GC Wrote:To forget is to forgive. In the name of benevolence and kindness, who or what sets the standard for these, if there is no true standard then they are just concepts and if they are concepts then their definitions only depend on each individual. Maybe that's why there is a lack of integrity in the world today, no one wants an absolute standard to anything, it's like do what feels right to you and screw everything/body else. Today, it's do not apply your standard to me, I have the one that works best for me, you do as you desire and I'll do as I desire and to hell with the rest of the world. That is a lousy way for people to think and live but they do and yes I'll include some christians in that. Without a true standard this is the world we have and it will get much worse.

Hell, this is the best post you have made to me since..ever. I agree that to forget is also in a sense to forgive, but forgiveness doesnt require forgetting. I also agree that there is very little, if any, universal standard for such things. I will say that benevolence is goodwill, charity, and kindness. Sure, morals are merely personal opinions, which is why I said that I BELEIVE in benevolence. My personal opinion is that benevolence benefits society. Benevolence doesnt use "grey words" like "good". Charity can be measured. Personally, I think your standard of morality is heavily weighed down in myths and , quite frankly, bullshit.

Its one thing to say "Jesus cured the sick". To me I would be like; "Hey, Jesus is an alright guy". Then I read the book and it says he cured the sick using spit. An obvious lie.

---

Quote:Almost sounds like you agree with the Bible except you have no standard for benevolence. I agree with what you state except I would leave out in the name of benevolence.

hmmm..maybe I was laying it on thick. Perhaps I should have said "kindness for the sake of kindness"

My biggest thing now is greed vs. charity.. both can be physically measured and their effects are notable

---

(July 11, 2011 at 3:35 am)thebigfudge Wrote: That however is not very likely to happen, But the emphasis is on YOU( person making the claim) To prove it. Until then please keep the condescension to a minimum.

Regards.
The Big Fudge

umm..is that smiley face avatar drawn with doo doo?

---

(July 11, 2011 at 1:24 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(July 11, 2011 at 10:52 am)Godschild Wrote: From a deist point of view what is the standard for benevolence?

---

I don't understand your question. Can you rephrase?

I turn the question back around to GC, what is YOUR standard for benevolence? Jesus? The man who cured people not for the sake of kindness, but to get people to worship him? Who insisted that his folowers abandon their family? Who performs a few miracle healings and then ties strings to his acts of kindess that everyone should worship him or he will toss them into eternal flaming torture?

That isnt benevolence. That would be the same thing as a Christian offering me help to fix my flat tire, but only if I say that I love Jesus. That isnt charity. Charity has no strings attached. Jesus tied CABLES to his charity work, and loaded them down with bricks of guilt and shame upon those who truly needed it. The story of Jesus flat out SUCKS as a standard for charity.

---

Its the same as forgiveness. Forgiveness has no strings attached to it and it is given as a gift.

If your god and Jesus actually want to forgive people, then they would do it with no strings attached. But they dont do they? They add on a list of demands one must meet to gain this forgiveness, and they arent pety. Devoting your entire life to these gods, living your life the way they want you to, etc..etc... and what you are supposed to be forgiven for is quite ludicrous considering that fact that said gods supposedly created everything.

I see no charity or forgivness in the bible... I see a man who cuts you, talks down to you because you are bleeding, and then demands that you worship him and devote your entire life to him in order for him to give you a bandaid.

Reverendjeremiah, I like your last post a lot. The monotheistic God to me is the devil. Or the monotheistic and all revealed religions were someone else does thinking for you is inspired by the devil.

Thanks

Inspired by the devil? Seriously wtf?

(July 17, 2011 at 4:17 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Inspired by the devil? Seriously wtf?

Im sure he meant for the context to be that the bible God seems more like a devil than the very devil in their mythology.

To address the question in the OP. "What does god deserve?"
(No matter which god or goddess one cares to refer to with the question)

Atheists!

GC Wrote:To forget is to forgive. In the name of benevolence and kindness, who or what sets the standard for these, if there is no true standard then they are just concepts and if they are concepts then their definitions only depend on each individual. Maybe that's why there is a lack of integrity in the world today, no one wants an absolute standard to anything, it's like do what feels right to you and screw everything/body else. Today, it's do not apply your standard to me, I have the one that works best for me, you do as you desire and I'll do as I desire and to hell with the rest of the world. That is a lousy way for people to think and live but they do and yes I'll include some christians in that. Without a true standard this is the world we have and it will get much worse.

I would prefer we set our own standards. I give much greater respect to another who is moral and decent and kind because they want to be, rather than because a book told them to be or they will be punished. It is much more sincere.

And even Christendom, with all its members, cannot even agree on which version of the Bible is the correct "standard" to use, and none of them interprets that standard the same way. I much prefer a person who follows a standard of ethics or morals derived from within rather than one set down in Leviticus or Philemon.

James.

(July 17, 2011 at 7:44 pm)Anymouse Wrote:
I would prefer we set our own standards. I give much greater respect to another who is moral and decent and kind because they want to be, rather than because a book told them to be or they will be punished. It is much more sincere.

And even Christendom, with all its members, cannot even agree on which version of the Bible is the correct "standard" to use, and none of them interprets that standard the same way. I much prefer a person who follows a standard of ethics or morals derived from within rather than one set down in Leviticus or Philemon.

James.

Without a standard for moral and decent who is to say who or what is moral and decent and how would you know that a person that acts moral and decent by their own standard does not have another agenda for their goal that is outside their so called standard.

(July 17, 2011 at 5:14 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote:

(July 17, 2011 at 4:17 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Inspired by the devil? Seriously wtf?

Im sure he meant for the context to be that the bible God seems more like a devil than the very devil in their mythology.

Look, I have personal beliefs and they are that there is a God and that there are evil spiritual beings. I am a deist, similar to those English deists who believed in more than most of todays deists who are a bit more sceptical. So I called those beings/ being the devil.

I actually believe that the revealed religions have a litle bit of inspiration coming from those beings. However maybe its just my schizophrenia that made me believe in those beings. Like I believe that Jesus if he really existed was a schizhophrenic who was right about some things but wrong about many, hence Dawkins t shirt atheist for Jesus.

I understand that my beliefs could be a bit crazy for you but that's what they are at the moment. I believe what I believe.

You can give comments to what I have said and I am more than happy to consider your point of view. If I was to say something else to what I am saying I would be a liar. Either way, atheists are a great bunch because you reject nonsensical, cruel and contradicting scriptures and that makes you a better person.

I totally understand your views. I mean we both reject revealed religions, only I believe in my own beliefs. And the God I believe in loves you as much as he loves me and Gods child and everyone else wich is infinitelly.

I said before and I will say it again as a reminder and that's that I believe in evil spiritual beings because of the dreams that I had while psychotic. I mean I was tormented in my dreams and I would sense the presence of great evil and I interpret those experiences the way they feel.

So if those beings exist than there could be w a God who created them but acording to my logic revealed religions are false. It's all in your intuition,the knowledge of right and wrong.
Now these are my beliefs and if anyone responds to this post I will respectfully consider your arguments if you disagree. Although I find it hard to respect revealed religions.

Thanks

(July 18, 2011 at 2:40 am)Pel Wrote:

---

Look, I have personal beliefs and they are that there is a God and that there are evil spiritual beings. I am a deist, similar to those English deists who believed in more than most of todays deists who are a bit more sceptical. So I called those beings/ being the devil.

I actually believe that the revealed religions have a litle bit of inspiration coming from those beings. However maybe its just my schizophrenia that made me believe in those beings. Like I believe that Jesus if he really existed was a schizhophrenic who was right about some things but wrong about many, hence Dawkins t shirt atheist for Jesus.

I understand that my beliefs could be a bit crazy for you but that's what they are at the moment. I believe what I believe.

You can give comments to what I have said and I am more than happy to consider your point of view. If I was to say something else to what I am saying I would be a liar. Either way, atheists are a great bunch because you reject nonsensical, cruel and contradicting scriptures and that makes you a better person.

I totally understand your views. I mean we both reject revealed religions, only I believe in my own beliefs. And the God I believe in loves you as much as he loves me and Gods child and everyone else wich is infinitelly.

I said before and I will say it again as a reminder and that's that I believe in evil spiritual beings because of the dreams that I had while psychotic. I mean I was tormented in my dreams and I would sense the presence of great evil and I interpret those experiences the way they feel.

So if those beings exist than there could be w a God who created them but acording to my logic revealed religions are false. It's all in your intuition,the knowledge of right and wrong.
Now these are my beliefs and if anyone responds to this post I will respectfully consider your arguments if you disagree. Although I find it hard to respect revealed religions.

Thanks

---

Godschild Wrote:Without a standard for moral and decent who is to say who or what is moral and decent and how would you know that a person that acts moral and decent by their own standard does not have another agenda for their goal that is outside their so called standard.

I have written this so many times, I should save it as a file so I can simply CTRL-C, CTRL-V it into a message. Yet it is never answered: why are there moral people who yet do not have nor need either a religion or religious text?

So GC, do you follow the standards of the OT Leviticus on how to kill the heathens in your midst, or the NT standards on women keeping silent, abandoning your family to follow God or the NT Philemon standard on returning slaves to their masters? Or do you cherry-pick which scriptural standards you will follow? And you failed to mention which standard model of the Bible you use as your standard. Or has the Bible been revised and updated for the times? (Nope, still using the ol' abridged version of the KJV with four hundred year old English few people understand anymore.) If it is a standard, it must be followed. That is the nature of a standard.

If there were no written standard, and you did not like my behaviour, you would not associate with me, and you would tell your friends and family why. If my behaviour continued to be reprehensible, I would soon find myself with no friends. There is a standard right there, everyone agrees pretty much with it, and it does not need to be written down to be followed: that people treat others with the same respect they want. Respect must be earned, it cannot be commanded by a book.

"I believe what I believe" (from Pel's quote above) is a variant of the logical fallacy "agree to disagree." It is a logical fallacy because on the face of the statement it presupposes that both arguments are of equal worth, when two differing opinions rarely are. Morals are morals: good does not derive from a book or an outside force; good derives from a desire to do good, nothing else. Doing good because God or a book tells you you must is simply covering your six. Such behaviour is neither good nor moral: it is fear.

And intuition does not require a deity to understand the difference between immoral and moral behaviour, nor right and wrong.

This has been discussed before, by me even. We can presume that I do not wish to be stolen from by my neighbours. Therefore, if I wish to keep my stuff, it behooves me not to take theirs.

Likewise, I do not wish to be killed. If I kill, it becomes the paramount interest of the entire village to kill me, before I can kill another. These simple truths predate religion. However, one can codify them into a set of Commandments, then the original reason they were obeyed is lost in the mist of time, and people then only follow the moral code because they are told to, not because the want to. Religion removes moral behaviour. It does not promote it.

If I operate a business, I wish to make a profit. If I do that by cheating my customers, soon I will have no customers. It behooves me to not cheat my customers.

I don't covet my neighbour's wife (I really don't), because I don't want him coveting mine (and I don't think she believes she is a piece of property to be coveted and possessed, anyway. You'll have to ask her though.)

Charity, goodness, justice, honour, loyalty, love, altruism: these and many other "good" qualities are found in all societies. They transcend all religions.

These ideas are universal: they are found in virtually every society on Earth. They are also incorporated into most of the major religious works. This leaves the Christian in a bit of a spot:
1] He can admit that these universal tenets are found in most major religious works, and then has to demonstrate why his religious work is superior to the Koran, or the Vedas, or the Torah, and why those others are false when they contain the same universal truths.
2] He can admit these universal tenets were handed down to all faiths. This admission is the same as admitting there are more deities than the Christian God. He then has to demonstrate why the Christian God is superior to other gods, without resorting to "the Bible says so." That statement can be reduced to "a=a." It does not address b, c, or d.
3] He can admit these universal tenets transcend religious texts: they are human traits, not divine ones. That leaves one in the position of "what is God for, then?"

Not that it is a particular advantage or special pass to my own faith, but we have no religious text. No scripture. Our religion is molded by us, for our needs. It is a rare religion in the world that uses no religious text, and a threat to established religions, because we have a moral and good society without religious texts.

The only exception to this is when you throw religion into the mix. My neighbours are all Christians. They see a pagan in their midst (me). What they would never consider if it were just the activities of two people (snubs, insults, threats) because they do not want to be treated the same in their turn, suddenly becomes acceptable, because their scripture tells them to smite the heathen. What they would never do in their own name, they will do in the name of their God.

Because of such attitudes, I have moved to protect my skin before. I left Virginia Beach because of pickets at my house and threats to my (then) Christian wife and my (then) infant son, because I ran a Wiccan bulletin board service on a Commodore 64. I left Oklahoma over discrimination. I probably will move again someday. Not because I am evil, but because a millenias-old book says I am evil, not to be tolerated, driven from their midst, destroyed if nothing else works. Millions have died because of this moral philosophy. People die even in first world countries like the USA today because of it.

My new neighbour cannot even fathom Wicca. She at least understands my wife's atheism: to her she is simply evil. She has to be converted at all costs.

The Inquisition was not a perversion of Christianity, it was an expression of Christianity. If the game is for your immortal soul, what is a little suffering on Earth to make you repent by comparison to the everlasting fires of Hell?

Tell me again, which is moral: doing what a book tells you to do (a written standard that is inflexible and countenances evil acts by good people and threatens everlasting torment), or doing good because you want to and you want to be treated that way?

The Golden Rule is corrupt: if I am a masochist, should I beat you because that is how I want to be treated?

Several atheists here have variations of the Wiccan Rede in their taglines, though I doubt it is an endorsement of my own faith. Rather, it is a logical premise: If you harm none, do what you wish.

James

Epic post James!