"thou shalt not kill"

[slowfiveoh]

It's not reasonable to assume that because someone is interested in, or even passionate about something, they must have a "HUGE stake" in it. (This is actually projection by you.)

For instance, I am highly interested in (even passionate about) the philosophy and politics of say, gay marriage, medical marijuana, and gun rights for Californians. I don't have a "HUGE stake" in any of these as I'm not gay, don't need to use medical marijuana, and don't live in California.

Philosophical win.


Besides, it's easier to quit than to discuss the horrific, pagan totality of the Old Testament. Better just avoid it and cling to the parts we like.

Also, just as an addendum. I am not gay. I am happily married with the awesomest little girl and wife I could have ever asked for.

HOWEVER, I see the value in supporting equality for all, therefore I am likewise an enormous supporter of LGBT rights.

 

[nonameisgood]

If all these Democrats would just stand with the "10 Commandents" and just enforce the "THOU SHALT NOT KILL" ...!

Because that isn't the law of the land. And if you don't want sharia, you can't have "10 commandment enforcement." After all, Allah is the same god as the one you worship.

Obviously, we need better laws and good enforcement, but really, we need people to be involved in their community and quit hiding in their houses when the neighbor is being victimized. More police enforcement isn't the solution, because relying upon it is part of the problem. "I'll call the police and let them handle it, it's not my job" is the mantra of the weak and the lazy.

I'm not suggesting vigilantism, only that we stop letting crime go unchecked during its commission, and that we be watchful and neighborly. Not like Gladys Kravitz, but not like we are now.

 

[Tawnos]

If that were the case...

What you describe is what I would call an atheist. However, some here call themselves atheists who do not fit the "full stop" part of your definition. I call them militant atheists, because they are proselytizing their religion every bit as fervently as an evangelist. Atheists that fit your above definition would not fret that others believe in God, just as I do not fret over folks who believe in astrology.

If it comes up, I'll shrug my shoulders, mention I believe that it is hokum, and maybe say it is silly. I would not continue to harp and mock. That would indicate that astrology mattered to me, that I had a deep-seated (but denied) feeling that there was some there there.

Every god claim is evaluated on an individual basis. Being a-theistic means you don't accept any god claim that has presently been made. It's very simply "there are no gods presented I believe in." However, an atheist can be anti-theist when presented with a god claim that is logically self-contradictory. Similarly, we can be disparaging to theists who claim that god when they turn around and use their god claim to try and drive public policy or impose their will upon others in society.

If someone were deciding that the US should go to war because the stars were aligned and told them to, your vehement opposition to the core of that belief wouldn't be evidence you somehow believe astrology, but are just denying its signs. It's ludicrous to claim that arguing against a belief indicates you secretly agree with the belief and are just fighting that feeling, in any context. Unless you secretly want to ban all firearms and thus when you argue against anti-gun zealots it's because you have a "deep-seated (but denied) feeling that there was some there[sic] there."

That is why I am convinced that the militant atheists actually believe in the existence of God; they just want to deny his authority over them. He will allow them to do that.

Again, what makes your god any more real than any other some other religion claims has authority over me? Personal conviction?

On the creation thing, I see these two possibilities:

1. The universe sprung into instantaneous existence out of nothing.
2. An external entity spawned it.

2 is far more rational. This does not simply push the question backwards in time because time is a construct of THIS universe. Time could well not exist for the entity that spawned our universe. If I were that entity and tried to explain this concept of timelessness to BC and early AD folks, I think I might say something along the lines of my being the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end.

It either pushes the question backwards or introduces complete irrelevance. What does it mean to be outside of time and space? Could you even perceive or comprehend such a being that isn't itself meaningless? The question isn't pushed backwards _in time_, it's pushed backwards by an actor.

Of course, there's nothing irrational about saying that the universe could have indeed sprung into existence from nothing, we know of particles that do that all the time.
[video=youtube;EjaGktVQdNg#t=0m30s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjaGktVQdNg#t=0m30s[/video]

 

[slowfiveoh]

Of course, there's nothing irrational about saying that the universe could have indeed sprung into existence from nothing, we know of particles that do that all the time.

That word needs to be substantiated in the sense that when scientists use the term it's not meant to imply they have exact knowledge of what exactly comprises "nothing".
It simply means that these particles popping into existence only seem to come from "nothing" because we don't necessarily understand the source or origination either at all, or in its entirety.
Maybe we simply won't until we can fully comprehend dark matter.

The assault by the Creationist is that the Big Bang Theory purports to spring forth from true "nothingness" (meaning the presence of absolute nothing) as opposed to a phenomena that cannot be described or observed by modern science to which the vernacular of "nothing" is applied.

 

[ADobbs1989]

Maybe we should sticky a topic about the religion of open carry and gun rights, then tell everyone that they secretly believe in strict gun control, but are just denying it.

Interesting how when using the very loose definition of religion a few here like to propose, every matter of opinion would become a religion. Sounds awfully stupid when you put it like that doesn't it?

 

[ADobbs1989]

1. The universe sprung into instantaneous existence out of nothing.

I'd also be willing to bet that you hold the belief that evolution states we all came from monkeys too, right?

 

[MKEgal]

Quit trying to force your atheist religion on me using the power of the government to do so.

When you stop trying to force your theist religion on me using the power of the gov't.

You believe there is no god. That is NOT lack of believe [sic]. That is simply a different belief.

Some atheists believe there isn't a god, and some don't believe that there is a god.
Distinction without difference.

No, one is an active belief, denial of existance.
The other is the normal (passive) state of being - waiting for proof before forming an active belief.

Incidentally, I hold no belief regarding God. I believe neither in his existence, nor in his nonexistence.

IMO, that's agnostic. Not knowing. Again, waiting for proof one way or the other.

Why decide that, of all the possible characteristics this maybe-thing, about which the only fact you can reasonably assert is that it existed before creation, might have, it definitely cares how you live your life, or even has interests in any sense at all whatsoever?

1) Ego. Same reason people used to believe the earth was the center of the universe.
2) It's more pleasant. We're social creatures. We like to think someone is interested in us.

some here call themselves atheists who do not fit the "full stop" part of your definition. I call them militant atheists, because they are proselytizing their religion every bit as fervently as an evangelist.
Atheists that fit your above definition would not fret that others believe in God, just as I do not fret over folks who believe in astrology.

I don't fret about it unless someone else's beliefs would negatively impact me. That usually happens when people try to make religion into public policy.

Being a-theistic means you don't accept any god claim that has presently been made. It's very simply "there are no gods presented I believe in."
...
Similarly, we can be disparaging to theists who claim that god when they turn around and use their god claim to try and drive public policy or impose their will upon others in society.

This.

 

[Tawnos]

That word needs to be substantiated in the sense that when scientists use the term it's not meant to imply they have exact knowledge of what exactly comprises "nothing".
It simply means that these particles popping into existence only seem to come from "nothing" because we don't necessarily understand the source or origination either at all, or in its entirety.
Maybe we simply won't until we can fully comprehend dark matter.

The assault by the Creationist is that the Big Bang Theory purports to spring forth from true "nothingness" (meaning the presence of absolute nothing) as opposed to a phenomena that cannot be described or observed by modern science to which the vernacular of "nothing" is applied.

Great point, and a good catch of where I should have used better wording. I use the term "nothing" in the currently held manner of astrophysics, but there might be a better term to explain it when trying to describe virtual particle phenomena to an under informed audience. It goes back to the old fallacy of four terms (nothing as no thing, and nothing describing a thing itself), and is somewhat at the basis of the whole "atheism is disbelief in gods" versus "atheism is a lack of belief in gods."

 

[eye95]

I'd also be willing to bet that you hold the belief that evolution states we all came from monkeys too, right?

How much? Because you are on. I am not greedy. $10 would be a good amount. Care to put your money where your mouth is, or shall you back down on putting words in my mouth?

I can take PayPal.

 

[ADobbs1989]

How much? Because you are on. I am not greedy. $10 would be a good amount. Care to put your money where your mouth is, or shall you back down on putting words in my mouth?

I can take PayPal.

One who holds false ideas in one area of science would generally hold false ideas in other areas as well. Normally those who hold a belief in god either A. also give full credibility to science, and actively try to understand how things actually work. or B. regurgitate falsehoods they have learned in church and really have no clue as to what science says. Given your statement on The Big Bang Theory, it's an easy jump to assume your immediate knowledge on other topics as well.

If you do in fact have a working knowledge of Evolution then I applaud you, and would urge you to take the time to learn of other scientific theories as well (by the way just for clarification to all "Theory" in science does not mean guess, a Theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."). If you are knowledgeable of evolution then I apologize, although your reply was more of a dodge than anything else.

 

[eye95]

So, you are weasling out of your wager?

Used to be a time when someone would avoid being a welcher.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[slowfiveoh]

So, you are weasling out of your wager?

Used to be a time when someone would avoid being a welcher.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Anytime somebody counters this guy with well thought out responses completely in context he evades. Don't worry about it Dobbs. He's all mouth and no substance.

 

[Aknazer]

Simple. We're going to tell them not to mention god or any other type of God like figure when working. They can still be religious, that's okay. Applying it to our laws, not so much.


Belief in a higher power keeps people sane and gives them morals. That is not the case from me.

And here's the irony. First off you CAN'T separate it out of laws and the like because it is one's religion that they use to base pretty much all of their choices off of. Secondly, by saying that they can't mention god(s) while working means that you're actually forcing the Atheist (non)religion on people. So by espousing that we can't mention our god (aka our beliefs) you are in fact forcing your non-god (aka beliefs) onto us. If taken to an extreme one could even say that any laws against murder are unConstitutional because they originate from religion. Thirdly you're attempting to restrict their 1A rights.

The thing here is that (imo) the intent was to keep an organized religion out of the government. For example Sharia Law, no contraceptives/abortion for religious reasons, the banning of drugs (including alcohol) because it's against your religion, that others can't eat <insert any animal product banned by a religion>, or even telling people that they can't mention god because it goes against YOUR belief. So no mullah calling up and saying "you need a law allowing men to beat their wives" or the pope saying "contraceptives need to be banned" or the LDS Prophet demanding "ban all drugs and coffee and tea" to the president.

 

[ADobbs1989]

So, you are weasling out of your wager?

Used to be a time when someone would avoid being a welcher.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

First off there is no such thing as a real internet wager. The one doing the betting would always lose because regardless of what your actual knowledge is, your reply would always be contradictory in order to win the bet.

My use of the word "bet" is used informally which by definition is "A view or opinion, especially about something that cannot be known at the present time".

You have been around long enough to know that the word "bet" doesn't always mean to place a wager.

 

[eye95]

OK, you welched.

Moving on.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[marshaul]

Secondly, by saying that they can't mention god(s) while working means that you're actually forcing the Atheist (non)religion on people. So by espousing that we can't mention our god (aka our beliefs) you are in fact forcing your non-god (aka beliefs) onto us.

This is such a strawman. It simply doesn't happen. Government officials and the like reference "God" all the time.

What happened is, in a few places, folks got the local government to stop spending money on overtly christian display (such as creches and the like). So the, as usual, hyper-sensitive christians got all up in arms, and created this strawman that we were "banning mentioning God while working".

Check out this absurd dictum from the governor of the Massholes:

I, Deval L. Patrick, Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, pursuant to the power provided by Chapter 639 of the Acts of 1950 do hereby issue the following order:
There shall be a ban on motor vehicle travel beginning at 4:00 PM today and continuing until further notice. This travel ban shall not apply to the following:

public safety vehicles and public safety workers, including contract personnel
public works vehicles and public works workers, including contract personnel; government officials conducting official business
utility company vehicles and utility workers
healthcare workers who must travel to and from work in order to provide essential health services
news media
travel necessary to maintain and deliver critical private sector services such as energy, fuel supplies and delivery, financial systems and the delivery of critical commodities
travel to support business operations that provide critical services to the public, including gasoline stations, food stores and hardware stores

Given this 8th day of February in the year of our Lord two thousand and thirteen at 12:15PM.

DEVAL L. PATRICK, GOVERNOR
Commonwealth of Massachusetts

That doesn't sound too prohibited from talking about God while working, does it?

 

[McLintock]

Last thing from me, Romans 1:20-21 "For the invisible things of Him, that is, His eternal power a Godhead, are seen by the creation of the world, being considered in His works, to the intent that they should be without excuse: Because that when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful, but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was full of darkness" (if ya'll get to use dawkins, I get to use the Bible). If the Founders did not leave England so they could worship the way they saw fit, you my friend could not believe the way you do (because we would be West England, and therefore have a state church). It IS because of the 1st Amendment you can believe the way you do! It IS because some of the Founders being Christian you have Freedoms to do as you please and believe as you please. I rather be in the right than in the wrong, EVEN if judgement day comes (which it will), and if it does not (which it won't) what have I got to lose? It seams like to me you got more to lose than I do. And as for the OT, God was showing His self all powerful, the people Israel killed were sinners who did not glorify Him as God!

 

[ADobbs1989]

OK, you welched.

Moving on.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

No, you are just being willfully ignorant to the fact that words in the English language can carry different meanings.

 

[ADobbs1989]

Last thing from me, Romans 1:20-21 "For the invisible things of Him, that is, His eternal power a Godhead, are seen by the creation of the world, being considered in His works, to the intent that they should be without excuse: Because that when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful, but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was full of darkness" (if ya'll get to use dawkins, I get to use the Bible). If the Founders did not leave England so they could worship the way they saw fit, you my friend could not believe the way you do (because we would be West England, and therefore have a state church). It IS because of the 1st Amendment you can believe the way you do! It IS because some of the Founders being Christian you have Freedoms to do as you please and believe as you please. I rather be in the right than in the wrong, EVEN if judgement day comes (which it will), and if it does not (which it won't) what have I got to lose? It seams like to me you got more to lose than I do. And as for the OT, God was showing His self all powerful, the people Israel killed were sinners who did not glorify Him as God!

I was fine reading your opinions until you started being purposefully dishonest. What do you have to lose? Maybe you chose the wrong god. There are 10,000+ different gods that you could possibly worship...so I only have one more to worry about than you do. Also:

Mark 9:1 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.

Luke 9:27 But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.

Mark 13:30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.

Mark 14:62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Matthew 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Matthew 23:36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.

SO I conclude your religion has already had it's chance to be proven right, and it failed.

 

[slowfiveoh]

Last thing from me, Romans 1:20-21 "For the invisible things of Him, that is, His eternal power a Godhead, are seen by the creation of the world, being considered in His works, to the intent that they should be without excuse: Because that when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful, but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was full of darkness".

Citing to the Bible, already proven to be a wretched, despicable thing, is as valuable, at this point, as cupping your farts to save for later.

The verse attempts to say that clearly "gods work" is evident, without elaborating as to why. An appeal to its own authority is hilarious.

I'll file this verse somewhere between old issues of X-men comics and Levitical Law.

(if ya'll get to use dawkins, I get to use the Bible).

One is an established member of science who has spent 30+ years studying the biological nature of our existence, and the other is a Bronze-Age book full of proven myth, derived from paganism and tribal feudalism.

It's like saying you'll quote Dr. Seuss when somebody quotes Einstein.

If the Founders did not leave England so they could worship the way they saw fit, you my friend could not believe the way you do (because we would be West England, and therefore have a state church).

Oh how WONDERFUL that you brought this up!

Was it compulsory state theocracy oppressing other belief structures and steering political climates in said country that drove them to leave? Yes.
Was it so they could establish their own government where another theocracy could be established, thus violating the concept of free, individual equality? Nope. Try again.

If you would be so kind as to study the founding of this nation prior to the Revolutionary War, you would see that MANY of the faulty traits of a theocratic society FOLLOWED over.

Do yourself a favor and study the social interaction between the Quakers and the Puritans Pre-, and Post-revolution.

No, the founders realized that religion must remain completely separate to such an extent that all "divine edicts" or "Biblical Law" have no impact on what is just, and morally right.

The effect of religion on Government is wholly toxic.

It IS because of the 1st Amendment you can believe the way you do!

No, you are incorrect and on the basis of your comment found to be irrevocably flawed in this matter.

It is because of the PRE-EXISTENCE of the right to free speech, religion, and freedom of the press, that the right was thus recognized, enumerated, and applied against the Federal government, prohibiting any action on their behalf to stop it.

Futhermore, the actual man credited with writing the 1st Amendment was James Madison. What does Mr. Madison have to say about the matter? Only this:

"The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established."

I wonder if a religious perspective of homosexuality as a sin, being enacted upon by said religious masses, and applied towards government regulation would be seen as trampling ones civil rights.

I do believe that in this case, Mr Madison would tell you to kindly shut up, and to think outside of your religious shackles in a manner befitting equality for all.

It IS because some of the Founders being Christian you have Freedoms to do as you please and believe as you please.

Wrong. You are now, twice in a row, patently wrong.

It is because of forced religious theocracy being mandated upon people of varying belief structures (not just "Christians") that drove them to leave. The tyranny of religious leadership was the impetus for their actions. Period.

I rather be in the right than in the wrong, EVEN if judgement day comes (which it will), and if it does not (which it won't) what have I got to lose?

*sniffs an incoming Pascals Wager*

"Yeah bro let me fake undying allegiance and devotion to said deity because as master of the fabric of reality, space, and time, and being omniscient, he would clearly buy my act." - Signed, those embracing Pascals Wager

Pascals Wager is so flawed as to be utterly meaningless.

So uh. Better apply to ALL religions just to be safe.

It seams like to me you got more to lose than I do.

Every day to me is a wonderment. The things that have been observed and the amazing advancement of the human race blow me away every day. The very fact that I am made of the same traces of carbon and hydrogen that make up the fabric of stars is amazing to me. If I have this one life, and only this one life, I embrace it, and I love it. The difference between you and I, is that I do not need a celestial North Korean dictator being my thought nanny for me to be a good, kind, generous man capable of embracing the totality of my life and appreciating the value of it.

Some people, however, sadly need the cosmic Kim-Jong Il looking over them, at least, in their minds.

Worshiping one religion may not be safe enough McLintock. Better subscribe to them all.

And as for the OT, God was showing His self all powerful, the people Israel killed were sinners who did not glorify Him as God!

Infants are "sinners"?

You actually buy this crap, that INFANTS are sinners? You people will justify anything so long as it doesn't show the cruelty and despicable nature of your religions deity.

- Woman who are brutally oppressed by men and uneducated are "sinners"?
- An all powerful being showing himself to be "all-powerful" must commit genocide to do so?
- Instead of forgiving men for their sins and communicating to them, in his purported omniscience and omnipotence, he had to magically inseminate some chick, have her give birth, and then have said guy brutal murdered? Wow what an all-powerful God you have there. :uhoh:
- Condoning slavery is the act of an omniscient, omnipotent being? Hrm, almost sounded to me like a way for the males to justify bartering for sex and labor...

Do you actually chew before you swallow?

Are you aware that even during the time of the "New Testament" there were multiple groups who saw the demonic/pagan origins of the Old Testament "god" as being completely juxtaposed to the New Testament "god"? (Hello, Marcionism.)

You come across as exceedingly ignorant, and arrogant about the origins of the Bible, and are clearly intent on absolving the demonic/pagan nature of the Old Testament.