Pages:
Author

Topic: Why do Atheists Hate Religion? - page 33. (Read 901357 times)

legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
December 18, 2018, 02:16:32 AM
C.S. Lewis describes the failure inherent and unavoidable in your approach.

The Poison of Subjectivism by C.S. Lewis
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Lgcd6jvsCFs

The question remains where do you get the objective morality from.  
...
Morality changes over time, whether you like it or not.  


Morality does not change over time whether you see it or not.
...

Hmm, I think you are trolling me.  I see it, I am not sure why you don't.

Is it moral today to...

You see it because you have assumed it. You assume morality is subjective thus you interpret variations in human behavior as spontaneous meaningless variations of that subjectivity rather than an error filled progression towards objective truth.

We could discuss the morality of past times and criminal codes but you have left yourself no grounds to have such a discussion. You deny the existence of the very objective standard that we would need to judge those times.

I have tried to explain the toxicity of your view. I have highlighted how any philosophy that does not accept value as eternal and objective can lead only to ruin. At the very best it takes us to an utter tyranny of the opinion makers over all others. In all probability it takes us somewhere far worse then that.

You cannot see the danger and I appear to lack the eloquence or skill to open your eyes to the reality around you.

Thus our conversation reaches its natural conclusion.
 
legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
December 17, 2018, 02:10:13 PM
C.S. Lewis describes the failure inherent and unavoidable in your approach.

The Poison of Subjectivism by C.S. Lewis
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Lgcd6jvsCFs

The question remains where do you get the objective morality from.  
...
Morality changes over time, whether you like it or not.  


Morality does not change over time whether you see it or not.

The only thing that changes is the vast almost endless distance between moral behavior and average human behavior. This incredible distance can grow marginally smaller or larger based on human actions, behaviors, and development.

Closing our eyes to the distance, denying it exists, or worse pretending that we have already completed the great journey because we "feel" it to be so does not change the objective reality. Such dilusions mearly drives us into a form of blind insanity.

You ask what the source is for this objective morality? From what or who's authority does it spring? I would respond that you have indeed highlighted the critical question. Indeed I further claim that this question is the most important most fundamental question of our existence. It is a question that can only be answered on an individual level. Only then is the answer internalized. Only then does it become reality for you. My answer as an abstract external thing would be of no use to you.
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
December 17, 2018, 11:16:29 AM

Christianity added a bunch of moral codes that you (and any good person, regardless whether they are Christian, Jew or Muslim) would disagree with.  Slavery, killing people for some arbitrary reasons, such as belief/disbelief in a deity, sexual preference, sex etc.

If no religion ever existed, we would have arrived at the same or better moral codes.

Religion hinders not only the scientific progress but a moral one.  Without religion and its arbitrary codes, we would actually think if cutting heads off or stoning people at the edge of town actually does any good.  Religion prevents people from thinking.
When they think critically, they immediately sin.


BTW, what you call a "greater and complete moral code" included slavery, i.e. it was wrong, to begin with.
Traces of Neanderthal DNA in our DNA is a proof of that.


The only slavery Christianity added is, the slavery of having to love your neighbor as yourself... if you wanted to be a true Christian, that is. And more directly, for Christians to love one another as Jesus loved them.

So we see, that you, being anti-Christian, are opposed to love. And you are showing this constantly by the fact that you are trying to tear down the love of Christianity.

Love of others - especially the love of Christ in all people - would improve science way beyond the silly limits that it has imposed on itself because of its love of money. It would bring forth the miracles of healing that science can't perform (and might never be able to perform). It would produce far greater thinking than science can ever induce.

Cool

Just read my previous post before you blast your Christianity on me.

I said: "Many of the moral codes from Christian, Jewish, Hindu or Muslim mythologies I agree with, don't lie, don't kill, be nice to people, love your neighbor etc.  Just because some of the religious codes seem to be reasonable, it does not mean that the rest of them are acceptable."

I disagree with the tenets your cult is based on, not all the moral code that it espouses.

BTW, love means love of gays and other undesirables.  Including Atheists and Evolutionary Biologists who are invalidating your Christian doctrine every day.  How many Christians love Atheists?

How many Christians would elect an Atheist politician?  Look in the mirror before you accuse me of hate of Christians.

I hate the coercive, rigid ideology your cult is based on.  My criticism of it comes out of my love for you and your well (mental) wellbeing.  I have made this very clear.  But you are far too gone in your delusion to see that.

I don't hate your Jesus, just like I don't hate any other fictional characters from other books or movies.


First, let me say that Christians are people. The whole idea of people converting to Christianity is based on people recognizing that they are faulty, and that they desire to do something about it. So, it isn't necessarily good people who become Christians. Often it is the worst of people who become Christians. But, if they remain Christians, they will change for the better.

Your problem with Christians is that you can't seem to distinguish between:
1. Good, sincere Christians;
2. Bad acting Christians, for whatever reasons;
3. People who say that they are Christians, but are really trying to use Christianity for power and personal gain.

It's the same with non-Christians. There are non-Christians in all three groups, as well.

Here is where you are mostly wrong. The word "Christ" is taken from the Greek. It is a Greek translation of the Hebrew word "Messiah." The Hebrew Bible record shows the chain of events that goe back to the Beginning when God created the universe.

In the Garden, following the eating of the forbidden fruit, God walked in the Garden in "the cool of the day." But how can God walk? God is a Spirit? God walked in the form of the Messiah/Christ who transcends all space and time... because He is God as well as man. What does this mean? It means that Christianity was around before non-Christianity.

It also shows something about #3, above. It shows that people who say that they are non-Christians, often are really trying to use non-Christianity for power and personal gain. Often they do this by denying the fact that God exists, and interject into science the cult of evolution/billions-of-years-universe.

You really need to rethink your way of life, before it is too late for you, and you die in your sins.

Cool
legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
December 17, 2018, 10:59:45 AM

If no religion ever existed, we would have arrived at the same or better moral codes.

Religion hinders not only the scientific progress but a moral one.[/b]


This lies at the heart of your error. Your great misperceptions that leads you to false conclusions.

A philosophy that does not accept value as eternal and objective can lead only to ruin.

If you reject this reality from me perhaps a greater mind then I can help you see it. I have probably shared too many of these videos recently but this one is short so I will make it the final one.

C.S. Lewis describes the failure inherent and unavoidable in your approach.

The Poison of Subjectivism by C.S. Lewis
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Lgcd6jvsCFs
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
December 17, 2018, 10:29:19 AM

Christianity added a bunch of moral codes that you (and any good person, regardless whether they are Christian, Jew or Muslim) would disagree with.  Slavery, killing people for some arbitrary reasons, such as belief/disbelief in a deity, sexual preference, sex etc.

If no religion ever existed, we would have arrived at the same or better moral codes.

Religion hinders not only the scientific progress but a moral one.  Without religion and its arbitrary codes, we would actually think if cutting heads off or stoning people at the edge of town actually does any good.  Religion prevents people from thinking.
When they think critically, they immediately sin.


BTW, what you call a "greater and complete moral code" included slavery, i.e. it was wrong, to begin with.
Traces of Neanderthal DNA in our DNA is a proof of that.


The only slavery Christianity added is, the slavery of having to love your neighbor as yourself... if you wanted to be a true Christian, that is. And more directly, for Christians to love one another as Jesus loved them.

So we see, that you, being anti-Christian, are opposed to love. And you are showing this constantly by the fact that you are trying to tear down the love of Christianity.

Love of others - especially the love of Christ in all people - would improve science way beyond the silly limits that it has imposed on itself because of its love of money. It would bring forth the miracles of healing that science can't perform (and might never be able to perform). It would produce far greater thinking than science can ever induce.

Cool
copper member
Activity: 70
Merit: 2
December 17, 2018, 07:29:49 AM
When one loses hope themselves they hold others who still have it with contempt. It's nothing short of jealously.
legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
December 17, 2018, 04:06:18 AM

My comment was about the idea of 'God'.

You want to discuss ethics, ok.  Here we go.

We don't live in a vacuum.  Our moral and ethical stance is largely determined by the society we live in.  My personal feeling of not harming animals (humans included) comes from within.  I cannot bear to see suffering, never mind be the source of it.

Many of the moral codes from Christian, Jewish, Hindu or Muslim mythologies I agree with, don't lie, don't kill, be nice to people, love your neighbor etc.  Just because some of the religious codes seem to be reasonable, it does not mean that the rest of them are acceptable.

BTW, to me, instinct has a completely different meaning than to CW. Lewis.  Not sure why he sexualizes the term.  To me to have an instinct really means to have an intuition to determine the correct course of action in this context.  To him it means some sort of sexual urge to reproduce.   I am not sure if he had children.  He said he does not have an instinct to protect his children.  I don't get it.  I would always protect my children.  If you don't have an instinct to protect your offspring, to me it means that the biology did not select your genes for survival.

As you know, I vehemently reject that any of the religious moral codes have been divinely inspired.  

I would never agree that the stoning of adulterers, gays or atheists is ok, that owning people as slaves is ok, that cutting hands of thieves is ok.  Regardless of the source of such codes, secular or religious.

The point is our morals and ethics are neither completely secular or religious.  Written human history was dominated by religion in one form or the other.  Only in the last century, we tried to introduce new, secular, more progressive values.  I hope you see and acknowledge that progressive values are beneficial and reduce suffering.

If tomorrow a new secular government takes power and declares that discrimination of people is ok, and owning people is ok, I would be against it, no matter which ruling party introduces such laws.


I agree that we don't live in a vacuum. C.S. Lewis correctly argues that such a vacuum is impossible.

I also agree that Christianity did not create a new moral code. The code was already there. As C.S. Lewis so eloquently noted Christianity did not create morals it presupposed their existence and universality. The moral imperative is categorical.

You state that your personal beliefs of of not harming animals (humans included) comes from within. I agree that those feelings come from within but would take that a step further and say that those beliefs are not just your meaningless subjective personal feelings but actually represent an objective fundamental reality.

We should refrain from these things not because any one person or many might be bothered by them but because causing unnecessary pain and suffering in our fellow living creatures is fundamentally wrong.

With regards to "progressive values" they are as is everything a mixed bag. Certainly they are most definitely not uniformly good. The most important point in the video is the conclusion. C.S. Lewis demonstrates clearly that almost all modern systems of ethics are in fact bastardized truncations of a greater and more complete moral code.

One by one various "modern" ethics of the 20th century are exposed for what they are incomplete fragments of a greater whole and ultimately self-contradictory. The inevitable result of embracing one of these fragmentary ethics is a predictable loss of freedom.


legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
December 17, 2018, 03:18:29 AM
Fortunately, that thread shows two kinds of proof for God. One kind is the machine nature of the universe. Machines have makers.

I find it odd your god won't let us prove he exists.  He actually forbids it!

Your god demands we believe him unconditionally, or we burn in hell forever.

Choose another god dude.  Smiley

Hypothetically, Vod what grounding do you think is sufficient to sustain something eternal?

What imaginary pleasure or purpose would not become tedious even torturous after centuries of repetition let alone millennium?

The most compelling and logical vision of Hell that I have read is that it is something we create for ourselves. That Hell is the logical result of grounding ourselves in something insufficient and flawed. A punishment yes but ultimately a self inflicted one.

The following describes this perspective:

Does God Send People To Hell?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tiYf6ITgWbk

Vod
legendary
Activity: 3668
Merit: 3010
Licking my boob since 1970
December 17, 2018, 12:25:54 AM
Fortunately, that thread shows two kinds of proof for God. One kind is the machine nature of the universe. Machines have makers.

I find it odd your god won't let us prove he exists.  He actually forbids it!

Your god demands we believe him unconditionally, or we burn in hell forever.

Choose another god dude.  Smiley
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
December 16, 2018, 06:37:28 PM
If you read the thread, No scientific proof that God exists! you will see that Astargath is simply opposed to the idea of God. God could walk right up to him and give him a $million, or slap him in the face, or heal all his ills, or anything else, and still Astargath wouldn't accept that God exists.

I'm sure Astargath would realize he is dreaming and accept that the one god exists in his mind while he is sleeping.

But he has to wake up sometime, and your particular god probably does not exist - but there is no way to prove either way.  :/

Fortunately, that thread shows two kinds of proof for God. One kind is the machine nature of the universe. Machines have makers.

Cool
legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
December 16, 2018, 05:58:54 PM
That idea was invented and then monetized.  Poor schmucks don't know what hit them.  All they know is that they have to pay respect and pay dearly and often $$$.

Actually af_newbie the reality was always there. What we see in the various ideologies of the day are the bastardization and truncations of that basic reality.  
Some ideologies are more complete or less truncated then others. All, however, represent incomplete edits if you will of an original and complete moral foundation.

I have been familiarizing myself lately with the writings of C.S. Lewis. I was previously unaware of the impressive nature and depth of his writing. Here is an narration of his work that I recommend you watch. It's 30 minutes which I realize is long but it is relevant to our recent discussions. If you find the time to watch it I recommend asking the following question as you do.

How does your own ethical code "Do not harm people or animals" fit into the overall debate discussed in the video?

On Ethics by C.S. Lewis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdos6zUk27Q
Vod
legendary
Activity: 3668
Merit: 3010
Licking my boob since 1970
December 16, 2018, 02:52:08 PM
If you read the thread, No scientific proof that God exists! you will see that Astargath is simply opposed to the idea of God. God could walk right up to him and give him a $million, or slap him in the face, or heal all his ills, or anything else, and still Astargath wouldn't accept that God exists.

I'm sure Astargath would realize he is dreaming and accept that the one god exists in his mind while he is sleeping.

But he has to wake up sometime, and your particular god probably does not exist - but there is no way to prove either way.  :/
Vod
legendary
Activity: 3668
Merit: 3010
Licking my boob since 1970
December 16, 2018, 02:49:10 PM
Actually, the existence of God has been proven.

Obvious lie.  

To prove something you have to test it repeatedly with the same results.

The god you have chosen forbids you to test him in any way.

Your personal religion is all about dishonesty/fraud/pedophilia.  There are many others to choose from.

legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
December 16, 2018, 08:27:51 AM
It's true, the more science discovers, the more ridiculous religions look. We got rid of witches and possessions a long time ago, science proved those things were not real, just like the earth wasn't flat and other ridiculous things that are said in the bible.

If you are going to read my above post. I am now not talking about the god of any type of religion. I am now talking about the god that Einstein believed in, which is more sensible IMO.

I agree, witchcraft are proven by science and basically most of the scientists favors the facts. Ridiculously speaking is that even the greatest scientists believes in a god(not the god by religion) and have already concluded that it is impossible for us humans to prove whether there is or there isn't a being.

Therefore, I consider atheism as no difference with any other type of religion since this type of belief only covers the absence of physical evidences by the god that other religions believed in

If you read the thread, Scientific proof that God exists? - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/scientific-proof-that-god-exists-737322, you will see that Astargath is simply opposed to the idea of God. God could walk right up to him and give him a $million, or slap him in the face, or heal all his ills, or anything else, and still Astargath wouldn't accept that God exists.

Cool
hero member
Activity: 1246
Merit: 588
December 16, 2018, 07:00:08 AM
It's true, the more science discovers, the more ridiculous religions look. We got rid of witches and possessions a long time ago, science proved those things were not real, just like the earth wasn't flat and other ridiculous things that are said in the bible.

If you are going to read my above post. I am now not talking about the god of any type of religion. I am now talking about the god that Einstein believed in, which is more sensible IMO.

I agree, witchcraft are proven by science and basically most of the scientists favors the facts. Ridiculously speaking is that even the greatest scientists believes in a god(not the god by religion) and have already concluded that it is impossible for us humans to prove whether there is or there isn't a being.

Therefore, I consider atheism as no difference with any other type of religion since this type of belief only covers the absence of physical evidences by the god that other religions believed in
hero member
Activity: 1624
Merit: 645
December 16, 2018, 06:15:30 AM
Everyone?

What is your great purpose?

The purpose i have choosed is to help homeless people in my place in my own little ways (its either giving food to them or making them smile)

Quote
Seriously, our purpose is to provide genetic diversity to our species.
ahmm, how about those who doesn't have capabilities to contribute?

Quote
Some of us make significant contributions to arts, science or engineering while others are here to do exactly what you suggested, pass their genes to the next generation.
I agree on this one


Quote
BTW, the idea (feeling) of 'God' changes over time.  The more you know about how the world works the less 'God' ideas you need to fill the gaps in your knowledge.  
Still can't agree with this one Roll Eyes , the more humans discovers something just leads to another looping questions or shall I say a new discoveries would leads us to new mysteries
 
Quote
Eventually, you reach a point where the idea of God becomes ridiculous
Go back to me when  we die and you have proved it.

It's true, the more science discovers, the more ridiculous religions look. We got rid of witches and possessions a long time ago, science proved those things were not real, just like the earth wasn't flat and other ridiculous things that are said in the bible.
hero member
Activity: 1246
Merit: 588
December 15, 2018, 11:51:34 PM
Everyone?

What is your great purpose?

The purpose i have choosed is to help homeless people in my place in my own little ways (its either giving food to them or making them smile)

Quote
Seriously, our purpose is to provide genetic diversity to our species.
ahmm, how about those who doesn't have capabilities to contribute?

Quote
Some of us make significant contributions to arts, science or engineering while others are here to do exactly what you suggested, pass their genes to the next generation.
I agree on this one


Quote
BTW, the idea (feeling) of 'God' changes over time.  The more you know about how the world works the less 'God' ideas you need to fill the gaps in your knowledge.  
Still can't agree with this one Roll Eyes , the more humans discovers something just leads to another looping questions or shall I say a new discoveries would leads us to new mysteries
 
Quote
Eventually, you reach a point where the idea of God becomes ridiculous
Go back to me when  we die and you have proved it.
hero member
Activity: 1246
Merit: 588
December 15, 2018, 10:01:36 PM

I don't care what Einstein believed in. To a certain degree we all believe in all of sorts of ideas even though we can't prove them. They are just ideas, though, can't be proven, at least not now, you have to live in the real world, you can't live your life based on ideas.

Well, that is your idea. Sometimes you have to get the idea in order for you to understand or atleast know the possible mysteries that this world have.

Knowing the ideas doesn't mean you have to live with it. You just need to open those doors. You might have no interest on that aspect but(looking for answers for any mystery is just an amazing thing and a part of the real world). Everyone is here for a great purpose not just because you were injected by your father to your mother
hero member
Activity: 1624
Merit: 645
December 15, 2018, 06:24:35 PM

'' Now if we can relate it to the issue of god's existence and the issue of life's essence is it just a common sense to think that there is a being who created everything makes sense?'' Not necessarily common sense but it's definitely not crazy to think some being could have created us. I personally never rejected that possibility, however, why does it have to be your particular god and not the others? Why any god at all? Why not super intelligent aliens, etc etc.

Well, even I am a Christian, I don't agree to everything that our priests says.

I am now talking about the god that Einstein believes in

pantheistic God of Baruch Spinoza. Which actually makes since.

Sources : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinozism
                 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein

Tho, since I am a Christian i consider this god as the god i believes in

I don't care what Einstein believed in. To a certain degree we all believe in all of sorts of ideas even though we can't prove them. They are just ideas, though, can't be proven, at least not now, you have to live in the real world, you can't live your life based on ideas.

While there are all kinds of things that CAN'T be proven, there are some that can be, and there are some that leave one with a sense of pain even though proving them is not particularly easy.

The Bible and Christianity makes sense.

Cool

A lot of things make sense but are not true.
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
December 15, 2018, 05:25:45 PM

While there are all kinds of things that CAN'T be proven, there are some that can be, and there are some that leave one with a sense of pain even though proving them is not particularly easy.

The Bible and Christianity makes sense.

Cool

Irreducibly complex

People are complex beings. The universe is more complex (except that the soul might be more complex than the universe). Is God complex? Or just different?

Simply:
- This universe will be destroyed someday, and...
- the destruction will destroy the souls along with it, except...
- if a person accepts Jesus salvation.

Cool
Pages:
Jump to: