Discussion: Does Yahweh really love us?

[natty dread]

you know what, you're right. "insane" may not be the right word. When I used this word in my definition, "sane" meant the having and keeping of your morals.

So, you are saying you can't have morals without being religious?

[shieldgenerator7]

Well, i must say most of my morals come from what I believe in my religion, Christianity.
Do you believe you can have morals without religion?

[natty dread]

Of course you can. Seeing as morals are relative and defined by the cultural setting, it is only a matter of perspective. What one man considers "moral" is amoral to someone else.

But the definition of morals is actually irrelevant to the point. Even if you define morals by whatever you consider to be moral, I posit that you do not need religion to have those morals.

If you stopped believing in god, would you instantly start stealing, killing babies and raping goats? Is religion the only thing keeping you from doing those things?

[shieldgenerator7]

I don't know if that would happen instantly, but I would be a different person completely if not for my faith in God.
Ok, then. If you did not get your morals from religion, where did you get them from?

[john9blue]

"Non-religious": someone who is not religious, ie. does not have a religion.

ok. Are you "non-religious" as an agnostic/aetheist or does that make you religious?

Is "bald" a hair colour?

...yep, you're indoctrinated. i have heard this phrase many times before from other members of your cult. you're all such free thinkers that you use the same piss-poor analogies over and over again?

[safariguy5]

I don't know if that would happen instantly, but I would be a different person completely if not for my faith in God.
Ok, then. If you did not get your morals from religion, where did you get them from?

Plenty of ethical frameworks are not deeply rooted in religious doctrine. Utilitarianism, Rights based ethics, Duty ethics, Corporate ethics, Kantian ethics.

[natty dread]

...yep, you're indoctrinated. i have heard this phrase many times before from other members of your cult. you're all such free thinkers that you use the same piss-poor analogies over and over again?

Way to resort to ad hominem the moment you can't think of a feasible counter-argument.

Troll harder. Jesus will be proud of you.

[natty dread]

I don't know if that would happen instantly, but I would be a different person completely if not for my faith in God.

No doubt you would be different. Would you be "worse" is the question.

Ok, then. If you did not get your morals from religion, where did you get them from?

Is it hard for you to believe that someone does not actually want to hurt other people or do bad things to others, out of his own free will, and not just because a religion forbids it?

Is it hard to believe that someone would want to do good things even without the promise of a divine reward?

[john9blue]

...yep, you're indoctrinated. i have heard this phrase many times before from other members of your cult. you're all such free thinkers that you use the same piss-poor analogies over and over again?

Way to resort to ad hominem the moment you can't think of a feasible counter-argument.

Troll harder. Jesus will be proud of you.

i am drawing a conclusion from the available evidence. this is known as "science". don't feel bad, it's a widely misunderstood term.

you, on the other hand, presume that i am a Christian without any available evidence to support it. that is the sign of a closed, illogical mind.

[natty dread]

...yep, you're indoctrinated. i have heard this phrase many times before from other members of your cult. you're all such free thinkers that you use the same piss-poor analogies over and over again?

Way to resort to ad hominem the moment you can't think of a feasible counter-argument.

Troll harder. Jesus will be proud of you.

i am drawing a conclusion from the available evidence. this is known as "science". don't feel bad, it's a widely misunderstood term.

Nope, you're jumping to conclusions from anecdotal gut feelings. This has nothing to do with science. You resort to personal attacks because you assume things about me based on a single sentence I've posted on an internet forum. That also has nothing to do with science. It does have a lot to do with idiocy, though.

you, on the other hand, presume that i am a Christian without any available evidence to support it. that is the sign of a closed, illogical mind.

I have not ever said that you are a Christian. Again, you are jumping to conclusions and making assumptions. While you accuse me of the same thing. Projection much?

I grade you F for FAIL. You can retake the test in two weeks.

[john9blue]

Nope, you're jumping to conclusions from anecdotal gut feelings. This has nothing to do with science. You resort to personal attacks because you assume things about me based on a single sentence I've posted on an internet forum. That also has nothing to do with science. It does have a lot to do with idiocy, though.

if a certified psychologist told you that you had a mental condition, would you perceive it as a personal attack? i'm a certified atheist debater (at least, i've done it quite a few times ) and i know the thought patterns that people exhibit. i call them as i see them. atheists exhibit religious/cultish behavior and i don't hesitate to call them out on it.

I have not ever said that you are a Christian. Again, you are jumping to conclusions and making assumptions. While you accuse me of the same thing. Projection much?

are we thinking of the same Jesus? which one are you talking about?

[natty dread]

if a certified psychologist told you that you had a mental condition, would you perceive it as a personal attack? i'm a certified atheist debater (at least, i've done it quite a few times ) and i know the thought patterns that people exhibit. i call them as i see them. atheists exhibit religious/cultish behavior and i don't hesitate to call them out on it.

Can you please point me to the reliable source of information - which you obviously must have - which tells you I'm an atheist?

Also, there's no such thing as a "certified atheist debater". You seem to be suffering from delusions. Please seek help if that is the case!

Moreover: you seem to be highly overestimating your skills wrt. analyzing thought patterns of others, seeing as you are making multiple unfounded assumptions and misguided conclusions about myself and my beliefs.

are we thinking of the same Jesus? which one are you talking about?

Jesus H, obviously. What about you?

Your earlier grade stands. Any further complaints must be submitted in writing to my office within seven (7) work days.

[Juan_Bottom]

Who Wrote The Bible and Why It Matters
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-eh ... 40301.html

Apart from the most rabid fundamentalists among us, nearly everyone admits that the Bible might contain errors -- a faulty creation story here, a historical mistake there, a contradiction or two in some other place. But is it possible that the problem is worse than that -- that the Bible actually contains lies?

Most people wouldn't put it that way, since the Bible is, after all, sacred Scripture for millions on our planet. But good Christian scholars of the Bible, including the top Protestant and Catholic scholars of America, will tell you that the Bible is full of lies, even if they refuse to use the term. And here is the truth: Many of the books of the New Testament were written by people who lied about their identity, claiming to be a famous apostle -- Peter, Paul or James -- knowing full well they were someone else. In modern parlance, that is a lie, and a book written by someone who lies about his identity is a forgery.

Most modern scholars of the Bible shy away from these terms, and for understandable reasons, some having to do with their clientele. Teaching in Christian seminaries, or to largely Christian undergraduate populations, who wants to denigrate the cherished texts of Scripture by calling them forgeries built on lies? And so scholars use a different term for this phenomenon and call such books "pseudepigrapha."

You will find this antiseptic term throughout the writings of modern scholars of the Bible. It's the term used in university classes on the New Testament, and in seminary courses, and in Ph.D. seminars. What the people who use the term do not tell you is that it literally means "writing that is inscribed with a lie."

And that's what such writings are. Whoever wrote the New Testament book of 2 Peter claimed to be Peter. But scholars everywhere -- except for our friends among the fundamentalists -- will tell you that there is no way on God's green earth that Peter wrote the book. Someone else wrote it claiming to be Peter. Scholars may also tell you that it was an acceptable practice in the ancient world for someone to write a book in the name of someone else. But that is where they are wrong. If you look at what ancient people actually said about the practice, you'll see that they invariably called it lying and condemned it as a deceitful practice, even in Christian circles. 2 Peter was finally accepted into the New Testament because the church fathers, centuries later, were convinced that Peter wrote it. But he didn't. Someone else did. And that someone else lied about his identity.

The same is true of many of the letters allegedly written by Paul. Most scholars will tell you that whereas seven of the 13 letters that go under Paul's name are his, the other six are not. Their authors merely claimed to be Paul. In the ancient world, books like that were labeled as pseudoi -- lies.

This may all seem like a bit of antiquarian curiosity, especially for people whose lives don't depend on the Bible or even people of faith for whom biblical matters are a peripheral interest at best. But in fact, it matters sometimes. Whoever wrote the book of 1 Timothy claimed to be Paul. But he was lying about that -- he was someone else living after Paul had died. In his book, the author of 1 Timothy used Paul's name and authority to address a problem that he saw in the church. Women were speaking out, exercising authority and teaching men. That had to stop. The author told women to be silent and submissive, and reminded his readers about what happened the first time a woman was allowed to exercise authority over a man, in that little incident in the garden of Eden. No, the author argued, if women wanted to be saved, they were to have babies (1 Tim. 2:11-15).

Largely on the basis of this passage, the apostle Paul has been branded, by more liberation minded people of recent generations, as one of history's great misogynists. The problem, of course, is that Paul never said any such thing. And why does it matter? Because the passage is still used by church leaders today to oppress and silence women. Why are there no women priests in the Catholic Church? Why are women not allowed to preach in conservative evangelical churches? Why are there churches today that do not allow women even to speak? In no small measure it is because Paul allegedly taught that women had to be silent, submissive and pregnant. Except that the person who taught this was not Paul, but someone lying about his identity so that his readers would think he was Paul.

It may be one of the greatest ironies of the Christian scriptures that some of them insist on truth, while telling a lie. For no author is truth more important than for the "Paul" of Ephesians. He refers to the gospel as "the word of truth" (1:13); he indicates that the "truth is in Jesus"; he tells his readers to "speak the truth" to their neighbors (4:24-25); and he instructs his readers to "fasten the belt of truth around your waist" (6:14). And yet he himself lied about who he was. He was not really Paul.

It appears that some of the New Testament writers, such as the authors of 2 Peter, 1 Timothy and Ephesians, felt they were perfectly justified to lie in order to tell the truth. But we today can at least evaluate their claims and realize just how human, and fallible, they were. They were creatures of their time and place. And so too were their teachings, lies and all.

[Haggis_McMutton]

"Non-religious": someone who is not religious, ie. does not have a religion.

ok. Are you "non-religious" as an agnostic/aetheist or does that make you religious?

Is "bald" a hair colour?

...yep, you're indoctrinated. i have heard this phrase many times before from other members of your cult. you're all such free thinkers that you use the same piss-poor analogies over and over again?

Hmm, interesting statement here.

1.The fact that a lot of people use the same analogy means they are indoctrinated? Well, then unless every single argument you make is a sparkling pearl of originality I guess we're all indoctrinated. You might want to check your definition of that word.

2. Care to explain why it is a poor analogy?

[shieldgenerator7]

natty, I was asking, not hounding. I told you from whenst I got my moral code, and so inquired about the origin of yours. Just asking.
Juan_Bottom, thanks for pointing out the obvious to people who already knew all about it. It was fun to scroll through it.
John9Blue, so you like to study the behaviour of aetheists?

[Symmetry]

natty, I was asking, not hounding. I told you from whenst I got my moral code, and so inquired about the origin of yours. Just asking.
Juan_Bottom, thanks for pointing out the obvious to people who already knew all about it. It was fun to scroll through it.
John9Blue, so you like to study the behaviour of aetheists?

When you talk about a moral code, do you make a distinction between morality and ethics?

[natty dread]

natty, I was asking, not hounding. I told you from whenst I got my moral code, and so inquired about the origin of yours. Just asking.

Here's a hypothetical question.

Regardless of the origion of your moral values, do you suppose you would be forced to abandon your morals if you were to abandon your religion? Are they necessarily joined together so that you cannot separate one from other? If so, why?

[shieldgenerator7]

Because of my sinful nature I would have to assume my morals would go down the drain if I lost my faith, hypothetically.
So since you're not answering, I'm assuming your moral code was taught to you by your parents?

[john9blue]

Your earlier grade stands. Any further complaints must be submitted in writing to my office within seven (7) work days.

your "teacher" shtick was cute at first, but it's getting old. care to make a post of substance?

i don't really care whether you identify as atheist or agnostic. you are anti-religious and that is what matters.

"Non-religious": someone who is not religious, ie. does not have a religion.

ok. Are you "non-religious" as an agnostic/aetheist or does that make you religious?

Is "bald" a hair colour?

...yep, you're indoctrinated. i have heard this phrase many times before from other members of your cult. you're all such free thinkers that you use the same piss-poor analogies over and over again?

Hmm, interesting statement here.

1.The fact that a lot of people use the same analogy means they are indoctrinated? Well, then unless every single argument you make is a sparkling pearl of originality I guess we're all indoctrinated. You might want to check your definition of that word.

2. Care to explain why it is a poor analogy?

1. yes. if it were some kind of logical proof then i'd be able to appreciate it. the atheist community largely make the same analogies and jokes over and over, because of their groupthink mentality.

2. it's a poor analogy because if hair symbolizes belief, then baldness symbolizes lack of belief. you can't say that atheism = baldness without first showing that atheism is a lack of belief. hint: it's not.

[Haggis_McMutton]

1. yes. if it were some kind of logical proof then i'd be able to appreciate it. the atheist community largely make the same analogies and jokes over and over, because of their groupthink mentality.

Generalizations, but you know that.
Within any community there'll be a greater repetition of the same statements, thoughts, memes for short. That's what a community is.
Should I invent a different imaginary god for each debate? Or should I just use the FSM?
And don't tell me you don't think the FSM has any value as a debating tool. It may be over-used, but it certainly has some value.

2. it's a poor analogy because if hair symbolizes belief, then baldness symbolizes lack of belief. you can't say that atheism = baldness without first showing that atheism is a lack of belief. hint: it's not.

Hair doesn't symbolize belief, it symbolized belief in god(s). Curly brown hair is Christianity, Long blonde hair is Hinduism, etc.
Atheism at it's most general is the lack of belief in gods. Strong atheists go further and state their belief in no god, but they still share the common lack of belief in god.

[natty dread]

your "teacher" shtick was cute at first, but it's getting old. care to make a post of substance?

As soon as you make one. You can start by posting something other than general talking points and strawman arguments mixed in with weak unfounded assumptions.

Provide some arguments that actually have some reasoning behind them, instead of just stating your opinions as fact and basing them on assumptions.

i don't really care whether you identify as atheist or agnostic. you are anti-religious and that is what matters.

I'm anti-religious in the same way as a cow is anti-seafood.

But I see that you like to label things black and white. To you, people are either with you or against you. It's the us vs. them mentality you have been indoctrinated with. And see - I just used the word "indoctrinated" in correct context. Take notes!

[natty dread]

Because of my sinful nature I would have to assume my morals would go down the drain if I lost my faith, hypothetically.
So since you're not answering, I'm assuming your moral code was taught to you by your parents?

My moral code was taught to me by life experience in general. I do not want to do bad things to other people because I have no reason to want to make anyone else's life miserable. Why would I want to do that? I'm happy with my life, I don't need to make others miserable to make myself feel better.

I don't believe that I will be punished if I do bad things to others, and I don't believe I get any rewards for doing good things or not doing bad things. Yet, I still choose not to act like a total sociopath.

Why are you so different? Were only you born with this "sinful nature", but I wasn't? How is it possible that I as an agnostic am less sinful than you, a christian?

[shieldgenerator7]

Because of my sinful nature I would have to assume my morals would go down the drain if I lost my faith, hypothetically.
So since you're not answering, I'm assuming your moral code was taught to you by your parents?

My moral code was taught to me by life experience in general. I do not want to do bad things to other people because I have no reason to want to make anyone else's life miserable. Why would I want to do that? I'm happy with my life, I don't need to make others miserable to make myself feel better.

I don't believe that I will be punished if I do bad things to others, and I don't believe I get any rewards for doing good things or not doing bad things. Yet, I still choose not to act like a total sociopath.

i'm glad to hear what you believe.

Why are you so different? Were only you born with this "sinful nature", but I wasn't? How is it possible that I as an agnostic am less sinful than you, a christian?

good question. We are all sinners. Maybe it is that I recognize my sinful nature more than you recognize yours. I'm not saying that I'm better than you, or that as a race we are bad people, I'm just saying we all make mistakes one time or other, and sometimes we may not recognize our mistakes.

[Juan_Bottom]

natty, I was asking, not hounding. I told you from whence I got my moral code, and so inquired about the origin of yours. Just asking.
Juan_Bottom, thanks for pointing out the obvious to people who already knew all about it. It was fun to scroll through it.
John9Blue, so you like to study the behavior of atheists?

You realize that you believe in the Bible at the same time that you know it's bullshit? That makes no sense. It shows a human weakness that I cannot begin to understand.

Because of my sinful nature I would have to assume my morals would go down the drain if I lost my faith, hypothetically.
So since you're not answering, I'm assuming your moral code was taught to you by your parents?

This isn't true. There have actually been dozens of books that I'm aware of all published on human nature and our universal moral code. Isolated tribes in the Brazilian rain forest have exactly the same morals that you do. All the Bible does is write them down and claim to be their creator. Then of course, the Bible added some others.*
But the truth is that your morals are an evolutionary byproduct. Back in the day, humans lived in small bands. You'd see the same person over and over throughout your life. Mutual cooperation was better for survival than constantly screwing everyone over. You can see the cooperative behavior in all types of pack and flocking species, especially primates.
The Bible is not where your morals come from. That's obvious. In the Bible, God commands that anyone caught working on the Sabbath should be stoned to death. Do you believe in stoning to death someone who works on a Saturday? In Numbers 31: 18 child-rape is justified by God's messenger Moses. Do you believe in that? If you answered "no" then God and the Bible did not give you your moral code.

*read Marc Hausner's book Moral Minds: How Nature Designed our Universal Sense of Right And Wrong

[john9blue]

I'm anti-religious in the same way as a cow is anti-seafood.

i have not heard that one before. well done. lol

But I see that you like to label things black and white. To you, people are either with you or against you. It's the us vs. them mentality you have been indoctrinated with. And see - I just used the word "indoctrinated" in correct context. Take notes!

if you take the time to argue with religious people on the internet, and never argue with non- or anti-religious people, then you're anti-religious.

i have reasons for what i say, therefore i'm not "indoctrinated" by definition.

anything else?