(January 8, 2016 at 3:55 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(January 8, 2016 at 11:21 am)MysticKnight Wrote: What religions claim that? I am not aware of any, so perhaps you can inform me which ones make this claim. I understand the poetic exaggeration so I'm not taking it literally. Which religion claimed people can't be empathetic, loving to one another, good to their parents, respecting to one another, have good manners etc, without religious guidance?

Again, you need to learn the difference between what religion claims, and what it actually produces in reality. The kind motifs religions like to claim, in reality can be done without religion. The empathy as religion sells is not set up to be universal, although it does claim that. The empathy religion sets up in reality is tribal and at best "separate but equal" or is fine with others being a pet our house guest. That is empathy for the tribe, not empathy for all of humanity. The love for outsiders as depicted back then is conditional.

The God/s of Abraham are tribal characters because back when all three of those books were written, humans lived in feudal times and back then the mortality rate was much higher and it was extremely important for your own survival to tow the tribal line. So the love of others back then was for the tribe, those three holy books describe very violent revenge to anyone attacking the tribe. The obeying your parents were not because you were seen as an individual, you obeyed your parents because you were their property. 

Those books put you down even before you are born, teach you to assume the worst and only the sky boss can save you from the game he didn't have to set up. He blames you for the conditions he didnt have to put in place. Those books teach you to kill for the tribe. No, that is not the way the religious in the civil west like to view it, but again, those books were not written with our modern values in mind.

Religious people don't claim those things no, but they are totally unaware of how their false perceptions lead to bad actions. "Sin" is the concept that you are a piece of shit and are doomed to fail even before you do anything wrong. 

Robvalue is right. Religion convinces people they are nothing without it. The truth is if you have to live under promise of reward or threat of punishment, that is a very childlike and ignorant form of regulation. It is immoral to treat an adult as if they need a sky parent. As immoral as Kim Jong Un who will treat you well if you obey and "respect him". Doing the right thing is doing it even when nobody is watching and you don't get rewarded.

If someone needs bribes or threats to self regulate, by all means do it. But to expect others who do the same and do so without threats or bribes is vile. I am an adult and I don't need a sky parent watching me every second of my life or bullying me with threats of hell to do the right thing. And I don't need someone to dangle a cookie in front of me either.

Many fundy and mental Christians teach that they should love all humanity, but in practice, we know what they really do. They "love" them by despising, and when they can, by killing those who won't go with the tribe. It wasn't an act of hatred to kill "witches" through the horrifying, agonizing, and disgusting act of burning them at the stake, no - this was a loving kindness, because the complete incineration of the body was believed to be the only way by which they could separate the "demons" which were possessing these poor souls, so that they would still have hope of going on to heaven without the evil spirits still clinging to them.

Hello, theists out there! Did you read the above? Such executions actually happened in history, and yes it was done under the oversight of holy leaders who applied that frightful logic. It's a fine example of what rhetoric can do to a society when it allows itself to be controlled by those who spout it in place of logic based on empirical factors, and it also points out how far from anything good one can go and still be able to support his actions with a holy book which is believed to be perfectly good.

I am of the position nowadays that debating with theists is futile because they believe for emotional reasons.

(January 8, 2016 at 4:34 pm)Evie Wrote: I am of the position nowadays that debating with theists is futile because they believe for emotional reasons.

It is not futile, and actually it is an ongoing requirement to keep religion on a leash. No, not saying everyone has to combat religion, that is a comfort issue. If you are worn out by the repetition  that only means you are worn out by the repetition. But if nobody ever questioned religion the west would not be the more open and more civil society it has become. It still needs to be done as an act of maintenance by enough people. If atheists and even liberal theists never questioned religion we'd still be living in the Dark Ages.

Well I'm just speaking from the experience of spending the first 3 years here as the top poster debating theists. They never have any evidence and when they finally do deconvert it's for their own reasons.

I think the only chance of deconverting a theist is if you make them think it was their idea. If they can't take credit for their deconversion they'll stubbornly stay in denial if they have to.

(January 8, 2016 at 4:34 pm)Evie Wrote: I am of the position nowadays that debating with theists is futile because they believe for emotional reasons.

Well of course that's true, that what they call "belief" is overwhelmingly emotional, and that those who come here to strut around in t-shirts showing the sygil of their tribes are not people who we can reach. But I became an atheist when I began to realize the need to investigate questions I had on the scientific approach to understanding vs. whatever my elders called "seeking god", and it was only when I began to roam web blogs and a few of the older forums that I found enough information to understand how right I was in questioning the latter. Therefore, arguments which were wasted on the theists in question benefited me greatly, and this is why (when I feel like I can stand it) I try to counteract the false arguments of theists here. There may be lurkers looking on whose liberation from the mental bondage of religious ideas we may contribute to, and failing our input when some clown such as AAA opens up a thread they may very well end up walking away confounded by his nonsense. In a way, our being here makes us responsible for occasionally sanitizing the crap which cannot be removed.

In sum, I don't care about converting determined theists, and I don't expect them to change, but they can be instrumental in helping those who are ready to change. But like a large, sharp blade, they are also dangerous when admitted and allowed to run around loose!

(January 8, 2016 at 4:34 pm)Evie Wrote: I am of the position nowadays that debating with theists is futile because they believe for emotional reasons.

It might be possible to demonstrate to someone exactly that. For someone who cares about truth, that would be a revelation of sorts.

(January 8, 2016 at 3:55 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(January 8, 2016 at 11:21 am)MysticKnight Wrote: What religions claim that? I am not aware of any, so perhaps you can inform me which ones make this claim. I understand the poetic exaggeration so I'm not taking it literally. Which religion claimed people can't be empathetic, loving to one another, good to their parents, respecting to one another, have good manners etc, without religious guidance?

Again, you need to learn the difference between what religion claims, and what it actually produces in reality. The kind motifs religions like to claim, in reality can be done without religion. The empathy as religion sells is not set up to be universal, although it does claim that. The empathy religion sets up in reality is tribal and at best "separate but equal" or is fine with others being a pet our house guest. That is empathy for the tribe, not empathy for all of humanity. The love for outsiders as depicted back then is conditional.

The God/s of Abraham are tribal characters because back when all three of those books were written, humans lived in feudal times and back then the mortality rate was much higher and it was extremely important for your own survival to tow the tribal line. So the love of others back then was for the tribe, those three holy books describe very violent revenge to anyone attacking the tribe. The obeying your parents were not because you were seen as an individual, you obeyed your parents because you were their property. 

Those books put you down even before you are born, teach you to assume the worst and only the sky boss can save you from the game he didn't have to set up. He blames you for the conditions he didnt have to put in place. Those books teach you to kill for the tribe. No, that is not the way the religious in the civil west like to view it, but again, those books were not written with our modern values in mind.

Religious people don't claim those things no, but they are totally unaware of how their false perceptions lead to bad actions. "Sin" is the concept that you are a piece of shit and are doomed to fail even before you do anything wrong. 

Robvalue is right. Religion convinces people they are nothing without it. The truth is if you have to live under promise of reward or threat of punishment, that is a very childlike and ignorant form of regulation. It is immoral to treat an adult as if they need a sky parent. As immoral as Kim Jong Un who will treat you well if you obey and "respect him". Doing the right thing is doing it even when nobody is watching and you don't get rewarded.

If someone needs bribes or threats to self regulate, by all means do it. But to expect others who do the same and do so without threats or bribes is vile. I am an adult and I don't need a sky parent watching me every second of my life or bullying me with threats of hell to do the right thing. And I don't need someone to dangle a cookie in front of me either.

Following what is right within your existence is beneficial to All existence, unless you seek reward.

Any, truly faithful to the One Creator GOD will not act out of greed, as they despise it.

Different times indeed called for different law. And if the law was wholly interpreted and documented without fault then there would have never been a need for the New covenant. Even that though, was intentionally misinterpreted by those who raised to power by force at that time(wholly against the truth of scriptures).

The next testament, or rather universal understanding of the will of GOD without the twisted manipulations of greedy, power hungry man secretly rooted in sin, is indeed needed. And will come. Atheist are not excluded, but rather needed in a way I think. They can grasp universal altruism more readily than most religious. They can also, through honest introspection, begin to grasp the concept of not only the conscience based around what you want, but the selfless conscience. These things, over time with perseverance, I think, will help many. Stepping out of the cycle that society(man) has made for us is also key.

I think many atheist easily have the potential to grasp and attain such things, and as such, perhaps learn of other things for the sake of profitable existence for all(and by profitable I mean like well-being, not money, or greed in any way)

Sorry may be ranting.

Peace

2¢

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

(January 8, 2016 at 4:29 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote:

(January 8, 2016 at 3:55 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Again, you need to learn the difference between what religion claims, and what it actually produces in reality. The kind motifs religions like to claim, in reality can be done without religion. The empathy as religion sells is not set up to be universal, although it does claim that. The empathy religion sets up in reality is tribal and at best "separate but equal" or is fine with others being a pet our house guest. That is empathy for the tribe, not empathy for all of humanity. The love for outsiders as depicted back then is conditional.

The God/s of Abraham are tribal characters because back when all three of those books were written, humans lived in feudal times and back then the mortality rate was much higher and it was extremely important for your own survival to tow the tribal line. So the love of others back then was for the tribe, those three holy books describe very violent revenge to anyone attacking the tribe. The obeying your parents were not because you were seen as an individual, you obeyed your parents because you were their property. 

Those books put you down even before you are born, teach you to assume the worst and only the sky boss can save you from the game he didn't have to set up. He blames you for the conditions he didnt have to put in place. Those books teach you to kill for the tribe. No, that is not the way the religious in the civil west like to view it, but again, those books were not written with our modern values in mind.

Religious people don't claim those things no, but they are totally unaware of how their false perceptions lead to bad actions. "Sin" is the concept that you are a piece of shit and are doomed to fail even before you do anything wrong. 

Robvalue is right. Religion convinces people they are nothing without it. The truth is if you have to live under promise of reward or threat of punishment, that is a very childlike and ignorant form of regulation. It is immoral to treat an adult as if they need a sky parent. As immoral as Kim Jong Un who will treat you well if you obey and "respect him". Doing the right thing is doing it even when nobody is watching and you don't get rewarded.

If someone needs bribes or threats to self regulate, by all means do it. But to expect others who do the same and do so without threats or bribes is vile. I am an adult and I don't need a sky parent watching me every second of my life or bullying me with threats of hell to do the right thing. And I don't need someone to dangle a cookie in front of me either.

Many fundy and mental Christians teach that they should love all humanity, but in practice, we know what they really do. They "love" them by despising, and when they can, by killing those who won't go with the tribe. It wasn't an act of hatred to kill "witches" through the horrifying, agonizing, and disgusting act of burning them at the stake, no - this was a loving kindness, because the complete incineration of the body was believed to be the only way by which they could separate the "demons" which were possessing these poor souls, so that they would still have hope of going on to heaven without the evil spirits still clinging to them.

Hello, theists out there! Did you read the above? Such executions actually happened in history, and yes it was done under the oversight of holy leaders who applied that frightful logic. It's a fine example of what rhetoric can do to a society when it allows itself to be controlled by those who spout it in place of logic based on empirical factors, and it also points out how far from anything good one can go and still be able to support his actions with a holy book which is believed to be perfectly good.

Please understand that the misdirection and atrocities that resulted were because of manipulation by the ancient Roman Catholic church, and even before.

All things happen for a reason. I think those things in history are to be lessons, similar to what you are saying. The lesson isn't to abolish the freedom to practice religion freely, but that man is not God, and that hierarchy is flawed. Utter equality, equal value per human life, and a high general respect for all life is important.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

(January 8, 2016 at 5:13 pm)Evie Wrote: Well I'm just speaking from the experience of spending the first 3 years here as the top poster debating theists. They never have any evidence and when they finally do deconvert it's for their own reasons.

I think the only chance of deconverting a theist is if you make them think it was their idea. If they can't take credit for their deconversion they'll stubbornly stay in denial if they have to.

Deception is proof of flaw of character and direction

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

(January 8, 2016 at 5:20 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote:

(January 8, 2016 at 4:34 pm)Evie Wrote: I am of the position nowadays that debating with theists is futile because they believe for emotional reasons.

Well of course that's true, that what they call "belief" is overwhelmingly emotional, and that those who come here to strut around in t-shirts showing the sygil of their tribes are not people who we can reach. But I became an atheist when I began to realize the need to investigate questions I had on the scientific approach to understanding vs. whatever my elders called "seeking god", and it was only when I began to roam web blogs and a few of the older forums that I found enough information to understand how right I was in questioning the latter. Therefore, arguments which were wasted on the theists in question benefited me greatly, and this is why (when I feel like I can stand it) I try to counteract the false arguments of theists here. There may be lurkers looking on whose liberation from the mental bondage of religious ideas we may contribute to, and failing our input when some clown such as AAA opens up a thread they may very well end up walking away confounded by his nonsense. In a way, our being here makes us responsible for occasionally sanitizing the crap which cannot be removed.

In sum, I don't care about converting determined theists, and I don't expect them to change, but they can be instrumental in helping those who are ready to change. But like a large, sharp blade, they are also dangerous when admitted and allowed to run around loose!

There is no tribe over others.

There are twelve tribes. They are comprised of all mankind.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.