am old school yellow fizzy stuff.
Quote from: aitm on March 08, 2015, 09:40:26 AM
Whatever beer is the most nasty and bitter is what he loves. I am old school yellow fizzy stuff.
You mean piss?
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on March 07, 2015, 07:22:01 PM
i do see morality as black and white, it is obviously situational, but i do think it is foolish to say that such and such behavior cant be right or wrong
Then what you have defined is relative morality - which runs counter to the Christian doctrine (regardless of the denomination), which believe firmly in absolute morality. Relative morality takes into account a given situation but absolute morality proposes that morality is the same in all situations.
For example:
Relative Morality:
It is wrong to lie to your family, especially when they can help you. It was right for people to lie to the Nazis when asked if they were harbouring Jews.
Absolute Morality:
It is wrong to lie, no matter the situation.
It is wrong to lie to your family, especially when they can help you. It is wrong to for people to lie to the Nazis when asked if they were harbouring Jews.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on March 07, 2015, 07:22:01 PM
i think self interest, if put first can be very bad, when i say be selfless, i dont never fulfil your own needs, i just dont think that putting self first is moral
If self-interest is never put first, then the person will neglect their own needs and suffer as a result. It seems that you're wanting to apply absolute morality here in thinking that self-interest must never be put first. Furthermore, you want your cake and eat it too. For you, self-interest must never be put first and yet people shouldn't neglect their own needs.We've already established in a previous dialogue that a purely self-less person will die from neglect. A person who never puts self-interest first will die from neglect as well, even though they do still have self-interest but aren't applying it.
Self-interest, when used in moderation is vital to maintaining the well being of an individual. It is neither good nor evil, merely another neutral aspect of our nature. A given situation will determine whether implementing self-interest has good effects or bad effects on the individual and those around them.
All that morality can determine is if the manner in which a neutral trait or behaviour is applied in a given situation has good or bad results. The act itself has the potential to be good or bad, but is not inherently one way or the other.
There isn't a simple solution when it comes to morality. There isn't any such thing as absolute morality. It's all relative, and we have to assess the positives and negatives of a given action or behaviour to determine if it was mostly good or mostly bad. No short cuts and no absolutes.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on March 07, 2015, 12:15:34 PM
i honestly think if the rich opened their hands, it would solve plenty
No, it wouldn't. That is an overly simple solution for a complex problem.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on March 07, 2015, 01:12:57 PM
i disagree with the assumption because it assumes all religons are dogmatic and organized as well as deceitful. in addition to having an under current of power struggle
All religions are dogmatic, organized, and deceitful due primarily because of the undercurrent of a power struggle. Religions are organizations that draw an income for services rendered - much like any other institution (charity, business, etc). Greed is always a problem when resources are available. This results in a power struggle between the self-interest of the individual and the cohesiveness of the group. Humans, like any other social animal, tries to solve this problem with a rank structure, in which power/resources are divided accordingly. How these resources are divided and why people are assigned the ranks they are varies.
Lastly, religions use dogma, which is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. Yet, the authority they use is unsubstantiated, and therefore interpretations can vary greatly. This can destabilize the distribution of resources and services rendered, which leads to more profound power struggles. During these episodes of destabilization, the more greedy constituents seize opportunities for themselves at the expense of the group. Once the group is reorganized yet again, these greedy individuals may have acquired more power and wealth, which causes greater disparity among the group.
Lather, rinse, and repeat. Eventually you'll end up with a very deceptive and morally corrupt religion which draws in unwary members who are swindled on a regular basis.