Re: Dawkins: Religion cannot be a basis for moralty

V

V

Guest
On Jan 14, 7:55 am, Jack <cawo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Richard Dawkins, in a debate (http://tinyurl.com/28z6t4) with Alister
> McGrath, argues that our moral values cannot come from Religion
> because it's holy texts must be selectively weighted and applied and
> the basis for this selection (i.e. morality) must come from somewhere
> other than the religion itself.




































He is right...BUT...what is logical is not always practical when it
comes to humans.

What he proposes will only happen in a 'perfect' world. Religion is
the lesser of two evils,with the greater evil being that of atheism.

Atheism shows us that atheism is far from perfect, in fact, the
imperfect heists at least tries to do right, Whereas the mind-
manacled, spiritually sick, defiance based atheist suffers from self
deification and thinks they can do no wrong.

I am all for atheists becoming better specimens of humanity. But it
just ain't going to happen. We can see that time and time again when
it comes down to the actions of the atheists.

Atheist can only be better people when it comes to lip service...and
most em them can't even do that.

Atheism is one of the world's least tolerant religions. By their very
nature, the mind-manacled, spiritually sick, defiance based atheist
can never be at peace until they become agnostics.

THEN and only THEN do they stop self-deifying and restore a sense of
humility and humanity within themselves.

One time I brought up this subject of 'right speech' at alt.atheism
and was responded to as such.

Robibnikoff wrote:

"So. ****ing what...do you think I give a flying **** what you think,
dipshit...Not that it's any of YOUR ****ing business...Don't presume
that you know what's best for me, you deluded, mother****ing,
****sucking son of a whore." (condensed)

You see, atheists have little or no connection with their inner peace
and they do not operate under a fear of God, so they are left to their
own devices.

As such, atheist have no authenticity in their peace practice, but are
'fear based' practitioners just as many theists are.

The secular humanists talks a good talk...but in the end they have no
incentive to do right other than the fear of pain from breaking man
made laws.

Lets look at a few of these atheists to get at the facts:

http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=509.0

http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=529.0

http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=630.0

Until atheists become peace based, they will fail at being 'humane
humans' just as theists fail, since most theists are not authentic in
their practice and run by fear as well.

Fear of the law, fear of God, fear of bad karma, fear of hell...those
fears do not make one 'authentic' in one's peace practice.

Take away fear of the law, fear of God, fear of bad karma, fear of
hell and you have a different person.

Does the thief that does not steal because a policeman is looking a
truly honest person?

A truly virtuous life remains the same irrespective of such fears and
is not based on them.

Really the 'religion of the atheists' AKA secular humanism does not
fail the atheist...it is the atheist that fails to make use of the
wisdom that their religion offers them.

See:

http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=640.0

The atheists failure is rooted in motivational ignorance and lack of
desire.

Until one sees a need to adopt a certain moral direction why would one
adopt it?

And motivation and direction is solely based on inner peace and a
desire to achieve it and not destroy others inner peace.

But, the atheist is ignorant of what inner peace means, how to achieve
inner peace as well as what destroys others inner peace.

A good start to see what does motivate oneself is to ask yourself why
you wish to do something?

Is it for inner peace?

Or to massage your ego?

Or scared to go to hell?

Or because it feels good?

Or to improve ones karmic debt?

Or because others say so?

Or to hurt another?

Or to fit in...as Peter van Velzen had expressed?

http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=646.0

What is your driving force?

Fear based reasons for doing something are not authentic and natural
actions.

The persons actions are based on negative consequences otherwise they
would not do them.

My actions are based on inner peace and if I stray - there goes my
peace - it is my choice.

Put your inner peace foremost and you will have your answer. When you
align real and authentic actions with those that promote inner peace
you have found enlightenment.

The facts are this: when people are devoid of religion...they
generally stink as humans.

Until atheism can replace theist based religion as a VIABLE and REAL
way to inner peace, with a reverence of humanity, it can never take
over the world and extinguish religion.

When you get rid of one thing, it makes room for another.

Sure atheist can succeed at pointing to the flaws of religious
thought, but they have nothing to replace the flaws with.

So theists choose the lesser of two evils while on earth, with the
hopes of hitting the jackpot in the hereafter.

When atheists become successes at 'the religion of humanity,' you may
become more successful at replacing theist based religion.

Until that time..."a mans mind may be likened to a garden which may be
intelligently cultivated or allowed to run wild; but whether
cultivated or neglected, it must and will bring forth. If no useful
seeds are put into it, then an abundance of useless 'weed seeds' will
fall therein and will continue to produce their kind." ~ James Allen

And religion does a good job at controlling the weeds.

In its history, organized atheism has never succeeded at replacing
religion with real humanity and compassion.

The atheists talk a good story, but atheists fail miserably when it
comes to practical application of the 'peace talk.'

And really the vast majority of atheists don't even have 'the talk' to
spout, since they have no semblance of inner peace themselves in order
to form a basis of 'lip service' to pontificate.

Another reason atheists will never win, is in general it takes hatred
to fuel atheism if one is a dogmatic, militant atheist.

Hatred blinds one to peace.

See:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/browse_thread/thread/f4006812a06f9ddf

When you lose the hatred and militant foundation, then you do not wish
to destroy others or their religion....you are at peace to let them be
religious.

Sure you do not let others destroy you with religion, you tell them
the facts that they run by faith, so do not get too high and mighty
and start forcing you into the religion against your will.

But you only fight in a measured way of self defense, instead of the
offensive atheists that sets out to destroy 'all faith based beliefs'
just for the sheer joy of hurting another.

Sure tearing others down appeals to one's ego and pride, but so did
torturing insects when we were kids. When we grow up we need a
different way to find self worth.

As you instill seeds of peace within others you plant the same seeds
and water these seeds within you as well.

As you give so you receive.

Is that from the bible or karma?

No, it is just universal law.

Do we like to be beaten down?

Whenever we take it upon ourselves to beat down others, we are headed
in a direction of destroying peace. We destroy our own peace as well
as others peace.

It takes no energy from me to pass something by and leave it alone in
peace. But it takes my energy as well as my peace to pick something up
to destroy it.

When I posted this paragraph earlier, an atheist piped to accuse me of
hypocrisy, telling me that I destroy a potato when I pick it up to eat
it, so I am a liar.

Natural law dictates I must eat, but there is no law that says I must
spew venom from my mouth to destroy others.

If atheists can get over fishing for red herrings and get onto bigger
fish to fry they will see a world of difference in their peace
practice.

The destruction of inner peace by destroying potatoes comes about when
I destroy my neighbors crop field of potatoes by poisoning them to
bankrupt him in order to take over his farmland...it does not come
about by eating a potato.

The God of Nature gives me potatoes to eat, the God of Inner Peace
tells me to not eat potatoes in excess or to destroy others if I wish
to be at peace. I cannot see either God, I know not how these God's
work, I just know they are and I can abide by their guidance or be
defiant to these Gods and end up destroying my life and the lives of
others.

See:

http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=342.0

Yes, there are theists that stink. See: http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/burning.html

I will be the first to admit that religion has done lots of harm but I
will also say religion done lots of right.

And just as the question of God cannot be answered with any certainty,
so goes the question of whether the world would have been better off
without religion or not.

It is a question that cannot be answered like it was in the movie
"It's a Wonderful life.'

But lets look at the facts and see that the vast, vast majority of
people are theists or believe in hereafter, so the pot is enormous
that we draw from when we pull out examples of evildoing theists that
the atheists like to parade around.

The USA was founded with God in the details. I suggest atheists that
hate a religious based country like the USA move to China or Russia.
Then you can live your dream right now, in your God free country.

In China, it was a common practice to execute political prisoners with
one bullet to the head...then they sent the bill for the bullet to the
family of the executed prisoner. That is where separation of state and
religion can lead a country. Once religion is out of politics, then
the only thing left in control is ego.

They say Hitler was a Catholic?

I don't know if he was Catholic or not.

I do know that Hitler did not practice even the most basic tenants of
Christianity.

It takes more than lip service to be a 'practicing' Catholic,
Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu or Hebrew follower.

See:

http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=380.0


http://groups.google.com/group/alt....gst&q=conundrum&rnum=7&hl=en#cf400bdf88ba1701

Now, some 'spiritually based atheist's can far surpasses many theists
in kindness and virtue many times...so it just depends on what 'type
of atheist' you are talking about?

But these sort of atheists are very rare to encounter, as spiritual
values and atheism do not generally mix.

"People that practice religion are worried about going to hell -
people that practice spirituality have already been to hell and don't
want to go back."

A lot of atheists I run into make their intellect their God. They do
not know that academic smarts are not the same as peace smarts. Until
they can transcend their ego they will never find the answer (peace)
they seek.

It is the same for those that think money is all that is standing
between them and happiness.

So it goes for the ego and intellect based person that is devoid of
spiritual values.

And if the atheists is honest they will see they do not run their
lives solely by logic and are no better than the theist that runs
their lives by faith.

No, logic only goes so far in life. For what is logical is not always
practical when it comes to humans ... is it?

Always remember...one thing only goes so far with giving a person a
good life. Seek balance.

Spiritual growth as well as humans are not perfect - but we can all do
better at being humans if we try to be more humane.

See:

http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=4.0

There are many flavors of atheists...natural atheists, personal
atheists, explicit atheists, implicit atheists weak atheists, strong
atheists, discovery atheists, reactionary atheists, indoctrinated
atheists and of course the bad ass atheists with attitude aka BAAWA
varieties.

But the defining characteristic that leads an atheist to peace is
whether they are a 'spiritual based atheist' or 'defiance based
atheist.''

The business of humanism is 'all our business' if we with to live life
at peace. Egocentricity is not good for spiritual work and we need to
be open to others ideas and embrace them as nourishment for your
growth and sustenance for life - as no one person is god.

As a freethinking agnostic I AM FREE to look for truth wherever the
road takes me. I discriminate against no one. As such, I study with
the Christians, the Buddhists, the Jews, the Muslims, the Taoists and
even find truth as I study with the atheists.

See:

http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=470.0

When you practice peace promotion with others you will reap inner
peace promotion. When you practice destroying others peace, you will
reap self destruction of inner peace.

I suggest any atheists wishing to find inner peace within their life
adopt the creed of the atheists (their version of prepackaged morals)
and start actually practicing the wisdom that their religion of
secular humanism offers them.

The 'informal creed' of atheism.

An Atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. An Atheist believes
that heaven is something for which we should work now - here on earth
for all men together to enjoy.

An Atheist believes that he can get no help through prayer but that he
must find in himself the inner conviction, and strength to meet life,
to grapple with it, to subdue it and enjoy it.

An Atheist believes that only in a knowledge of himself and a
knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will
help to a life of fulfillment. He seeks to know himself and his fellow
man rather than to know a god. An Atheist believes that a hospital
should be built instead of a church.

An Atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer
said.

An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death.
He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He
wants man to understand and love man.

He wants an ethical way of life. He believes that we cannot rely on a
god or channel action into prayer nor hope for an end of troubles in a
hereafter.

He believes that we are our brother's keepers; and are keepers of our
own lives; that we are responsible persons and the job is here and the
time is now."

http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/



"The Affirmations of Humanism: A Statement of Principles"

We are committed to the application of reason and science to the
understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems.

We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to
explain the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature
for salvation.

We believe that scientific discovery and technology can contribute
to the betterment of human life.

We believe in an open and pluralistic society and that democracy is
the best guarantee of protecting human rights from authoritarian
elites and repressive majorities.

We are committed to the principle of the separation of church and
state.

We cultivate the arts of negotiation and compromise as a means of
resolving differences and achieving mutual understanding.

We are concerned with securing justice and fairness in society and
with eliminating discrimination and intolerance.

We believe in supporting the disadvantaged and the handicapped so
that they will be able to help themselves.

We attempt to transcend divisive parochial loyalties based on race,
religion, gender, nationality, creed, class, sexual orientation, or
ethnicity, and strive to work together for the common good of
humanity.

We want to protect and enhance the earth, to preserve it for future
generations, and to avoid inflicting needless suffering on other
species.

We believe in enjoying life here and now and in developing our
creative talents to their fullest.

We believe in the cultivation of moral excellence.

We respect the right to privacy. Mature adults should be allowed to
fulfill their aspirations, to express their sexual preferences, to
exercise reproductive freedom, to have access to comprehensive and
informed health-care, and to die with dignity.

We believe in the common moral decencies: altruism, integrity,
honesty, truthfulness, responsibility. Humanist ethics is amenable to
critical, rational guidance. There are normative standards that we
discover together. Moral principles are tested by their consequences.

We are deeply concerned with the moral education of our children. We
want to nourish reason and compassion.

We are engaged by the arts no less than by the sciences.

We are citizens of the universe and are excited by discoveries still
to be made in the cosmos.

We are skeptical of untested claims to knowledge, and we are open to
novel ideas and seek new departures in our thinking.

We affirm humanism as a realistic alternative to theologies of
despair and ideologies of violence and as a source of rich personal
significance and genuine satisfaction in the service to others.

We believe in optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than
despair, learning in the place of dogma, truth instead of ignorance,
joy rather than guilt or sin, tolerance in the place of fear, love
instead of hatred, compassion over selfishness, beauty instead of
ugliness, and reason rather than blind faith or irrationality.

We believe in the fullest realization of the best and noblest that
we are capable of as human beings.

Council for Secular Humanism




Take care,


V (Male)

Agnostic Freethinker
Practical Philosopher
Futurist
Urban Homesteader
Agnostic minister of secular humanism to the mind-
manacled...spiritually sick...defiance based atheist.
AA#2
 
On Jan 19, 1:30 pm, V <vf...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Jan 14, 7:55 am, Jack <cawo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Richard Dawkins, in a debate (http://tinyurl.com/28z6t4) with Alister
> > McGrath, argues that our moral values cannot come from Religion
> > because it's holy texts must be selectively weighted and applied and
> > the basis for this selection (i.e. morality) must come from somewhere
> > other than the religion itself.

>
> He is right...BUT...what is logical is not always practical when it
> comes to humans.


Who says atheist are not practical? Dawkins argues
against religion in a number of ways, not just logic.
Personally I find it hard to trust a person
who is religious since they can pick and choose
their religion and so their moral rules. Atheists
have no such luck, we have to be practical and
accept some of the prevailing moral rules!
and can't realistically impose ours on everyone.



>
> What he proposes will only happen in a 'perfect' world. Religion is
> the lesser of two evils,with the greater evil being that of atheism.
>
> Atheism shows us that atheism is far from perfect, in fact, the
> imperfect heists at least tries to do right, Whereas the mind-
> manacled, spiritually sick, defiance based atheist suffers from self
> deification and thinks they can do no wrong.
>
> I am all for atheists becoming better specimens of humanity. But it
> just ain't going to happen. We can see that time and time again when
> it comes down to the actions of the atheists.
>
> Atheist can only be better people when it comes to lip service...and
> most em them can't even do that.
>
> Atheism is one of the world's least tolerant religions. By their very
> nature, the mind-manacled, spiritually sick, defiance based atheist
> can never be at peace until they become agnostics.
>
> THEN and only THEN do they stop self-deifying and restore a sense of
> humility and humanity within themselves.
>
> One time I brought up this subject of 'right speech' at alt.atheism
> and was responded to as such.
>
> Robibnikoff wrote:
>
> "So. ****ing what...do you think I give a flying **** what you think,
> dipshit...Not that it's any of YOUR ****ing business...Don't presume
> that you know what's best for me, you deluded, mother****ing,
> ****sucking son of a whore." (condensed)
>
> You see, atheists have little or no connection with their inner peace
> and they do not operate under a fear of God, so they are left to their
> own devices.
>
> As such, atheist have no authenticity in their peace practice, but are
> 'fear based' practitioners just as many theists are.
>
> The secular humanists talks a good talk...but in the end they have no
> incentive to do right other than the fear of pain from breaking man
> made laws.
>
> Lets look at a few of these atheists to get at the facts:
>
> http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=509.0
>
> http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=529.0
>
> http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=630.0
>
> Until atheists become peace based, they will fail at being 'humane
> humans' just as theists fail, since most theists are not authentic in
> their practice and run by fear as well.
>
> Fear of the law, fear of God, fear of bad karma, fear of hell...those
> fears do not make one 'authentic' in one's peace practice.
>
> Take away fear of the law, fear of God, fear of bad karma, fear of
> hell and you have a different person.
>
> Does the thief that does not steal because a policeman is looking a
> truly honest person?
>
> A truly virtuous life remains the same irrespective of such fears and
> is not based on them.
>
> Really the 'religion of the atheists' AKA secular humanism does not
> fail the atheist...it is the atheist that fails to make use of the
> wisdom that their religion offers them.
>
> See:
>
> http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=640.0
>
> The atheists failure is rooted in motivational ignorance and lack of
> desire.
>
> Until one sees a need to adopt a certain moral direction why would one
> adopt it?
>
> And motivation and direction is solely based on inner peace and a
> desire to achieve it and not destroy others inner peace.
>
> But, the atheist is ignorant of what inner peace means, how to achieve
> inner peace as well as what destroys others inner peace.
>
> A good start to see what does motivate oneself is to ask yourself why
> you wish to do something?
>
> Is it for inner peace?
>
> Or to massage your ego?
>
> Or scared to go to hell?
>
> Or because it feels good?
>
> Or to improve ones karmic debt?
>
> Or because others say so?
>
> Or to hurt another?
>
> Or to fit in...as Peter van Velzen had expressed?
>
> http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=646.0
>
> What is your driving force?
>
> Fear based reasons for doing something are not authentic and natural
> actions.
>
> The persons actions are based on negative consequences otherwise they
> would not do them.
>
> My actions are based on inner peace and if I stray - there goes my
> peace - it is my choice.
>
> Put your inner peace foremost and you will have your answer. When you
> align real and authentic actions with those that promote inner peace
> you have found enlightenment.
>
> The facts are this: when people are devoid of religion...they
> generally stink as humans.
>
> Until atheism can replace theist based religion as a VIABLE and REAL
> way to inner peace, with a reverence of humanity, it can never take
> over the world and extinguish religion.
>
> When you get rid of one thing, it makes room for another.
>
> Sure atheist can succeed at pointing to the flaws of religious
> thought, but they have nothing to replace the flaws with.
>
> So theists choose the lesser of two evils while on earth, with the
> hopes of hitting the jackpot in the hereafter.
>
> When atheists become successes at 'the religion of humanity,' you may
> become more successful at replacing theist based religion.
>
> Until that time..."a mans mind may be likened to a garden which may be
> intelligently cultivated or allowed to run wild; but whether
> cultivated or neglected, it must and will bring forth. If no useful
> seeds are put into it, then an abundance of useless 'weed seeds' will
> fall therein and will continue to produce their kind." ~ James Allen
>
> And religion does a good job at controlling the weeds.
>
> In its history, organized atheism has never succeeded at replacing
> religion with real humanity and compassion.
>
> The atheists talk a good story, but atheists fail miserably when it
> comes to practical application of the 'peace talk.'
>
> And really the vast majority of atheists don't even have 'the talk' to
> spout, since they have no semblance of inner peace themselves in order
> to form a basis of 'lip service' to pontificate.
>
> Another reason atheists will never win, is in general it takes hatred
> to fuel atheism if one is a dogmatic, militant atheist.
>
> Hatred blinds one to peace.
>
> See:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/browse_thread/thread/f4...
>
> When you lose the hatred and militant foundation, then you do not wish
> to destroy others or their religion....you are at peace to let them be
> religious.
>
> Sure you do not let others destroy you with religion, you tell them
> the facts that they run by faith, so do not get too high and mighty
> and start forcing you into the religion against your will.
>
> But you only fight in a measured way of self defense, instead of the
> offensive atheists that sets out to destroy 'all faith based beliefs'
> just for the sheer joy of hurting another.
>
> Sure tearing others down appeals to one's ego and pride, but so did
> torturing insects when we were kids. When we grow up we need a
> different way to find self worth.
>
> As you instill seeds of peace within others you plant the same seeds
> and water these seeds within you as well.
>
> As you give so you receive.
>
> Is that from the bible or karma?
>
> No, it is just universal law.
>
> Do we like to be beaten down?
>
> Whenever we take it upon ourselves to beat down others, we are headed
> in a direction of destroying peace. We destroy our own peace as well
> as others peace.
>
> It takes no energy from me to pass something by and leave it alone in
> peace. But it takes my energy as well as my peace to pick something up
> to destroy it.
>
> When I posted this paragraph earlier, an atheist piped to accuse me of
> hypocrisy, telling me that I destroy a potato when I pick it up to eat
> it, so I am a liar.
>
> Natural law dictates I must eat, but there is no law that says I must
> spew venom from my mouth to destroy others.
>
> If atheists can get over fishing for red herrings and get onto bigger
> fish to fry they will see a world of difference in their peace
> practice.
>
> The destruction of inner peace by destroying potatoes comes about when
> I destroy my neighbors crop field of potatoes by poisoning them to
> bankrupt him in order to take over his farmland...it does not come
> about by eating a potato.
>
> The God of Nature gives me potatoes to eat, the God of Inner Peace
> tells me to not eat potatoes in excess or to destroy others if I wish
> to be at peace. I cannot see either God, I know not how these God's
> work, I just know they are and I can abide by their guidance or be
> defiant to these Gods and end up destroying my life and the lives of
> others.
>
> See:
>
> http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=342.0
>
> Yes, there are theists that stink. See:http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/burning.html
>
> I will be the first to admit that religion has done lots of harm but I
> will also say religion done lots of right.
>
> And just as the question of God cannot be answered with any certainty,
> so goes the question of whether the world would have been better off
> without religion or not.
>
> It is a question that cannot be answered like it was in the movie
> "It's a Wonderful life.'
>
> But lets look at the facts and see that the vast, vast majority of
> people are theists or believe in hereafter, so the pot is enormous
> that we draw from when we pull out examples of evildoing theists that
> the atheists like to parade around.
>
> The USA was founded with God in the details. I suggest atheists that
> hate a religious based country like the USA move to China or Russia.
> Then you can live your dream right now, in your God free country.
>
> In China, it was a common practice to execute political prisoners with
> one bullet to the head...then they sent the bill for the bullet to the
> family of the executed prisoner. That is where separation of state and
> religion can lead a country. Once religion is out of politics, then
> the only thing left in control is ego.
>
> They say Hitler was a Catholic?
>
> I don't know if he was Catholic or not.
>
> I do know that Hitler did not practice even the most basic tenants of
> Christianity.
>
> It takes more than lip service to be a 'practicing' Catholic,
> Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu or Hebrew follower.
>
> See:
>
> http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=380.0
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/125b41aa...
>
> Now, some 'spiritually based atheist's can far surpasses many theists
> in kindness and virtue many times...so it just depends on what 'type
> of atheist' you are talking about?
>
> But these sort of atheists are very rare to encounter, as spiritual
> values and atheism do not generally mix.
>
> "People that practice religion are worried about going to hell -
> people that practice spirituality have already been to hell and don't
> want to go back."
>
> A lot of atheists I run into make their intellect their God. They do
> not know that academic smarts are not the same as peace smarts. Until
> they can transcend their ego they will never find the answer (peace)
> they seek.
>
> It is the same for those that think money is all that is standing
> between them and happiness.
>
> So it goes for the ego and intellect based person that is devoid of
> spiritual values.
>
> And if the atheists is honest they will see they do not run their
> lives solely by logic and are no better than the theist that runs
> their lives by faith.
>
> No, logic only goes so far in life. For what is logical is not always
> practical when it comes to humans ... is it?
>
> Always remember...one thing only goes so far with giving a person a
> good life. Seek balance.
>
> Spiritual growth as well as humans are not perfect - but we can all do
> better at being humans if we try to be more humane.
>
> See:
>
> http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=4.0
>
> There are many flavors of atheists...natural atheists, personal
> atheists, explicit atheists, implicit atheists weak atheists, strong
> atheists, discovery atheists, reactionary atheists, indoctrinated
> atheists and of course the bad ass atheists with attitude aka BAAWA
> varieties.
>
> But the defining characteristic that leads an atheist to peace is
> whether they are a 'spiritual based atheist' or 'defiance based
> atheist.''
>
> The business of humanism is 'all our business' if we with to live life
> at peace. Egocentricity is not good for spiritual work and we need to
> be open to others ideas and embrace them as nourishment for your
> growth and sustenance for life - as no one person is god.
>
> As a freethinking agnostic I AM FREE to look for truth wherever the
> road takes me. I discriminate against no one. As such, I study with
> the Christians, the Buddhists, the Jews, the Muslims, the Taoists and
> even find truth as I study with the atheists.
>
> See:
>
> http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=470.0
>
> When you practice peace promotion with others you will reap inner
> peace promotion. When you practice destroying others peace, you will
> reap self destruction of inner peace.
>
> I suggest any atheists wishing to find inner peace within their life
> adopt the creed of the atheists (their version of prepackaged morals)
> and start actually practicing the wisdom that their religion of
> secular humanism offers them.
>
> The 'informal creed' of atheism.
>
> An Atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. An Atheist believes
> that heaven is something for which we should work now - here on earth
> for all men together to enjoy.
>
> An Atheist believes that he can get no help through prayer but that he
> must find in himself the inner conviction, and strength to meet life,
> to grapple with it, to subdue it and enjoy it.
>
> An Atheist believes that only in a knowledge of himself and a
> knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will
> help to a life of fulfillment. He seeks to know himself and his fellow
> man rather than to know a god. An Atheist believes that a hospital
> should be built instead of a church.
>
> An Atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer
> said.
>
> An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death.
> He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He
> wants man to understand and love man.
>
> He wants an ethical way of life. He believes that we cannot rely on a
> god or channel action into prayer nor hope for an end of troubles in a
> hereafter.
>
> He believes that we are our brother's keepers; and are keepers of our
> own lives; that we are responsible persons and the job is here and the
> time is now."
>
> http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/
>
> "The Affirmations of Humanism: A Statement of Principles"
>
> We are committed to the application of reason and science to the
> understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems.
>
> We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to
> explain the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature
> for salvation.
>
> We believe that scientific discovery and technology can contribute
> to the betterment of human life.
>
> We believe in an open and pluralistic society and that democracy is
> the best guarantee of protecting human rights from authoritarian
> elites and repressive majorities.
>
> We are committed to the principle of the separation of church and
> state.
>
> We cultivate the arts of negotiation and compromise as a means of
> resolving differences and achieving mutual understanding.
>
> We are concerned with securing justice and fairness in society and
> with eliminating discrimination and intolerance.
>
> We believe in supporting the disadvantaged and the handicapped so
> that they will be able to help themselves.
>
> We attempt to transcend divisive parochial loyalties based on race,
> religion, gender, nationality, creed, class, sexual orientation, or
> ethnicity, and strive to work together for the common good of
> humanity.
>
> We want to protect and enhance the earth, to preserve it for future
> generations, and to avoid inflicting needless suffering on other
> species.
>
> We believe in enjoying life here and now and in developing our
> creative talents to their fullest.
>
> We believe in the cultivation of moral excellence.
>
> We respect the right to privacy. Mature adults should be allowed to
> fulfill their aspirations, to express their sexual preferences, to
> exercise reproductive freedom, to have access to comprehensive and
> informed health-care, and to die with dignity.
>
> We believe in the common moral decencies: altruism, integrity,
> honesty, truthfulness, responsibility. Humanist ethics is amenable to
> critical, rational guidance. There are normative standards that we
> discover together. Moral principles are tested by their consequences.
>
> We are deeply concerned with the moral education of our children. We
> want to nourish reason and compassion.
>
> We are engaged by the arts no less than by the sciences.
>
> We are citizens of the universe and are excited by discoveries still
> to be made in the cosmos.
>
> We are skeptical of untested claims to knowledge, and we are open to
> novel ideas and seek new departures in our thinking.
>
> We affirm humanism as a realistic alternative to theologies of
> despair and ideologies of violence and as a source of rich personal
> significance and genuine satisfaction in the service to others.
>
> We believe in optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than
> despair, learning in the place of dogma, truth instead of ignorance,
> joy rather than guilt or sin, tolerance in the place of fear, love
> instead of hatred, compassion over selfishness, beauty instead of
> ugliness, and reason rather than blind faith or irrationality.
>
> We believe in the fullest realization of the best and noblest that
> we are capable of as human beings.
>
> Council for Secular Humanism
>
> Take care,
>
> V (Male)
>
> Agnostic Freethinker
> Practical Philosopher
> Futurist
> Urban Homesteader
> Agnostic minister of secular humanism to the mind-
> manacled...spiritually sick...defiance based atheist.
> AA#2
 
On Jan 18, 9:35 pm, PerfectlyAble <j...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
> On Jan 19, 1:30 pm, V <vf...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 14, 7:55 am, Jack <cawo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > > Richard Dawkins, in a debate (http://tinyurl.com/28z6t4) with Alister
> > > McGrath, argues that our moral values cannot come from Religion
> > > because it's holy texts must be selectively weighted and applied and
> > > the basis for this selection (i.e. morality) must come from somewhere
> > > other than the religion itself.

>
> > He is right...BUT...what is logical is not always practical when it
> > comes to humans.

>
> Who says atheist are not practical? Dawkins argues
> against religion in a number of ways, not just logic.
> Personally I find it hard to trust a person
> who is religious since they can pick and choose
> their religion and so their moral rules. Atheists
> have no such luck, we have to be practical and
> accept some of the prevailing moral rules!
> and can't realistically impose ours on everyone.
>
>


Morals are arbitrary rules.

If you believe in a 'supreme being', it is rational to follow the
rules of the supreme being.
If you don't believe in a 'supreme being', then following arbitrary
rules is a bit crazy.

-tg






>
> > What he proposes will only happen in a 'perfect' world. Religion is
> > the lesser of two evils,with the greater evil being that of atheism.

>
> > Atheism shows us that atheism is far from perfect, in fact, the
> > imperfect heists at least tries to do right, Whereas the mind-
> > manacled, spiritually sick, defiance based atheist suffers from self
> > deification and thinks they can do no wrong.

>
> > I am all for atheists becoming better specimens of humanity. But it
> > just ain't going to happen. We can see that time and time again when
> > it comes down to the actions of the atheists.

>
> > Atheist can only be better people when it comes to lip service...and
> > most em them can't even do that.

>
> > Atheism is one of the world's least tolerant religions. By their very
> > nature, the mind-manacled, spiritually sick, defiance based atheist
> > can never be at peace until they become agnostics.

>
> > THEN and only THEN do they stop self-deifying and restore a sense of
> > humility and humanity within themselves.

>
> > One time I brought up this subject of 'right speech' at alt.atheism
> > and was responded to as such.

>
> > Robibnikoff wrote:

>
> > "So. ****ing what...do you think I give a flying **** what you think,
> > dipshit...Not that it's any of YOUR ****ing business...Don't presume
> > that you know what's best for me, you deluded, mother****ing,
> > ****sucking son of a whore." (condensed)

>
> > You see, atheists have little or no connection with their inner peace
> > and they do not operate under a fear of God, so they are left to their
> > own devices.

>
> > As such, atheist have no authenticity in their peace practice, but are
> > 'fear based' practitioners just as many theists are.

>
> > The secular humanists talks a good talk...but in the end they have no
> > incentive to do right other than the fear of pain from breaking man
> > made laws.

>
> > Lets look at a few of these atheists to get at the facts:

>
> >http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=509.0

>
> >http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=529.0

>
> >http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=630.0

>
> > Until atheists become peace based, they will fail at being 'humane
> > humans' just as theists fail, since most theists are not authentic in
> > their practice and run by fear as well.

>
> > Fear of the law, fear of God, fear of bad karma, fear of hell...those
> > fears do not make one 'authentic' in one's peace practice.

>
> > Take away fear of the law, fear of God, fear of bad karma, fear of
> > hell and you have a different person.

>
> > Does the thief that does not steal because a policeman is looking a
> > truly honest person?

>
> > A truly virtuous life remains the same irrespective of such fears and
> > is not based on them.

>
> > Really the 'religion of the atheists' AKA secular humanism does not
> > fail the atheist...it is the atheist that fails to make use of the
> > wisdom that their religion offers them.

>
> > See:

>
> >http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=640.0

>
> > The atheists failure is rooted in motivational ignorance and lack of
> > desire.

>
> > Until one sees a need to adopt a certain moral direction why would one
> > adopt it?

>
> > And motivation and direction is solely based on inner peace and a
> > desire to achieve it and not destroy others inner peace.

>
> > But, the atheist is ignorant of what inner peace means, how to achieve
> > inner peace as well as what destroys others inner peace.

>
> > A good start to see what does motivate oneself is to ask yourself why
> > you wish to do something?

>
> > Is it for inner peace?

>
> > Or to massage your ego?

>
> > Or scared to go to hell?

>
> > Or because it feels good?

>
> > Or to improve ones karmic debt?

>
> > Or because others say so?

>
> > Or to hurt another?

>
> > Or to fit in...as Peter van Velzen had expressed?

>
> >http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=646.0

>
> > What is your driving force?

>
> > Fear based reasons for doing something are not authentic and natural
> > actions.

>
> > The persons actions are based on negative consequences otherwise they
> > would not do them.

>
> > My actions are based on inner peace and if I stray - there goes my
> > peace - it is my choice.

>
> > Put your inner peace foremost and you will have your answer. When you
> > align real and authentic actions with those that promote inner peace
> > you have found enlightenment.

>
> > The facts are this: when people are devoid of religion...they
> > generally stink as humans.

>
> > Until atheism can replace theist based religion as a VIABLE and REAL
> > way to inner peace, with a reverence of humanity, it can never take
> > over the world and extinguish religion.

>
> > When you get rid of one thing, it makes room for another.

>
> > Sure atheist can succeed at pointing to the flaws of religious
> > thought, but they have nothing to replace the flaws with.

>
> > So theists choose the lesser of two evils while on earth, with the
> > hopes of hitting the jackpot in the hereafter.

>
> > When atheists become successes at 'the religion of humanity,' you may
> > become more successful at replacing theist based religion.

>
> > Until that time..."a mans mind may be likened to a garden which may be
> > intelligently cultivated or allowed to run wild; but whether
> > cultivated or neglected, it must and will bring forth. If no useful
> > seeds are put into it, then an abundance of useless 'weed seeds' will
> > fall therein and will continue to produce their kind." ~ James Allen

>
> > And religion does a good job at controlling the weeds.

>
> > In its history, organized atheism has never succeeded at replacing
> > religion with real humanity and compassion.

>
> > The atheists talk a good story, but atheists fail miserably when it
> > comes to practical application of the 'peace talk.'

>
> > And really the vast majority of atheists don't even have 'the talk' to
> > spout, since they have no semblance of inner peace themselves in order
> > to form a basis of 'lip service' to pontificate.

>
> > Another reason atheists will never win, is in general it takes hatred
> > to fuel atheism if one is a dogmatic, militant atheist.

>
> > Hatred blinds one to peace.

>
> > See:

>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/browse_thread/thread/f4...

>
> > When you lose the hatred and militant foundation, then you do not wish
> > to destroy others or their religion....you are at peace to let them be
> > religious.

>
> > Sure you do not let others destroy you with religion, you tell them
> > the facts that they run by faith, so do not get too high and mighty
> > and start forcing you into the religion against your will.

>
> > But you only fight in a measured way of self defense, instead of the
> > offensive atheists that sets out to destroy 'all faith based beliefs'
> > just for the sheer joy of hurting another.

>
> > Sure tearing others down appeals to one's ego and pride, but so did
> > torturing insects when we were kids. When we grow up we need a
> > different way to find self worth.

>
> > As you instill seeds of peace within others you plant the same seeds
> > and water these seeds within you as well.

>
> > As you give so you receive.

>
> > Is that from the bible or karma?

>
> > No, it is just universal law.

>
> > Do we like to be beaten down?

>
> > Whenever we take it upon ourselves to beat down others, we are headed
> > in a direction of destroying peace. We destroy our own peace as well
> > as others peace.

>
> > It takes no energy from me to pass something by and leave it alone in
> > peace. But it takes my energy as well as my peace to pick something up
> > to destroy it.

>
> > When I posted this paragraph earlier, an atheist piped to accuse me of
> > hypocrisy, telling me that I destroy a potato when I pick it up to eat
> > it, so I am a liar.

>
> > Natural law dictates I must eat, but there is no law that says I must
> > spew venom from my mouth to destroy others.

>
> > If atheists can get over fishing for red herrings and get onto bigger
> > fish to fry they will see a world of difference in their peace
> > practice.

>
> > The destruction of inner peace by destroying potatoes comes about when
> > I destroy my neighbors crop field of potatoes by poisoning them to
> > bankrupt him in order to take over his farmland...it does not come
> > about by eating a potato.

>
> > The God of Nature gives me potatoes to eat, the God of Inner Peace
> > tells me to not eat potatoes in excess or to destroy others if I wish
> > to be at peace. I cannot see either God, I know not how these God's
> > work, I just know they are and I can abide by their guidance or be
> > defiant to these Gods and end up destroying my life and the lives of
> > others.

>
> > See:

>
> >http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=342.0

>
> > Yes, there are theists that stink. See:http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/burning.html

>
> > I will be the first to admit that religion has done lots of harm but I
> > will also say religion done lots of right.

>
> > And just as the question of God cannot be answered with any certainty,
> > so goes the question of whether the world would have been better off
> > without religion or not.

>
> > It is a question that cannot be answered like it was in the movie
> > "It's a Wonderful life.'

>
> > But lets look at the facts and see that

>
> ...
>
> read more
 
On Jan 20, 12:55 am, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Jan 18, 9:35 pm, PerfectlyAble <j...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 19, 1:30 pm, V <vf...@aol.com> wrote:

>
> > > On Jan 14, 7:55 am, Jack <cawo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > > > Richard Dawkins, in a debate (http://tinyurl.com/28z6t4) with Alister
> > > > McGrath, argues that our moral values cannot come from Religion
> > > > because it's holy texts must be selectively weighted and applied and
> > > > the basis for this selection (i.e. morality) must come from somewhere
> > > > other than the religion itself.

>
> > > He is right...BUT...what is logical is not always practical when it
> > > comes to humans.

>
> > Who says atheist are not practical? Dawkins argues
> > against religion in a number of ways, not just logic.
> > Personally I find it hard to trust a person
> > who is religious since they can pick and choose
> > their religion and so their moral rules. Atheists
> > have no such luck, we have to be practical and
> > accept some of the prevailing moral rules!
> > and can't realistically impose ours on everyone.

>
> Morals are arbitrary rules.
>
> If you believe in a 'supreme being', it is rational to follow the
> rules of the supreme being.


But the choose of supreme being is chosen amd
what guide do people use to choose, morals.
They goto the big religious store and find the
brand that most fits their needs for bigotry.

> If you don't believe in a 'supreme being', then following arbitrary
> rules is a bit crazy.


No, it means to get along in society, and not end
up in jail, that you have to work much harder, are
much closer to being human and understanding what
it means to be human. Flaws and all.

>
> -tg
>
>
>
> > > What he proposes will only happen in a 'perfect' world. Religion is
> > > the lesser of two evils,with the greater evil being that of atheism.

>
> > > Atheism shows us that atheism is far from perfect, in fact, the
> > > imperfect heists at least tries to do right, Whereas the mind-
> > > manacled, spiritually sick, defiance based atheist suffers from self
> > > deification and thinks they can do no wrong.

>
> > > I am all for atheists becoming better specimens of humanity. But it
> > > just ain't going to happen. We can see that time and time again when
> > > it comes down to the actions of the atheists.

>
> > > Atheist can only be better people when it comes to lip service...and
> > > most em them can't even do that.

>
> > > Atheism is one of the world's least tolerant religions. By their very
> > > nature, the mind-manacled, spiritually sick, defiance based atheist
> > > can never be at peace until they become agnostics.

>
> > > THEN and only THEN do they stop self-deifying and restore a sense of
> > > humility and humanity within themselves.

>
> > > One time I brought up this subject of 'right speech' at alt.atheism
> > > and was responded to as such.

>
> > > Robibnikoff wrote:

>
> > > "So. ****ing what...do you think I give a flying **** what you think,
> > > dipshit...Not that it's any of YOUR ****ing business...Don't presume
> > > that you know what's best for me, you deluded, mother****ing,
> > > ****sucking son of a whore." (condensed)

>
> > > You see, atheists have little or no connection with their inner peace
> > > and they do not operate under a fear of God, so they are left to their
> > > own devices.

>
> > > As such, atheist have no authenticity in their peace practice, but are
> > > 'fear based' practitioners just as many theists are.

>
> > > The secular humanists talks a good talk...but in the end they have no
> > > incentive to do right other than the fear of pain from breaking man
> > > made laws.

>
> > > Lets look at a few of these atheists to get at the facts:

>
> > >http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=509.0

>
> > >http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=529.0

>
> > >http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=630.0

>
> > > Until atheists become peace based, they will fail at being 'humane
> > > humans' just as theists fail, since most theists are not authentic in
> > > their practice and run by fear as well.

>
> > > Fear of the law, fear of God, fear of bad karma, fear of hell...those
> > > fears do not make one 'authentic' in one's peace practice.

>
> > > Take away fear of the law, fear of God, fear of bad karma, fear of
> > > hell and you have a different person.

>
> > > Does the thief that does not steal because a policeman is looking a
> > > truly honest person?

>
> > > A truly virtuous life remains the same irrespective of such fears and
> > > is not based on them.

>
> > > Really the 'religion of the atheists' AKA secular humanism does not
> > > fail the atheist...it is the atheist that fails to make use of the
> > > wisdom that their religion offers them.

>
> > > See:

>
> > >http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=640.0

>
> > > The atheists failure is rooted in motivational ignorance and lack of
> > > desire.

>
> > > Until one sees a need to adopt a certain moral direction why would one
> > > adopt it?

>
> > > And motivation and direction is solely based on inner peace and a
> > > desire to achieve it and not destroy others inner peace.

>
> > > But, the atheist is ignorant of what inner peace means, how to achieve
> > > inner peace as well as what destroys others inner peace.

>
> > > A good start to see what does motivate oneself is to ask yourself why
> > > you wish to do something?

>
> > > Is it for inner peace?

>
> > > Or to massage your ego?

>
> > > Or scared to go to hell?

>
> > > Or because it feels good?

>
> > > Or to improve ones karmic debt?

>
> > > Or because others say so?

>
> > > Or to hurt another?

>
> > > Or to fit in...as Peter van Velzen had expressed?

>
> > >http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=646.0

>
> > > What is your driving force?

>
> > > Fear based reasons for doing something are not authentic and natural
> > > actions.

>
> > > The persons actions are based on negative consequences otherwise they
> > > would not do them.

>
> > > My actions are based on inner peace and if I stray - there goes my
> > > peace - it is my choice.

>
> > > Put your inner peace foremost and you will have your answer. When you
> > > align real and authentic actions with those that promote inner peace
> > > you have found enlightenment.

>
> > > The facts are this: when people are devoid of religion...they
> > > generally stink as humans.

>
> > > Until atheism can replace theist based religion as a VIABLE and REAL
> > > way to inner peace, with a reverence of humanity, it can never take
> > > over the world and extinguish religion.

>
> > > When you get rid of one thing, it makes room for another.

>
> > > Sure atheist can succeed at pointing to the flaws of religious
> > > thought, but they have nothing to replace the flaws with.

>
> > > So theists choose the lesser of two evils while on earth, with the
> > > hopes of hitting the jackpot in the hereafter.

>
> > > When atheists become successes at 'the religion of humanity,' you may
> > > become more successful at replacing theist based religion.

>
> > > Until that time..."a mans mind may be likened to a garden which may be
> > > intelligently cultivated or allowed to run wild; but whether
> > > cultivated or neglected, it must and will bring forth. If no useful
> > > seeds are put into it, then an abundance of useless 'weed seeds' will
> > > fall therein and will continue to produce their kind." ~ James Allen

>
> > > And religion does a good job at controlling the weeds.

>
> > > In its history, organized atheism has never succeeded at replacing
> > > religion with real humanity and compassion.

>
> > > The atheists talk a good story, but atheists fail miserably when it
> > > comes to practical application of the 'peace talk.'

>
> > > And really the vast majority of atheists don't even have 'the talk' to
> > > spout, since they have no semblance of inner peace themselves in order
> > > to form a basis of 'lip service' to pontificate.

>
> > > Another reason atheists will never win, is in general it takes hatred
> > > to fuel atheism if one is a dogmatic, militant atheist.

>
> > > Hatred blinds one to peace.

>
> > > See:

>
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/browse_thread/thread/f4....

>
> > > When you lose the hatred and militant foundation, then you do not wish
> > > to destroy others or their religion....you are at peace to let them be
> > > religious.

>
> > > Sure you do not let others destroy you with religion, you tell them
> > > the facts that they run by faith, so do not get too high and mighty
> > > and start forcing you into the religion against your will.

>
> > > But you only fight in a measured way of self defense, instead of the
> > > offensive atheists that sets out to destroy 'all faith based beliefs'
> > > just for the sheer joy of hurting another.

>
> > > Sure tearing others down appeals to one's ego and pride, but so did
> > > torturing insects when we were kids. When we grow up we need a
> > > different way to find self worth.

>
> > > As you instill seeds of peace within others you plant the same seeds
> > > and water these seeds within you as well.

>
> > > As you give so you receive.

>
> > > Is that from the bible or karma?

>
> > > No, it is just universal law.

>
> > > Do we like to be beaten down?

>
> > > Whenever we take it upon ourselves to beat down others, we are headed
> > > in a direction of destroying peace. We destroy our own peace as well
> > > as others peace.

>
> > > It takes no energy from me to pass something by and leave it alone in
> > > peace. But it takes my energy as well as my peace to pick something up
> > > to destroy it.

>
> > > When I posted this paragraph earlier, an atheist piped to accuse me of
> > > hypocrisy, telling me that I destroy a potato when I pick it up to eat
> > > it, so I am a liar.

>
> > > Natural law dictates I must eat, but there is no law that says I must
> > > spew venom from my mouth to destroy others.

>
> > > If atheists can get over fishing for red herrings and get onto bigger
> > > fish to fry they will see a world of difference in their peace
> > > practice.

>
> > > The destruction of inner peace by destroying potatoes comes about when
> > > I destroy my neighbors crop field of potatoes by poisoning them to
> > > bankrupt him in order to take over his farmland...it does not come
> > > about by eating a potato.

>
> > > The God of Nature gives me potatoes to eat, the God of Inner Peace
> > > tells me to not eat potatoes in excess or to destroy others if I wish
> > > to be at peace. I cannot see either God, I know not how these God's
> > > work, I just know they are and I can abide by their guidance or be
> > > defiant to these Gods and end up destroying my life and the

>
> ...
>
> read more
 
On Jan 19, 3:55 am, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> If you believe in a 'supreme being', it is rational to follow the
> rules of the supreme being.
> If you don't believe in a 'supreme being', then following arbitrary
> rules is a bit crazy.
>


I believe that god doesn't exist. But for the sake of argument, let's
assume that it does exist.

These rules from a god are obtained by people who claim to have heard
them from a god. You see the problem, don't you? To follow these
rules, you must assume that this prophet actually receive the rules
from a god, did not hallucinate the event or lied about the event.
How is this not arbitrary? You're basing our system of laws on the
probability that someone a couple thousand years ago heard the voice
of a god. So rules from a person who hears voice, either because a
god is talking to he or she, or because this person has eaten some
hallucinogenic food or suffers from some mental illness.

Atheist isn't inherently evil. The only evil aspect of any belief
system is the people involved, as one could see with how religion has
been misused by the neocons. Atheist is the belief that there is no
god. How is that evil?

By the way, the rules that atheists follow are not arbitrary. They
were created the same way that the prophets, if atheists are correct,
created their rules: the rules evolved through years of trial and
error on the part of civilization.
 
On Jan 19, 4:12 pm, Limbaugh unhinges his jaw to eat his own waste
<goofin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 19, 3:55 am, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > If you believe in a 'supreme being', it is rational to follow the
> > rules of the supreme being.
> > If you don't believe in a 'supreme being', then following arbitrary
> > rules is a bit crazy.

>
> I believe that god doesn't exist. But for the sake of argument, let's
> assume that it does exist.
>
> These rules from a god are obtained by people who claim to have heard
> them from a god. You see the problem, don't you? To follow these
> rules, you must assume that this prophet actually receive the rules
> from a god, did not hallucinate the event or lied about the event.
> How is this not arbitrary? You're basing our system of laws on the
> probability that someone a couple thousand years ago heard the voice
> of a god. So rules from a person who hears voice, either because a
> god is talking to he or she, or because this person has eaten some
> hallucinogenic food or suffers from some mental illness.
>
> Atheist isn't inherently evil. The only evil aspect of any belief
> system is the people involved, as one could see with how religion has
> been misused by the neocons. Atheist is the belief that there is no
> god. How is that evil?
>
> By the way, the rules that atheists follow are not arbitrary. They
> were created the same way that the prophets, if atheists are correct,
> created their rules: the rules evolved through years of trial and
> error on the part of civilization.


Yes, I understand that one must believe that the rules are indeed the
rules given by the supreme being, and not made up by the priests. I
didn't say that belief in a supreme being is rational, or that
believing that the priests know what God wants is rational. But if you
believe those things, then it makes sense to obey the rules even if
the rules make no sense to you.

However, the idea of things being 'right' and 'wrong' has no more
basis than the idea of a supreme being. Neither is subject to
definition or test. So to claim that one exists but the other doesn't
is inconsistent, if you argue for the non-existence of God based on
reason. Based on reason, there is no such thing as 'right' and 'wrong'
as well.

BTW, when I say that rules are arbitrary, I do not mean that they are
random. But as long as you follow them only because the secular
equivalent of a priest has them on a list, they are not different from
'God-given' rules.

-tg
 
On Jan 21, 7:37 am, tgdenn...@earthlink.net wrote:
> On Jan 19, 4:12 pm, Limbaugh unhinges his jaw to eat his own waste
>
>
>
> <goofin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 19, 3:55 am, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>
> > > If you believe in a 'supreme being', it is rational to follow the
> > > rules of the supreme being.
> > > If you don't believe in a 'supreme being', then following arbitrary
> > > rules is a bit crazy.

>
> > I believe that god doesn't exist. But for the sake of argument, let's
> > assume that it does exist.

>
> > These rules from a god are obtained by people who claim to have heard
> > them from a god. You see the problem, don't you? To follow these
> > rules, you must assume that this prophet actually receive the rules
> > from a god, did not hallucinate the event or lied about the event.
> > How is this not arbitrary? You're basing our system of laws on the
> > probability that someone a couple thousand years ago heard the voice
> > of a god. So rules from a person who hears voice, either because a
> > god is talking to he or she, or because this person has eaten some
> > hallucinogenic food or suffers from some mental illness.

>
> > Atheist isn't inherently evil. The only evil aspect of any belief
> > system is the people involved, as one could see with how religion has
> > been misused by the neocons. Atheist is the belief that there is no
> > god. How is that evil?

>
> > By the way, the rules that atheists follow are not arbitrary. They
> > were created the same way that the prophets, if atheists are correct,
> > created their rules: the rules evolved through years of trial and
> > error on the part of civilization.

>
> Yes, I understand that one must believe that the rules are indeed the
> rules given by the supreme being, and not made up by the priests. I
> didn't say that belief in a supreme being is rational, or that
> believing that the priests know what God wants is rational. But if you
> believe those things, then it makes sense to obey the rules even if
> the rules make no sense to you.
>
> However, the idea of things being 'right' and 'wrong' has no more
> basis than the idea of a supreme being. Neither is subject to
> definition or test. So to claim that one exists but the other doesn't
> is inconsistent, if you argue for the non-existence of God based on
> reason. Based on reason, there is no such thing as 'right' and 'wrong'
> as well.


If I don't want people to kill me and others don't
want people to kill them, then if naturally follows
that killing is wrong. So duh there is way more basis
for the idea of right and wrong than a God.

Also you seem to believe that irrational argument
isn't an oxymoron. Ignorance isn't justification.
Knowledge cannot be held in doubt by Nonsense.
God doesn't exist because God is based in Ignorance,
Nonsense and irrationality.

>
> BTW, when I say that rules are arbitrary, I do not mean that they are
> random. But as long as you follow them only because the secular
> equivalent of a priest has them on a list, they are not different from
> 'God-given' rules.
>
> -tg
 
On Jan 26, 3:38 pm, PerfectlyAble <j...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
> On Jan 21, 7:37 am, tgdenn...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 19, 4:12 pm, Limbaugh unhinges his jaw to eat his own waste

>
> > <goofin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jan 19, 3:55 am, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>
> > > > If you believe in a 'supreme being', it is rational to follow the
> > > > rules of the supreme being.
> > > > If you don't believe in a 'supreme being', then following arbitrary
> > > > rules is a bit crazy.

>
> > > I believe that god doesn't exist. But for the sake of argument, let's
> > > assume that it does exist.

>
> > > These rules from a god are obtained by people who claim to have heard
> > > them from a god. You see the problem, don't you? To follow these
> > > rules, you must assume that this prophet actually receive the rules
> > > from a god, did not hallucinate the event or lied about the event.
> > > How is this not arbitrary? You're basing our system of laws on the
> > > probability that someone a couple thousand years ago heard the voice
> > > of a god. So rules from a person who hears voice, either because a
> > > god is talking to he or she, or because this person has eaten some
> > > hallucinogenic food or suffers from some mental illness.

>
> > > Atheist isn't inherently evil. The only evil aspect of any belief
> > > system is the people involved, as one could see with how religion has
> > > been misused by the neocons. Atheist is the belief that there is no
> > > god. How is that evil?

>
> > > By the way, the rules that atheists follow are not arbitrary. They
> > > were created the same way that the prophets, if atheists are correct,
> > > created their rules: the rules evolved through years of trial and
> > > error on the part of civilization.

>
> > Yes, I understand that one must believe that the rules are indeed the
> > rules given by the supreme being, and not made up by the priests. I
> > didn't say that belief in a supreme being is rational, or that
> > believing that the priests know what God wants is rational. But if you
> > believe those things, then it makes sense to obey the rules even if
> > the rules make no sense to you.

>
> > However, the idea of things being 'right' and 'wrong' has no more
> > basis than the idea of a supreme being. Neither is subject to
> > definition or test. So to claim that one exists but the other doesn't
> > is inconsistent, if you argue for the non-existence of God based on
> > reason. Based on reason, there is no such thing as 'right' and 'wrong'
> > as well.

>
> If I don't want people to kill me and others don't
> want people to kill them, then if naturally follows
> that killing is wrong. So duh there is way more basis
> for the idea of right and wrong than a God.
>


What basis is that? So far you have only said that you know what is
right or wrong, which makes you what I described---a secular priest.
When you can articulate how I can figure out what is right or wrong
without asking you,
that will be a beginning.

-tg



> Also you seem to believe that irrational argument
> isn't an oxymoron. Ignorance isn't justification.
> Knowledge cannot be held in doubt by Nonsense.
> God doesn't exist because God is based in Ignorance,
> Nonsense and irrationality.
>
>
>
> > BTW, when I say that rules are arbitrary, I do not mean that they are
> > random. But as long as you follow them only because the secular
> > equivalent of a priest has them on a list, they are not different from
> > 'God-given' rules.

>
> > -tg
 
On Jan 28, 1:15 pm, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Jan 26, 3:38 pm, PerfectlyAble <j...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 21, 7:37 am, tgdenn...@earthlink.net wrote:

>
> > > On Jan 19, 4:12 pm, Limbaugh unhinges his jaw to eat his own waste

>
> > > <goofin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jan 19, 3:55 am, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>
> > > > > If you believe in a 'supreme being', it is rational to follow the
> > > > > rules of the supreme being.
> > > > > If you don't believe in a 'supreme being', then following arbitrary
> > > > > rules is a bit crazy.

>
> > > > I believe that god doesn't exist. But for the sake of argument, let's
> > > > assume that it does exist.

>
> > > > These rules from a god are obtained by people who claim to have heard
> > > > them from a god. You see the problem, don't you? To follow these
> > > > rules, you must assume that this prophet actually receive the rules
> > > > from a god, did not hallucinate the event or lied about the event.
> > > > How is this not arbitrary? You're basing our system of laws on the
> > > > probability that someone a couple thousand years ago heard the voice
> > > > of a god. So rules from a person who hears voice, either because a
> > > > god is talking to he or she, or because this person has eaten some
> > > > hallucinogenic food or suffers from some mental illness.

>
> > > > Atheist isn't inherently evil. The only evil aspect of any belief
> > > > system is the people involved, as one could see with how religion has
> > > > been misused by the neocons. Atheist is the belief that there is no
> > > > god. How is that evil?

>
> > > > By the way, the rules that atheists follow are not arbitrary. They
> > > > were created the same way that the prophets, if atheists are correct,
> > > > created their rules: the rules evolved through years of trial and
> > > > error on the part of civilization.

>
> > > Yes, I understand that one must believe that the rules are indeed the
> > > rules given by the supreme being, and not made up by the priests. I
> > > didn't say that belief in a supreme being is rational, or that
> > > believing that the priests know what God wants is rational. But if you
> > > believe those things, then it makes sense to obey the rules even if
> > > the rules make no sense to you.

>
> > > However, the idea of things being 'right' and 'wrong' has no more
> > > basis than the idea of a supreme being. Neither is subject to
> > > definition or test. So to claim that one exists but the other doesn't
> > > is inconsistent, if you argue for the non-existence of God based on
> > > reason. Based on reason, there is no such thing as 'right' and 'wrong'
> > > as well.

>
> > If I don't want people to kill me and others don't
> > want people to kill them, then if naturally follows
> > that killing is wrong. So duh there is way more basis
> > for the idea of right and wrong than a God.

>
> What basis is that? So far you have only said that you know what is
> right or wrong, which makes you what I described---a secular priest.


I have a basis for right and wrong that you cannot
refute, you'd be dead if it weren't true. But I
am clearly not dead by not believing in God.

> When you can articulate how I can figure out what is right or wrong
> without asking you,
> that will be a beginning.
>
> -tg
>
> > Also you seem to believe that irrational argument
> > isn't an oxymoron. Ignorance isn't justification.
> > Knowledge cannot be held in doubt by Nonsense.
> > God doesn't exist because God is based in Ignorance,
> > Nonsense and irrationality.

>
> > > BTW, when I say that rules are arbitrary, I do not mean that they are
> > > random. But as long as you follow them only because the secular
> > > equivalent of a priest has them on a list, they are not different from
> > > 'God-given' rules.

>
> > > -tg
 
On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 13:12:52 -0800 (PST), Limbaugh unhinges his jaw to
eat his own waste <goofindoo@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jan 19, 3:55 am, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> If you believe in a 'supreme being', it is rational to follow the
>> rules of the supreme being.
>> If you don't believe in a 'supreme being', then following arbitrary
>> rules is a bit crazy.
>>

>
>I believe that god doesn't exist. But for the sake of argument, let's
>assume that it does exist.


Careful what you say.

90% of your audience interpret this as...

"believe the most supremely important and self evident thing in the
universe doesn't exist."

Even crazier than believing the Sun doesn't exist.

They can't grasp that it's in the same vein as "no fairies at the
bottom of the garden".
 
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 18:37:32 -0800 (PST), PerfectlyAble
<jrhw@kol.co.nz> wrote:

:

>I have a basis for right and wrong that you cannot
>refute, you'd be dead if it weren't true. But I
>am clearly not dead by not believing in God.


Go to a fundy Muslim country, and you may change your tune, mate.
 
On Jan 28, 6:14 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 18:37:32 -0800 (PST), PerfectlyAble
>
> <j...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
>
> :
>
> >I have a basis for right and wrong that you cannot
> >refute, you'd be dead if it weren't true. But I
> >am clearly not dead by not believing in God.

>
> Go to a fundy Muslim country, and you may change your tune, mate.


Like I'm really going to measure myself by that standard.
 
On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 10:51:50 -0800 (PST), PerfectlyAble
<jrhw@kol.co.nz> wrote:

>On Jan 28, 6:14 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 18:37:32 -0800 (PST), PerfectlyAble
>>
>> <j...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>> :
>>
>> >I have a basis for right and wrong that you cannot
>> >refute, you'd be dead if it weren't true. But I
>> >am clearly not dead by not believing in God.

>>
>> Go to a fundy Muslim country, and you may change your tune, mate.

>
>Like I'm really going to measure myself by that standard.


Can you say: non-sequitur?
 
On Feb 2, 12:12 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 10:51:50 -0800 (PST), PerfectlyAble
>
> <j...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
> >On Jan 28, 6:14 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 18:37:32 -0800 (PST), PerfectlyAble

>
> >> <j...@kol.co.nz> wrote:

>
> >> :

>
> >> >I have a basis for right and wrong that you cannot
> >> >refute, you'd be dead if it weren't true. But I
> >> >am clearly not dead by not believing in God.

>
> >> Go to a fundy Muslim country, and you may change your tune, mate.

>
> >Like I'm really going to measure myself by that standard.

>
> Can you say: non-sequitur?


Not believing in God has never killed anyone.
 
On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 20:31:48 -0800 (PST), PerfectlyAble
<jrhw@kol.co.nz> wrote:

>On Feb 2, 12:12 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 10:51:50 -0800 (PST), PerfectlyAble
>>
>> <j...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
>> >On Jan 28, 6:14 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 18:37:32 -0800 (PST), PerfectlyAble

>>
>> >> <j...@kol.co.nz> wrote:

>>
>> >> :

>>
>> >> >I have a basis for right and wrong that you cannot
>> >> >refute, you'd be dead if it weren't true. But I
>> >> >am clearly not dead by not believing in God.

>>
>> >> Go to a fundy Muslim country, and you may change your tune, mate.

>>
>> >Like I'm really going to measure myself by that standard.

>>
>> Can you say: non-sequitur?

>
>Not believing in God has never killed anyone.


Once again, history disagrees with you in the most uncertain terms.
If you have never heard of anyone being exectuted for their lack of
belief, then I can only suggest that you have failed history at most
basic level.

It starts with Socrates, and has not ended to this day.
 
On Feb 2, 7:12 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 20:31:48 -0800 (PST), PerfectlyAble
>
>
>
> <j...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
> >On Feb 2, 12:12 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 10:51:50 -0800 (PST), PerfectlyAble

>
> >> <j...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
> >> >On Jan 28, 6:14 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 18:37:32 -0800 (PST), PerfectlyAble

>
> >> >> <j...@kol.co.nz> wrote:

>
> >> >> :

>
> >> >> >I have a basis for right and wrong that you cannot
> >> >> >refute, you'd be dead if it weren't true. But I
> >> >> >am clearly not dead by not believing in God.

>
> >> >> Go to a fundy Muslim country, and you may change your tune, mate.

>
> >> >Like I'm really going to measure myself by that standard.

>
> >> Can you say: non-sequitur?

>
> >Not believing in God has never killed anyone.

>
> Once again, history disagrees with you in the most uncertain terms.
> If you have never heard of anyone being exectuted for their lack of
> belief, then I can only suggest that you have failed history at most
> basic level.
>
> It starts with Socrates, and has not ended to this day.


Look believing and admiting openly to belief are too different
concerns.

As for the global jihad, it has more to do with power
than with God, if they catch a US soldier and can trade
him for weapons they will, just as they will not kill
atheist that hurt their foriegn policy. Duh. Lack
of belief doesn't get you killed, You can still claim
to believe and get out of the way of the inquistion.
 
On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 17:14:37 -0800 (PST), PerfectlyAble
<jrhw@kol.co.nz> wrote:

>On Feb 2, 7:12 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 20:31:48 -0800 (PST), PerfectlyAble
>>
>>
>>
>> <j...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
>> >On Feb 2, 12:12 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 10:51:50 -0800 (PST), PerfectlyAble

>>
>> >> <j...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
>> >> >On Jan 28, 6:14 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> >> >> On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 18:37:32 -0800 (PST), PerfectlyAble

>>
>> >> >> <j...@kol.co.nz> wrote:

>>
>> >> >> :

>>
>> >> >> >I have a basis for right and wrong that you cannot
>> >> >> >refute, you'd be dead if it weren't true. But I
>> >> >> >am clearly not dead by not believing in God.

>>
>> >> >> Go to a fundy Muslim country, and you may change your tune, mate.

>>
>> >> >Like I'm really going to measure myself by that standard.

>>
>> >> Can you say: non-sequitur?

>>
>> >Not believing in God has never killed anyone.

>>
>> Once again, history disagrees with you in the most uncertain terms.
>> If you have never heard of anyone being exectuted for their lack of
>> belief, then I can only suggest that you have failed history at most
>> basic level.
>>
>> It starts with Socrates, and has not ended to this day.

>
>Look believing and admiting openly to belief are too different
>concerns.


Agreed, but utterly irrelevant to your false claim that:
"Not believing in God has never killed anyone".
Or are you somehow suggesting that they were executed solely for their
expression of disbelief?

I take it that you are a philosopher of some sort.

>As for the global jihad, it has more to do with power
>than with God, if they catch a US soldier and can trade
>him for weapons they will, just as they will not kill
>atheist that hurt their foriegn policy. Duh. Lack
>of belief doesn't get you killed, You can still claim
>to believe and get out of the way of the inquistion.


But for those do not believe, and say so, their lack of belief
combined with honesty results in them telling the truth, and therefore
getting killed.

You are being deliberately obtuse.
 
Back
Top