Topic: Religious beliefs on bitcoin - page 25. (Read 22413 times)

Religion as well as science are based in reason. The truth stands out clearly from falsehood.

I want some pepperoni on my Eucharist, please.

Here's an idea. All theists on the internet are unintentional trolls. The magical thing about internet theists is that the universal response to their trollings is an enormous display of fireworks, lasers, blimps, zeppelins, meticulously crafted wonders to treat the eye, carefully rehearsed and choreographed scientific dances erupting unanimously, peer-reviewed. from all sides, earthshakingly, undeniably flawlessly articulated monologues, specifically quoting and assessing with the greatest care, every arguement or point or implication any theisy might allude to.
To which the common theist invariably responds, unblinking, unshaked, dissuaded not in the least, john, 3:16...muh faiths.

The assumption you can only have morals if you are religions is really harsh.

Doesn't this basically translate people (also you!) only act moral because they fear punishment.

So if your god would not threaten you with punishment you would go around murdering, raping, etc.? Certainly not.

Should for the sake of your own argument the assumption not be:

To be a (good) religious person you need strong morals, rather than to have morals you need to be religious?

So where do morals come from? It's called empathy, the capacity to recognize emotions that are being experienced by another being.

And this ability is just hardwired into our brains. Without it our species would not have been able to surfieve in times long before religion. Our empathy / protective instincts even is oversensitive and basically triggered by everything that resembles a human face even the slighted, especially with characteristics of infants (Big eyes compared to the rest of the face), that's why many people like cats and dogs. You see this effect used often to manipulate our feelings, the movie Avatar is a good example.

But well, it basically comes down to this:

A human being is able to imagine the consequences of it's actions for another being, morals are the decision that no being should experience consequences that I deem unpleasant, compared to the actual value of this experience (work for example is unpleasant for many, yet necessary). Also the difference is the case, making someone else a gift, makes us feel good. That's hardwired the same way. I feel good when others feel good because of my actions.

And of course this standards are different for every human, defined by what unpleasant things they deem necessary, I for one am a vegetarian for that reason, which most people evaluate as over extreme.

In the end it comes down to this:

Morals are not obeying a law, whether it is from a government or a religion. Someone that sticks to certain morals just because any other being tells him so is not moral at all, because they just admit they they wouldn't act this way if they where not "being watched"

No.

This has taken a weird twist.

Answered earlier in the thread. The short of it is: evolved social empathy.

So you've chosen #2, that your god is evil. And yet you still follow him. Nice.



Well now you're just descending into fundamentalist pamphlet talk. If his laws are what make morality and he doesn't follow them, then he is immoral. You're just gonna state "god is good" while all evidence points to the contrary? This is just about checkmate it seems.




I'm confused. You're describing relative morality, where sometimes murder is OK. I'm looking for your examples of absolute morality.



The whole use of the word moral is a religious shell game. People use it as a weapon; those with morals know what is right and those without do not. Of course that is complete horseshit.

Your god, if he did exist, would be the most capriciously violent and vengeful being in the universe yet somehow he's great to worship because "might makes right" for you, whether the lich you worship is actually "evil" or not. It doesn't matter if he's a vile bastard to you, and that is twisted. Along your line of reasoning, if inside your mythology Satan had cast God out of Heaven you'd follow Satan just as gladly, as long as people sang songs calling Satan's torture of others "love".

Meanwhile you deem atheists amoral because you believe they don't follow any of the "moral laws" in your book of rules. Again, horseshit. We don't need a book to tell us not to kill people, not to steal from others, etc.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
I was trying to avoid Godwin's law however you've opened the can of worms, not me. Your argument concerning the "danger" of relative moralism with regard to Hitler falls flat. The point of relative morals is NOT "whatever each individual finds right is A-OK", it is that while we each individually need to determine right from wrong in our own loves (personal morals), these will continually be evaluated and adjusted against family (clan) morals, social, government and worldwide morals. And all of these morals continue to evolve worldwide as the various groups employ empathy to hopefully understand one another, groups and cultures.

What we don't need is religion imposing arbitrary and piss-poor "morals" on that system of growth. I mean, your god had the chance to really make the world a wonderful place and his first commandment is the jealous, "don't worship anybody but me, or else!"  Wow... swing and a miss.

Thankfully he followed it up with the ultra-important "no graven images" commandment. Ouch. Strike two.

And the humiliating strike out comes with the third waste of commandment, "don't you dare call me names." By the time he gets to anything of importance we're already not listening to this turkey. As I said earlier, any 10th grader could come up with a better list of commandments, and her list could hardly be less loving and righteous no matter what was on it.



The Code of Hammurabi, which came well before the bible, was carved into stone to preserve it longer. You'd think a god would know that, eh? I love that people claim prophecy and omnipotence for this god and the dude can't even stop his "revelation" for a second to say, "oh yeah, before I forget, papyrus might not be a good idea to record this. Try stone."



There's just no way around it -- anyone who thinks 2 consenting adults pile driving the Hershey highway requires death is quite simply a big juicy turd of a human. It's a completely irrational belief, has zero to do with right or wrong, and is miles away from anything worthy of such a punishment. But what more can we expect from the most immoral book on the planet?



18 If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” 21 Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.

Serious question - Do you mean to say that you have no idea what is right and what is wrong without God to tell you?

If you picked up a puppy you found on the side of the road that had a broken leg would you:

1) Take it to the closest animal hospital/shelter for treatment and adoption.

2) Throw it as far into the woods as you can so it doesn't stink up the road.

3) Stand there praying for a sign for what to do because you have no moral compass without God.

Ethics is the analysis of actions. implications and concequences. Morals are cultural dogma, set in stone. Anone whose morals are unethical is someone I don't trust. If your ethics are amoral, you have a shot at doing good, if they're immoral, you're probably overthinking stuff.

2000 years of End Times. Seems more like Never-End Times.

We already covered this. John was speaking about his own lifetime. Jesus failed to return. Game over. Only modern fundamentalist chrisitians and some assorted other kooks, who have trouble with reading comprehension, have stretched the fabled "second coming" over millennia to be, "Any day now, so stock up your canned goods and gold. We'll show those hell-bound atheists!"

This is an honest question I have had.  Where do atheists get their moral compass from?  Is it based on society around them?  Do the laws of the land dictate what is moral?  Can they change their minds if they feel like it?  Society used to call many things immoral that are now called moral so is it based on the what others say is right or wrong?  Or do they have a "conscience" that tells them what is right and wrong?  If so, where does that conscience come from?  

Why do you think atheists are immoral? Since they call god immoral, it would suggest that they do understand what is moral and what is immoral, even to the point that they believe some of the actions that are attributed to god or some of his commandments are immoral. Atheists are more moral than god.

I thought Jews didn't care about creature comforts and thought they were "goyishe." Jews just want all the money. Not that they spend it on anything but they just want it. Or am I mixing up my stereotypes?

Or perhaps it fits in a plan that you do not see.

Statler & Waldorf are indeed awesome

The ten commandments are the foundation of biblical law and morals, God is not bound by his laws. However, God is also a good God, thus all the laws he created are generally followed by him.

e.g. Thou shalt not murder, athiests will contend that God has "murdered" people, however there is a separation between rightfully sentencing people to death, and a person deciding they want to kill somone.

Considering all athiests are amoral, I am surprised at the many times they call God immoral. It's quite obvious God would be above the law, God did not create the law for himself, but rather for the human race.

Go on then, Hitler thought he was saving the human race by removing the scourge of Judaism.

If you make one copy of anything, I suspect it would not last very long at all. The torah was however beautifully preserved, each scribe would copy from one book to the other one letter at a time, then they would count the letters, and if they were not the same count as the original, they would start over again. Your ratgher simplistic view of the preservation of the torah is very common.

Ironically the answer to the first is in the link you posted.

Such is the moral law, but it certainly not to be executed by random people. Vigilante justice is not biblical, I imagine that the apostles would have ran into homosexuality as they were going through Rome and Greece, I don't think their answer was to kill them.

The bible does not condone stoning "naughty kids".

I will finish the others soon, brb.

Woah woah woah! Are you saying we can hide our thoughts and intentions from god? Awesome!


Doesn't "everyone" include Jews? I would criticize him on assuming that Jews aren't included in the "everyone" group, and that he doesn't think they want their lives improved just like everyone else.

Good for you! The one iron clad way to win every debate is to not debate.

I am a Christian, believe in the Bible and own bitcoins. And as for all the mocking of things I hold dear, I am not going to respond.

Jesus was totally That Guy. Thank God. I want to be That Guy.

Fancy avatar there, ktttn. Roughly translated I get: Taoist, balancing darkness with enlightenment. That's why you see the akashic records as being on neutral ground. I affirm to you, they are not what they seem.

So far so good?

Anyways, whether one believes in biblical prophecies or not, realize that there are a massive number of mystical/channelling groups and cults that people are getting into, usually involving ghosts, angels, gods, aliens, drugs, etc, and amazingly they all present essentially the same exact doomsday message, and it's exactly what the Bible suggests the antichrist would sell the world. "Unite for world peace and purge the absolutists, or { we won't give you free energy | you're going to kill each other | the planetary vibration will stay at a lower density [sic] }." Cite: Ashtar Command, Thrive Movement, Galactic Federation of Light, Zeitgeist, Raelians, Scientology, a thousand others, etc... and AFAIK anyone dabbling in mysticism (though initially considering it an objective pursuit) will find they can hardly object to their statements.

Sadly that message is spreading rapidly through a society that doesn't know any better. Whether you believe it is of spiritual or lunatic origin, the antichrist message works against the libertarian principle far more than the Christian message does.

At any rate, the world is absolutely primed for the fulfilment of end times prophecy, Bitcoin playing an uncredited role. Should the mark system come into effect, it would have to be quite generous but potentially exclusive, as it was with the Romans.

I'm also curious how one might explain how over 2000 years ago anyone could have supposed that the whole progressive world would be primed and ready to unite behind some irreverently charismatic leader who could actually bring world peace?

Can you imagine right now how popular someone like that would become, especially if he had the worship-inducing favor of the global media, hollywood, politicians, even muslims? There would literally be no limit to the damage he could do. Or so he may believe.