Regarding the Existence or Absence of God

[I Missed Boat]

Originally posted by rs7


I thought I did "shoot down" the ridiculously weak "calendar" argument given by Thunderbolt.

I don't see any reason to argue with the masses if I have no reason to. I thought I made a few points about how I felt about the Bible as not being an accurate documentation of history. I see no reason to argue with peoples beliefs in it. I think their beliefs are a good thing if it helps them to live their lives according to the fine teachings of the Bible.

My personal opinions matter not at all. And I have no incentive to argue them. I will not argue about religion. Only about misstated facts. Or false assumptions in which beliefs are stated as facts.

I would argue "against the masses" if I thought there was either greater value in my arguments, or harm in theirs. I see no harm.

Rs7

I thought I made it clear that I wasn't suggesting you argue for the sake of arguiing, or that you argue about religion. In fact, that is why I said about religion that not much can be argued except (only the weak and fallacious arguments can truly be addressed). . What I am saying is that if you don't want to argue an issue, referring to the "masses" is not a good reason.

 

[I Missed Boat]

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko


axeman, you are simply fantastic!!!!!!!

this may cause an uproar, but i say more likely than not, SEPT. 11TH WOULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED IF RELIGION DID NOT EXIST.

now, yes, it may have happened for other reasons..but..

why do israel and palestine fight? the root is religion. why does bin laden hate america? mainly because we support israel. why was sept 11 a tragedy? because bin laden and his people hate us.

if there was no religion at all, would this situation have occurred? i say no.

but, i know, religion is such a great thing........

First of all, it is not just any religion that causes these conflicts today. It is violent, hateful zealots, which around the world frankly have been mostly extremist Muslims. And bin Laden and other extremists don't simply hate us "because we support Israel." They hate us because we live and demonstrate a way of life that they abhor and that threatens their beliefs, especially since few would CHOOSE to live the way they insist their people do. Moreover, these people openly say that they want to force their view and system on everyone around the world. They even want to overthrow moderate Muslim regimes, which is also why they hate us so, because we support many of them.

 

[I Missed Boat]

Originally posted by thunderbolt
>>As an atheist, I would never hump my sister or my mom <<

As an atheist, you have no moral code since you believe in no God. There's no sin, no right and wrong. So, with that being clearly pointed out, how would the above act be wrong since there is no sin in your world? Also, the 9/11 attack can not be considered to be wrong since there is no sin.

Let the atheists try to explain that one. Remember, you have no sense of right and wrong, because you have no God to say there is such a thing. We are all made of material--you know, that "big bang" junk.

Why can't I have a moral code governed by a system of ethics formulated through reasoning and a conscious? You begin with the Golden Rule, then you consider such philosophies as the Categorical Imperative, Utilitarianism, and the flaws of feminist ethical relativism, and so on, and you reason out a just moral code.

 

[TriPack]

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko


axeman, you are simply fantastic!!!!!!!

this may cause an uproar, but i say more likely than not, SEPT. 11TH WOULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED IF RELIGION DID NOT EXIST.

now, yes, it may have happened for other reasons..but..

I have to agree with you that religion played a big part in Sept 11. But religion didn't create hate, it just gives a bizarre way for those who thrive on hate to channel it. The irony is a core doctrine at the root of all the religions involved in the current conflict is peace/love. It makes me come to the conclusion that some aren't living their religion. If people would live their respective religions the world would be a much better place, even for those who don't care for religion.

 

[axeman]

It could be argued that those muslims were
indeed living their religion, being true to it,
and waging war against the infidels,
as their bible tells them to do.

Unlike christians who DONT attempt to
stone me on the street and therefore
pick and choose from their bible.


STILL WAITING FOR THUNDERBOLTS RESPONSE

peace

axeman

Originally posted by TriPack


I have to agree with you that religion played a big part in Sept 11. But religion didn't create hate, it just gives a bizarre way for those who thrive on hate to channel it. The irony is a core doctrine at the root of all the religions involved in the current conflict is peace/love. It makes me come to the conclusion that some aren't living their religion. If people would live their respective religions the world would be a much better place, even for those who don't care for religion.

 

[TriPack]

If I understand the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict it is a little of both land and religion, mixed in with brotherly rivalry, but the story is interesting. Abraham was given the land of Caanan (Israel) as an eternal inheritance. Abraham had no son so he took his wife's handmaid and had a son Ishmael (the eldest) who as I understand is the progenitor of the Palestinian people. Abraham finally had a son, Isaac (though not the eldest son, he was the first son of Abraham's first wife and thus had rights to the birthright or in other words the land inheritance) who is the progenitor of the Jews (as well as the other 11 tribes of Israel). Isaac's son Jacob (also known as Israel and who had 12 sons, each a tribe of Israel) lived at a time of famine. Jacob and his sons left Israel and went to Egypt where Jacob's son Joseph saved them from famine. A new Pharoh ultimately puts the children of Israel into bondage in Egypt. They are later freed by Moses. Meanwhile who has come in and taken over the land of Israel??? -- the descendants of Ishmael or the Palestinians. When the children of Israel finally come back and takes Israel (the land) back by force the Palestinians feel they have not only been robbed of their land but their birthright. And so it goes.

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko

nitro, i have to disagree.

yes, the issues may have been more complex, like land, water rights, etc. as you mentioned. HOWEVER, why were the 2 separated to begin with? why were there 2 separate sides arguing over land? probably because their CORE religious beliefs conflicted. RELIGION CREATES PASSIONATE CONFLICT! look at this thread! 381 replies and continuing!!!!

yes, i oversimplified my case, but i don't see how you can totally discount it.

 

[TriPack]

Just to get the story straight: First off it doesn't say anywhere in the Bible that it was an apple tree, and it was not the tree of life, it was the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil that they were not to partake of. Thus Adam and Eve were in total innocence, not knowing good from evil. Actually they were given 2 seemingly conflicting commandments in the Garden of Eden, multiply and replenish the earth, and don't partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. After they ate the forbidden fruit they were fallen, or in other words they were separated or cast out from God's presence, yet they were only then able to fulfil the first commandment, multiply and replenish the earth.

Let me just say briefly that I fully reject the doctrine of original sin and believe that we are accountable for our own actions according to the law we are given, and not for the sins of someone else.

Originally posted by thunderbolt
>>We are all born of original sin. Man sinned against God in the Garden--Adam and Eve. He commanded them not to eat of a particular apple tree. They had every one of their needs met plus total paradise. They didn't have all of the torn feelings we have. The apple tree was called the tree of life. Satan came as a serpent to deceive them into eating the forbidden fruit. He claimed it would give them knowledge and they would be like God. As soon as they ate from the tree, they were immediately aware of their nakedness, good and evil--That's the original sin. God would later confront them about eating of the forbidden tree. He basically said, life would be harder for them--and every generation thereafter-- from that point on. Such as having to work the soil by the sweat of their brows for food, women experiencing pain during child birth and so forth. Also, after this sin, man became mortal beings. Now you know about original sin. Every one of us is descendents of Eve and are born with original sin. That's why we must be born again through Jesus.

 

[Gordon Gekko]

Originally posted by TriPack
Let me just say briefly that I fully reject the doctrine of original sin and believe that we are accountable for our own actions according to the law we are given, and not for the sins of someone else.

if you are religious, how can you selectively follow what the bible says? shouldn't you have to follow it as stated? where does it say you can reject original sin if you want? what makes you think you can reject parts of the bible when your god didn't say you could? how can you not follow it all and still claim you are following your religion?

for example, it is being debated whether trading is a sin or not. if it is, you are sinning by trading. you can't just say i don't like that. you can, but if you do, you're going to hell! the same goes for kill the infidels in the koran. you can say the religion is about love and peace, but if it says kill the infidels, why would followers of the religion not kill the infidels? as axeman said, what rules are the people to follow? the rules of their god or man?

 

[rs7]

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko

if you are religious, how can you selectively follow what the bible says?

Gordon. I am not a religious person. I do not refer to the bible to determine how to live my life. But I understand (as you should) that the bible has been studied for a long time. It is openly debated. And certainly open to interpretation. What is so hard about this to understand? There are too many contradictions to follow the bible in a literal sense. It is all about how one perceives the meaning of the teachings. Which is how it must have been intended. The bible was not written by one hand. One must pick and choose after study to understand in a personal way.

Same with the Koran. Ever heard of the Crusades? Know anything about the Moors? The Inquisition? The Mongol invasion of India and the Middle East? Study a little history before you judge others. Before you judge religion. And especially before you judge the beliefs of others. Nothing is as simple as you like to believe.

Tripack has accurately condensed the story of how Islam and Judaism came to be in conflict originally over the land of Canaan. Or at least that is the traditional interpretation. Take a lesson from Tripack. Use a little knowledge instead of just baseless opinion.

Thunderbolt makes no sense. But your arguments are (almost) as baseless as his. Fanaticism can work both ways. Of course you may have started something new. Radical Extremist Atheism

Get to work and give me a good thought out logical post. I know you are smart enough. But so far you have been just lazy.

rs7

 

[murray t turtle]

I could answer concerning the sex life of Adam and Eve family.[Actually it's not as good as Song of Solomon!!!]

Will not because; [1]Don't want to get in the middle of NITRO's wise warning of ''lions,hyena''[spelling?]

--------------------------[2]''Don't confuse infallibility with a high probability'' Darryl Guppy.