Post: #176

We take plenty of things on faith.

Freedom is better than slavery.

Democracy is better than fascism.

Faith is not belief in the absence of evidence. Faith is trust based ON evidence. Indeed, this is the definition that the New Testament gives: "But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name" (John 20:31).

Post: #177

(01-07-2015 06:11 PM)Slim Shady Wrote:  You're right to start. I will say that there in fact IS no universal moral code. Morality is subjective and dynamic. I try to be Machiavellian. It helps me advance. It helps me have sex with women. Out of wedlock by the way. I'm happy with that. A lot of men are afraid to enter the pleasures I see. It's their loss.

Can society go into complete chaos if everyone acts in a completely "Darwinian" sense. No not really. Animals have no god. They seem to survive fine. At some point people realize that they must behave symbiotically to live in greater comfort. But everything is weighted. It all depends on how much you weigh pleasure, comfort, thrill, freedom, etc. If you want more comfort over freedom, you will follow a stricter moral code. You can have infinite different systems that come out of this. A religious code was made for society to run better, or atleast better for some people. For some it does not have the ideal values for these parameters. If you scare them with god, they will be more likely to follow the set values. It is once they open their mind and see that they are free to take risks that is when it gets interesting. People who have not figured out that there are loopholes are jealous and will want to punish these people. Have you read "The Scarlet Letter"?

In summary, society COULD go into chaos, but it won't because in the end most people are too afraid to take their freedoms. They will keep their heads down while the enlightened take their pleasures.

So basically you're saying that human beings are just animals, and that a Machiavellian moral approach that recognizes how to take advantage of human psychology is therefore ideal, but there is no danger of such an approach being widespread because most people are either too stupid or too fearful to take advantage of Machiavellian principles. How, then, would you feel if I broke into your house tonight, shot you in the head, stole your money, raped and murdered your girlfriend, then got away with the crime? Would that just make me a superior Machiavellian individual to you? I mean, this is just such a nihilistic view of humanity, one that says human beings are nothing more than walking meat sacks to be used and abused at will. Such nihilism cannot be healthy over the long term, and will likely result in suicide (which I mentioned) or a life of hedonistic distraction (which I also mentioned and which you indicated was your choice). To continue on that point:

Slim Shady Wrote:You might be surprised, but I too have a strict code, but it is my own. It goes back to things I weigh over others. I weigh loyalty and true friendship. Not because someone told me but because it is good to have a few close friends, and in the end it is advantageous. Everything is selfish in the end. No act is selfless.

You are very smart to link hedonism with nihilism, not everyone makes that connection. It is correct. You are wrong however that this hedonistic-nihilistic world view leads to suicide. In fact, it SAVED me from suicide 2 years ago. If I die, there is nothing. Even holding my cock and jacking myself off is better than that. Hey there is a bottle of whiskey! And I have a party to go to in 3 days where I could get drunk and sleep with that cute girl. Life is full of possibilities. Death is so very final.

There is no meaning to life? I won't debate this issue right now. But even if there is not, you live for the next moment. For the next pleasure. I don't want to die. I want to live on the edge where I might, but hopefully survive so that I can do it again.

You say that a hedonistic-nihilistic world view saved you from suicide, but did it? Or did it simply give you a reason to delay suicide? I don't say that to be glib or score cheap rhetorical points, but pose it as a serious question to ruminate on. How many times can you get drunk before it gets boring? How many parties can you go to before they all feel the same? How many women can you fuck before what once was pleasure becomes a chore? I ask this because hedonism is always most intriguing and tempting at the beginning, when self-indulgence seems to open up literally an entire world of possibility, pleasure and discovery. But after a time the pleasures of the flesh invariably lose their luster. Money, fame, fortune, sex, none of it can ever fill the existential void of man. But don't take my word for it:

Ecclesiastes 2: 1-11 (ESV)

I said in my heart, “Come now, I will test you with pleasure; enjoy yourself.” But behold, this also was vanity. I said of laughter, “It is mad,” and of pleasure, “What use is it?” I searched with my heart how to cheer my body with wine—my heart still guiding me with wisdom—and how to lay hold on folly, till I might see what was good for the children of man to do under heaven during the few days of their life. I made great works. I built houses and planted vineyards for myself. I made myself gardens and parks, and planted in them all kinds of fruit trees. I made myself pools from which to water the forest of growing trees. I bought male and female slaves, and had slaves who were born in my house. I had also great possessions of herds and flocks, more than any who had been before me in Jerusalem. I also gathered for myself silver and gold and the treasure of kings and provinces. I got singers, both men and women, and many concubines, the delight of the sons of man.

So I became great and surpassed all who were before me in Jerusalem. Also my wisdom remained with me. And whatever my eyes desired I did not keep from them. I kept my heart from no pleasure, for my heart found pleasure in all my toil, and this was my reward for all my toil. Then I considered all that my hands had done and the toil I had expended in doing it, and behold, all was vanity and a striving after wind, and there was nothing to be gained under the sun.

Slim Shady Wrote:I did not say that even if god existed I wouldn't acknowledge him. I said he might exist. If you showed me proof, I would get on my knees to god and thank him for all things. Currently the chance is too small for me to not live the way I do. Again, it's all about how much you weigh things. If you weight the chance that god is real and so is whatever hell and afterlife you believe in, then live a FULLY godly life. If you are a christian, follow the bible completely. Don't half ass anything please, because if you're just doing it till the point that it is convenient, you should come over to my "dark side" where it's a lot more fun and we're both going to hell anyways.

What kind of proof are you looking for? Is the majesty of creation not sufficient evidence that there just might be some generative force behind the universe? I mean, it's not even a possibility worth serious investigation? You really think the chance is that small?

Romans 1: 20 (NLT)

For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.

Slim Shady Wrote:Here's my summation of Christianity:

One woman's lie about an affair that got SERIOUSLY out of hand.

I did get a chuckle out of that, I must admit. But on a more serious note, the staggering success of Christianity is, I believe, further evidence for its truth. The sheer amount of things that had to have gone "right" throughout history to bring Christianity from the time of Abraham, to Christ, to us here today is staggering. I find it impossible to believe that the narrative of Christianity just sort of happened by chance. Others agree:

He was born in an obscure village, the child of a peasant woman. He grew up in another obscure village, where He worked in a carpenter shop until He was thirty. Then for three years He was an itinerant preacher. He never had a family or owned a home. He never set foot inside a big city. He never traveled two hundred miles from the place He was born. He never wrote a book, or held an office. He did none of the things that usually accompany greatness. While He was still a young man, the tide of popular opinion turned against Him. His friends deserted Him. He was turned over to His enemies, and went through the mockery of a trial. He was nailed to a cross between two thieves. While He was dying, His executioners gambled for the only piece of property He had – His coat. When He was dead, He was taken down and laid in a borrowed grave. Nineteen centuries have come and gone, and today He is the central figure for much of the human race. All the armies that ever marched, and all the navies that ever sailed, and all the parliaments that ever sat, and all the kings that ever reigned, put together, have not affected the life of man upon this earth as powerfully as this “One Solitary Life.”

- James Allan Francis

This Jesus of Nazareth, without money and arms, conquered more millions than Alexander, Caesar, Mohammed, and Napoleon; without science and learning, He shed more light on things human and divine than all philosophers and scholars combined; without the eloquence of schools, He spoke such words of life as were never spoken before or since, and produced effects which lie beyond the reach of orator or poet; without writing a single line, He set more pens in motion, and furnished themes for more sermons, orations, discussions, learned vocabulary, works of art, and songs of praise than the whole army of great men of ancient and modern times.

- Philip Schaff

Post: #178

(01-07-2015 03:29 PM)Plato Wrote:  Lot of interesting responses.

Strangely - even though I am an atheist - I plan to make a deep study of theology one day.

To me it is like a more esoteric form of metaphysics. I may not agree with the conclusions they come to - but it would still be fun watching very smart people try to tackle incredibly difficult theological questions.

Alas - I haven't gotten round to it yet.

I should add that any of you who believe in God are taking quite a gamble.

You see - whilst there may have being a creator to the universe (what we call 'God'). How can we be sure that such a God is a 'good' being or a 'bad' being.

Creating the universe - and being evil are not mutually exclusive. If I did come face to face with God - I have no reason to expect him to be good or caring.

He may just as well be indifferent to human suffering - or indeed, something far far worse. That is a gamble that anybody who wishes for their to be a God is taking.

I would rather play it safe and hope there is nothing but mathematics at the core of the universe.

I believe logically a Creator would be good. Especially if the creator is all-powerful and wise. With those qualities, nothing would actually benefit him at all; he has everything he already needs. Being evil would imply weakness actually. If he created but was evil, he would be wasting time and that's foolishness not wisdom. Even with our limited observations an evil creator doesn't make much sense. There's too many logical holes:

build a house in the middle of the desert? Probably there for a purpose.

Giving your creations things like life, love, joy, and free-will? No reason for an evil being to do such things.

Ice cream is cold and sweet. Lemons are sour. 1+1=2. Those things aren't guaranteed with an evil creator.

Being selfish? Well like I said, a wise and powerful creator already had everything he needed to begin with: he simply wouldn't create.

I think Jesus said it best when the Pharisees said him expelling demons was from devil himself: "Every kingdom divided against itself comes to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand"

An Evil creator would be doing just that.

Post: #179

(01-07-2015 06:11 PM)Slim Shady Wrote:  I won't debate primordial cosmology with you anymore. We tried that before and went in circles. I will say one thing, if time and space didn't exist before the universe, you already have a complicated enough problem to deal with. Adding god to it is just a complication for which you still run into the same problem. No start or end. Where does he exist? In my heart and soul?

First, primordial cosmology is cool. I do history of science, as I've pointed out several times. I'm not able to do the math, but I do have some decent understanding of the concepts, at least for a layman.

I've also answered the question "where does God exist" before. God is timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and immensely powerful. Timeless and spaceless meaning outside of space and time. I reject the notion that God existed atemporally before the creation, and now exists temporally. I think that raises huge questions, most of which I've never seen satisfactory answers to.

Secondly, I will point out that having a mathematical model to describe the universe doesn't explain why one exists. We will (eventually) find a theory of quantum gravity. Indeed, M-Theory looks like a promising candidate, actually. To my mind, the elegance of the laws of nature indicates some sort of law giver. God is not the answer to "what caused the Big Bang?" God isn't some sort of scientific hypothesis (that's not a legitimate way to conduct science anyway). God is an answer to "why is there a universe to describe in the first place?"

Some people will argue the fine-tuning of the universe, which, while I find it interesting, doesn't necessarily imply God. A multiverse is a possibility, and there's also the possibility that an overarching law forces the values to assume the ones they assume. Such a law would have to be fine-tuned in its own right.

Post: #180

I like to entertain myself with the thought that satan wrote the bible.

Quote:Pretend you're on a jury for a trial over who wrote the Bible: God is suing Satan, because Satan is trying to claim HE wrote the Bible! But the trial hasn't gone like God hoped – Satan has a really good lawyer, and he's making mincemeat of God's case.

First of all, if God wrote the Bible, wouldn't He make everything totally clear, succinct, easy to understand, and unfailingly moral? I mean, He is God, right? Surely God should be a pretty good writer, able to write clearly and concisely.

Instead of beating around the bush about Jesus' divinity, He would just say, "Jesus and I are one and the same." Instead of conflicting messages about marriage, ambiguity about homosexuality, apparent approval of polygamy and slavery, God would have written, "Don't have sex before you're married." "Marriage is only between a man and a woman." "Slavery is a sin." "A man may only have one wife, and a wife only one husband." And so forth. Gosh, it seems pretty easy to me, writing clear, unambiguous commandments!

Just based on poor writing and lack of clarity, it's not looking good for God and His lawyer.

On top of that, there's all that stuff about killing adulterers, expelling a couple from the community if they have sex during a woman's period, requiring a virgin who is raped to marry her rapist, stoning anyone to death who works on the sabbath, and so many more laws that are just plain immoral.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, do you really believe that God wrote this stuff about Himself?

Now think about the reverse. What if you were Satan, plotting to do the worst thing you could? You're tired of tempting people into sin — corrupting people one at a time is inefficient. What could you do to amplify your evil? Why not enlist your victims to help you spread evil?

We all know that half-truths are much more dangerous than outright lies, that confusion is much harder to fight than clarity, and that we're all egotistical and want to believe we're better than everyone else.

The best way Satan could get his way would be to write a Bible that was filled with half truths, contradictions, moral ambiguity, appeals to egotism and a "chosen people," and confusing stories that everyone can interpret however they like.

Then, Satan would get his minions to convince the world that this "Bible" was the true word of God. Better yet, Satan would spread the idea that anyone who disagreed would go to Hell (very clever irony, given that he is Satan).

These half truths, contradictions and ambiguities would then start to do their work. People would interpret them differently, and begin to argue, and split into factions. Families would split. Villages would break into religious factions, with bitter hatred for one another. Whole countries would even go to war over this purported "Bible." People would be tortured and murdered when they failed to follow this "Bible," even if they were trying to do their best, just because someone else interpreted the Bible's crazy laws differently.

Satan would laugh with glee. What a wonderful trick he'd pulled!

Better yet, the fear inspired by Satan's Big Lie (about going to Hell if you don't believe) would cause good people to actually defend Satan's own writings! They would start a huge intellectual effort called "Christian apologetics," devoted to explaining why, in spite of the glaring errors, contradictions and immorality in Satan's Bible, it was actually all true, and was in fact the word of Satan's arch-rival, God. This would be Satan's ultimate achievement, that the humans that God created would actually turn against God and defend Satan's Bible!

So, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, what is your opinion? Who wrote the Bible, God, or Satan?

- Craig A. James

Post: #181

Gotta bump the pwnage

(01-07-2015 06:34 PM)Rutting Elephant Wrote:  

(01-07-2015 06:14 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

(01-07-2015 06:05 PM)Rutting Elephant Wrote:  "Bigfoot-disbelief is a belief..."

Wrong.

No?

A lot of people in this thread seem to believe very strongly that there is no Bigfoot, which is a question beyond the purview of science, as Scrub has repeatedly pointed out. This therefore makes Bigfoot-disbelief an act of faith. A belief. Bigfoot-disbelief is the belief that there is no Bigfoot. If I give you the choice between chocolate, vanilla and strawberry ice cream and you decline them all, you aren't "not making a choice". The act of not choosing is itself a choice. Thus, the act of not believing in Bigfoot is itself a belief.

Post: #182

Pwnage makes you sound like a 14 year old boy who plays World of Warcraft and Call of Duty all day.

When you consistently show no clue what people are talking about, you can't be shocked when people start ignoring you.

Post: #183

(01-07-2015 06:55 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

Slim Shady Wrote:Here's my summation of Christianity:

One woman's lie about an affair that got SERIOUSLY out of hand.

I did get a chuckle out of that, I must admit.

I'm glad you liked the joke

Post: #184

(01-07-2015 07:17 PM)Rutting Elephant Wrote:  Gotta bump the pwnage

(01-07-2015 06:34 PM)Rutting Elephant Wrote:  

(01-07-2015 06:14 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

(01-07-2015 06:05 PM)Rutting Elephant Wrote:  "Bigfoot-disbelief is a belief..."

Wrong.

No?

A lot of people in this thread seem to believe very strongly that there is no Bigfoot, which is a question beyond the purview of science, as Scrub has repeatedly pointed out. This therefore makes Bigfoot-disbelief an act of faith. A belief. Bigfoot-disbelief is the belief that there is no Bigfoot. If I give you the choice between chocolate, vanilla and strawberry ice cream and you decline them all, you aren't "not making a choice". The act of not choosing is itself a choice. Thus, the act of not believing in Bigfoot is itself a belief.

That isn't necessary. Let's stay on topic.

For the record, Scorpion is probably my favorite poster here, but when it comes to religious topics, I find myself in disagreement with him. Just because someone doesn't agree with you, doesn't mean they deserve to be disrespected like that. Keep it civil.

Apollo

Post: #185

Since running into the Atheism+ crowd, the SJWs and Cultural Marxists, I have become more religious. I looked at those Godless degenerates during my Atheist days and decided that they were a bunch of annoying faggots. I was baptized in my infancy but never really was religious growing up due to my mother. I feel more inclined nowadays to get in touch with my Catholic roots. I don't really care much for any of the protestant faiths, especially seeing that they are being influenced by these progressive movements, allowing gays to be their preachers and what not. If you are constantly altering your doctrine in order to appease the mob, then you are not much of a religious institution. Also, young earthers are just clearly wrong. The Catholic Church is a relatively unwavering institution. Also, I have a great deal of respect for the Catholic Church considering the massive amounts of contributions they have made to education, science, and medicine throughout the West. The Catholic Church also came up with the Big Bang Theory (not a lot of people realize this).

I am not overly religious however. I dont go to church. I probably will if I ever get married and have children. I will not switch from the Catholic faith though.

Post: #186

On the inability to be moral without god; the god of the bible gives blessings to a man who sacrifices his daughter to him and commands his people to commit slavery and genocide. I'm a lot better than that immoral asshole.

Post: #187

(01-07-2015 07:17 PM)Rutting Elephant Wrote:  Gotta bump the pwnage

(01-07-2015 06:34 PM)Rutting Elephant Wrote:  

(01-07-2015 06:14 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

(01-07-2015 06:05 PM)Rutting Elephant Wrote:  "Bigfoot-disbelief is a belief..."

Wrong.

No?

A lot of people in this thread seem to believe very strongly that there is no Bigfoot, which is a question beyond the purview of science, as Scrub has repeatedly pointed out. This therefore makes Bigfoot-disbelief an act of faith. A belief. Bigfoot-disbelief is the belief that there is no Bigfoot. If I give you the choice between chocolate, vanilla and strawberry ice cream and you decline them all, you aren't "not making a choice". The act of not choosing is itself a choice. Thus, the act of not believing in Bigfoot is itself a belief.

Yes, you obviously believe you've said something quite clever here. Unfortunately, you've completely failed to refute my argument, you merely engaged in a poor attempt at rhetorical mockery.

Does Bigfoot exist?

[ ] Yes
[ ] No
[ ] Maybe

Marking either of these boxes signifies making a choice that represents your belief or lack of belief in Bigfoot. Marking "No", indicating a lack of belief in Bigfoot, is the same thing as saying, "I believe there is no Bigfoot." Saying, "I believe" by definition indicates a belief will follow. Thus, not believing in Bigfoot is holding the belief that there is no Bigfoot.

Using the Symmetric property, if:

a = b
b = a

Not believing in Bigfoot = Belief there is no Bigfoot
Belief there is no Bigfoot = Not believing in Bigfoot

Not believing in God = Belief there is no God
Belief there is no God = Not believing in God

Maybe you will refute this post with a fart joke?

Post: #188

You're saying if you believe something exists that it must exist? I believe the illuminati is real but I also believe that it is possible that it doesn't exist. Yes/No is a different question than Maybe/Definitely.

Post: #189

Quote:If morality is described in Darwinian terms, there is no reason why I should not steal, kill, rape and engage in all sorts of antisocial behavior, so long as I believe I can get away with it. As long as I confine my crimes to target victims outside of my immediate in-group, I am behaving rationally under an atheist morality. The atheist will cry out, "B-b-but that would make you a bad person!", to which I say, "Sorry Mr. Atheist, but in the absence of God there is no such thing as 'bad', I'm simply an evolutionary power player." Essentially, the atheist can offer no coherent moral argument for why one evolved population group should not commit organized genocide against every other, since they can offer only evolutionary arguments, which are based entirely on survival and offspring maximization.

Fear of retribution from other humans is the explanation. Theft, rape and murder by one guy will always carry the risk of retribution from the victim, his friends and family, or in modern times the state he belongs to. Genocide must physically be carried out by men who walk into hostile territory and enter lethal combat with the inhabitants, and that's a risk that living beings will only subject themselves to under extreme desperation.

Post: #190

(01-07-2015 07:49 PM)draketton Wrote:  

Quote:If morality is described in Darwinian terms, there is no reason why I should not steal, kill, rape and engage in all sorts of antisocial behavior, so long as I believe I can get away with it. As long as I confine my crimes to target victims outside of my immediate in-group, I am behaving rationally under an atheist morality. The atheist will cry out, "B-b-but that would make you a bad person!", to which I say, "Sorry Mr. Atheist, but in the absence of God there is no such thing as 'bad', I'm simply an evolutionary power player." Essentially, the atheist can offer no coherent moral argument for why one evolved population group should not commit organized genocide against every other, since they can offer only evolutionary arguments, which are based entirely on survival and offspring maximization.

Fear of retribution from other humans is the explanation. Theft, rape and murder by one guy will always carry the risk of retribution from the victim, his friends and family, or in modern times the state he belongs to. Genocide must physically be carried out by men who walk into hostile territory and enter lethal combat with the inhabitants, and that's a risk that living beings will only subject themselves to under extreme desperation.

Thinking like that is the reason why atheism ultimately leads to tyranny. Very strict and draconian laws are requested by people like SJW in atheism to "hold criminals in place"

Religions speak about creating a sense of brotherly love, honor, and sense of honest duty in citizens, so that people would be capable of still observing moral laws even under relatively lax and trusting laws, forgiving penalties and with minimal surveillance and control.

Funny how atheist SJW and all those liberal fools cry for liberty from religious dogma yet welcome the bounds of surveillance and mind control by big brother state.

Post: #191

Almost 45% of RVF members are Atheist. That is extremely high compared to the wider population, even when only compared to young people (I think average age of members is 26 or 27). For comparison, only 6% of Americans and 20% of people in the E.U describe themselves as Atheist. And 68% of us are "Nones" compared to 20% of Americans. We are even more godless than Northern Europe and the former Communist countries.

Post: #192

Deluge, your poll and opinion is biased because you didn't provide the option "Agnostic" between "Atheist" and "Not at all religious but believes in the existence of a God or higher power".

I don't believe in any God, higher power or a supernatural force. I am totally religionless. However, that doesn't make me an Atheist. I don't negate the existence of God or claim that it's impossible for God (and other stuff) to exist. Nor do I dislike religion just because it's religion. I just accept that I don't and can't know the truth on this matter.

Post: #193

(01-08-2015 09:21 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  Sorry Deluge, I can't vote: you didn't provide the "Agnostic" option between "Atheist" and "Not at all religious but believes in the existence of a God or higher power".

I don't believe in any God, higher power or a supernatural force. I am totally religionless. However, that doesn't make me an Atheist. I don't negate the existence of God or claim that it's impossible for God (and other stuff) to exist. Nor do I dislike religion just because it's religion. I just accept that I don't and can't know the truth on this matter.

Yeah I realized that right after I first posted the thread, but couldn't edit it. My bad.

Post: #194

(01-08-2015 09:21 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  Deluge, your poll and opinion is biased because you didn't provide the option "Agnostic" between "Atheist" and "Not at all religious but believes in the existence of a God or higher power".

I don't believe in any God, higher power or a supernatural force. I am totally religionless. However, that doesn't make me an Atheist. I don't negate the existence of God or claim that it's impossible for God (and other stuff) to exist. Nor do I dislike religion just because it's religion. I just accept that I don't and can't know the truth on this matter.

You're an agnostic atheist.

Post: #195

(01-07-2015 07:35 PM)enderilluminatus Wrote:  On the inability to be moral without god; the god of the bible gives blessings to a man who sacrifices his daughter to him and commands his people to commit slavery and genocide. I'm a lot better than that immoral asshole.

Who's the man who sacrifices his daughter to God?

And slavery has been part of human history since forever. The Israelites had strict rules on how they were to treat their slaves, as well. They could be legally punished for abusing them. If you read the five books of Moses you'll come to the conclusion that their slavery, although still kind of shitty, was far more humane than the slavery we had here in America.

Genocide? Not really. Conquest and war.

God wanted them to have that land and a bunch of people who worshiped false gods occupied it. They wouldn't have left if the Israelites asked nicely.

Post: #196

Jeremiah 29:13 (NIV)
"You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart."

I became a Christian several months ago and it changed my life. It's not going to make sense to you for a very long time, and without a certain level of spiritual maturity, these words are going to fall on deaf ears. But when the inevitable finally occurs, and you're confronted with an emptiness that only the complete exhaustion of pleasures and lusts in life can induce, you will begin searching for deeper answers.

Only through Christianity will you find them.

The existence of God was all around me, my entire life. It was the sunrise early in the morning, watching the wilderness come to life as I sat in my tree stand during deer season. It was the look in my fathers eyes as he welcomed my sister into the world. It was the smile on my young Spanish girlfriend's face as we watched the sun set in the Andalusian mountains.

It's not my intention to explain this in poetry like an effeminate simp, but these miniscule moments in my life simply can't be described in words. They're God-given gifts I've never considered myself worthy of receiving. Only the Bible is capable of conveying the infinite beauty in the world in a language men can understand.

Post: #197

@ Scorpion:

You say that not believing in god leads to hedonism, then nihilism, and delay of suicide etc. I might give you this point [although I will say that the time to the delay is worth it].

But I realized that this point is against the fundamental argument. I might agree with you that certain religious codes work for the greater benefit of man. But the point is what is TRUE. And just because not believing in god leads you down a certain path...well I'd rather know the truth and live in hell than follow something false.

That goes back to the fundamental idea of "Red Pill". The matrix is comfortable. The outside is hard. I'd rather be free and in pain than a slave to dogma.

Post: #198

(01-08-2015 11:32 AM)TheWastelander Wrote:  Who's the man who sacrifices his daughter to God?

And slavery has been part of human history since forever. The Israelites had strict rules on how they were to treat their slaves, as well. They could be legally punished for abusing them. If you read the five books of Moses you'll come to the conclusion that their slavery, although still kind of shitty, was far more humane than the slavery we had here in America.

Genocide? Not really. Conquest and war.

God wanted them to have that land and a bunch of people who worshiped false gods occupied it. They wouldn't have left if the Israelites asked nicely.

Jephthah

Those are rules on enslaving a fellow jew. They could beat the shit out of their non-jew slaves as long as they didn't die within a few days. Does that seem moral to you?

1 Samuel 15:3

Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'"

That is the definition of genocide, which is okay with god.

Post: #199

@alexdagr81 - I don't think you can dismiss the idea of an evil creator that easily.

Everything that leads you to believe the idea of an evil creator is irrational and illogical could just be part of His diabolical plan.

If you are going to torture all of humanity for eternity in Hell just for shits and giggles - then it becomes even more fun if the last thing that these earnest believers imagined was the idea of an Evil God.

Talk about an epic troll!

Anyway - I have respect for religious believers. It is just that I feel they are happy to resort to mystery when faced with questions they cannot answer - and are equally happy to resort to human ideas of Love and logic when it comes to rescuing their vision of God from another which is just as logically sound.

Of course the relationship between God and logic is an interesting one.

Is God so all-powerful that even logic itself does not bound him?

This brings to mind the paradox that Pascal uncovered. God cannot be all-powerful since he cannot build a wall that he cannot jump.

Once you allow God to be more powerful than logic itself - you open the door to a whole other level of crazy...

Post: #200

(01-08-2015 11:52 AM)enderilluminatus Wrote:  

(01-08-2015 11:32 AM)TheWastelander Wrote:  Who's the man who sacrifices his daughter to God?

And slavery has been part of human history since forever. The Israelites had strict rules on how they were to treat their slaves, as well. They could be legally punished for abusing them. If you read the five books of Moses you'll come to the conclusion that their slavery, although still kind of shitty, was far more humane than the slavery we had here in America.

Genocide? Not really. Conquest and war.

God wanted them to have that land and a bunch of people who worshiped false gods occupied it. They wouldn't have left if the Israelites asked nicely.

Jephthah

Those are rules on enslaving a fellow jew. They could beat the shit out of their non-jew slaves as long as they didn't die within a few days. Does that seem moral to you?

1 Samuel 15:3

Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'"

That is the definition of genocide, which is okay with god.

They were a ruthless, wicked people who were the descendants of a wicked man. They attacked the Hebrews at Rephidim after they left from Egypt and again at Hormah.

An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

As for Jephthah sacrificing his daughter, he broke God's law in doing so and was definitely not rewarded for it. His story is an example of why a person should not make crazy ass vows and should follow God's law.

Quote:John Chrysostom held that God allowed Jephthah to kill his daughter in order to prevent similar rash vows being made in the future and that it was for that purpose that the annual bewailing of the event took place as a constant reminder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jephthah#Sa...ontroversy

Seems logical to me and it jibes with God telling people not to lightly make vows and not to break them if they do.

What is it with you atheists taking everything out of context? You need to stop regurgitating Hitchens, who told plenty of half-truths and outright lies, and research what you're talking about on your own.