I'm tired of your preaching - even if you just got here I see no difference from any of the rest of your ilk.

The presupposition that your silly superstitions are true and must therefore be treated with respect is simply too much to ask. If you can't defend it but only parrot back the bullshit in your bible expect no quarter.

---

Quote: I am saying that there is a libary full of historical texts, that identify and verify Christ, but because of the libary's location ALL of those works are dismissed as religious texts. [/code]

I know what you are saying, Drippy. They are religious texts and there is absolutely nothing to support them. That is, and remains, your problem.

Where is the evidence.

We have nothing but self-serving writings by believers and, as I am sure you can tell by now, those are not worth a fart in a hurricane.

(June 3, 2013 at 1:40 pm)Drich Wrote:

(June 3, 2013 at 1:15 pm)The Germans are coming Wrote: Honestly, I dont care.

Now that the vidieo has been shown to be fatally flawed few people will, till the next person posts it.

Quote: 1Thess 5:21 Question all things and hold on to what is good.

That is in your sig.

Ok I find your sig complete irony since it is basically telling you to cherry pick. But funny how cherry picking is exactly what that book is telling you to do.

Now watch as I quote someone basically saying the same thing WITHOUT who did not use a bible to do so "Question with boldness even the existence of a god, for if there be one surely he would pay more homage to reason than to that of blindfolded fear" Care to guess who said that?

Or I could point out Socrates in "The Apology" who ALSO said questioning was good.

Plato's Allegory of the Cave also is metaphor to question. Although his flaw was that he didn't take into account needing a form of quality control such as a "control group" because he couldn't have back then known how scientifically important control groups were.

But all your bible quote is teaching you to do is cherry pick when the answers people object to allows you to avoid facing contradictions.

So the irony I see in your sig is exactly why you can reject some of the bible when what you really need to do is reject ALL OF IT.

That quote is exactly why you commit the mental gymnastics to justify clinging to that ancient comic book.

"Empty tomb" the story in the bible, but so are lots of fantastic and outright absurd stories such as plants being created as adult plants witout photosynthesis, the moon being a separate source of light, women being made from a man's rib.

So when we poke holes in the second most important super hero in that book which is supposed to be God too, I think it would be wise of you to scrap such a Swiss cheese piece of garbage and accept ALL of it as fiction.

But you are not going to have it both ways. Christianity did not invent the idea of questioning our evolution causes that. Your sig is why you can ignore WHY that video allows you to pretend to throw us a bone, then still justify clinging to a book of myth.

"I am not like the others" yep yes you are, just merely a watered down version.

In fact your sig probably is the most insidious verse because it allows you to ignore all the bad shit in that book precisely because it tells you to ignore it, which is not exactly what produces good results when we question.

The problem with your book of myth is that is is arbitrary and whatever you claim Christians have a patient on we know evolution proves that people outside your gang can and do the same type of good things all the time. That sig allows you to play self rightious and pretend you have the inside track on human morality.

We don't need your book and you don't either, you just think you do.

(June 3, 2013 at 4:45 pm)Pandas United Wrote: Is this what people are like on this forum? If so, I think I may have made a mistake in coming here. I'm looking for substantive dialogue, not these cheap shot remarks that add nothing to the conversation.

It's probably just a matter of not being privy to the history of the posters involved. Substantive dialogue will likely follow when something with substance is offered up. No promises....lol, of course.

(June 3, 2013 at 4:52 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I'm tired of your preaching - even if you just got here I see no difference from any of the rest of your ilk.

The presupposition that your silly superstitions are true and must therefore be treated with respect is simply too much to ask. If you can't defend it but only parrot back the bullshit in your bible expect no quarter.

What presupposition? I sought out God as an agnostic and came to find Him in Jesus. And to say that it is "simply too much to ask" for respectful and substantive dialogue tells me a lot about your approach to argumentation and the environment of these forums overall.

How disappointing.

(June 3, 2013 at 5:26 pm)Pandas United Wrote:

(June 3, 2013 at 4:52 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I'm tired of your preaching - even if you just got here I see no difference from any of the rest of your ilk.

The presupposition that your silly superstitions are true and must therefore be treated with respect is simply too much to ask. If you can't defend it but only parrot back the bullshit in your bible expect no quarter.

What presupposition? I sought out God as an agnostic and came to find Him in Jesus. And to say that it is "simply too much to ask" for respectful and substantive dialogue tells me a lot about your approach to argumentation and the environment of these forums overall.

How disappointing.

No you simply clung to words that sounded pretty. Since when did any polythistic religion or monothesitic religion invent the concepts of human compassion or cruelty?

Don't you find it odd that this all powerful god could "poof" all this into existence but cant heal an amputee?

And if a theist is willing to admit people of other religions can be good and atheists also can be good, THAT is proof that we don't need to believe your book of fiction anymore than you need the Reg Vedas to live your life.

You can find all sorts of compassionate stories in ALL religions, and quotes of characters or real people who quote their culture's superstitions, but that does not make the club valid or the god/s they worship real things.

I can find morals in Sar Wars and Dr Sues too, but I accept fiction as fiction.

For any good compassionate thing you claim Jesus said, you can also find quotes where he tells you to abandon or even put to death your own family. You can also find compassionate things in Buddhism and in the Koran.

Liking pretty stories does not justify claims of magic, nor does it constitute morality which has always been a product of evolution and nature and has never been dependent on one religion. Religon takes what we naturally do, both good and bad, and teaches us as a species to cherry pick so we can justify absurdity and cruelty to others.

Humans do good because the cooperation part of evolution works. But gang mentality ALSO works. And a good way to mask a gang as lagit is to claim magical divine morality.

(June 3, 2013 at 5:26 pm)Pandas United Wrote: What presupposition? I sought out God as an agnostic and came to find Him in Jesus. And to say that it is "simply too much to ask" for respectful and substantive dialogue tells me a lot about your approach to argumentation and the environment of these forums overall.

How disappointing.

Typical, a christian joining just to be offended. If you had some substantive argumentation you wouldn't be clinging to pride or such futile offended feelings.

Can't say I'm disapointed... rather typical, like I said

Oh boy.. I'm gonna need to do a play-by-play on this one.

Quote:No you simply clung to words that sounded pretty. Since when did any polythistic religion or monothesitic religion invent the concepts of human compassion or cruelty?

Don't you find it odd that this all powerful god could "poof" all this into existence but cant heal an amputee?

Not sure what this has to do with anything stated before.

Quote:And if a theist is willing to admit people of other religions can be good and atheists also can be good, THAT is proof that we don't need to believe your book of fiction anymore than you need the Reg Vedas to live your life.

Not in the slightest. Just because atheists have the ability to do good does not mean they can tell me why I should do good. Or even what "good" is.

Quote:I can find morals in S[t]ar Wars and Dr Sues too, but I accept fiction as fiction.

Great. Me too.

Quote:For any good compassionate thing you claim Jesus said, you can also find quotes where he tells you to abandon or even put to death your own family.

Like what? If your talking about Luke 14:26, then I am deeply saddened that you would take that verse as complete literal.

Quote:Liking pretty stories does not justify claims of magic, nor does it constitute morality which has always been a product of evolution and nature and has never been dependent on one religion.

If morality and ethics is simply a byproduct of survival benefits inhabited by natural selection then why should I follow it?

Quote:Religon takes what we naturally do, both good and bad, and teaches us as a species to cherry pick so we can justify absurdity and cruelty to others.

You're right. "Love your neighbor as yourself" is an absurd law that was only established to justify cruelty.

Quote:Humans do good because the cooperation part of evolution works. But gang mentality ALSO works. And a good way to mask a gang as lagit is to claim magical divine morality.

Once again, if morality is only the byproduct of the evolutionary process, then why should I be moral? It's only a survival mechanism that was adapted into the human psyche. There's no objective basis for thinking I need to be a moral person.

---

(June 3, 2013 at 5:36 pm)LastPoet Wrote:

(June 3, 2013 at 5:26 pm)Pandas United Wrote: What presupposition? I sought out God as an agnostic and came to find Him in Jesus. And to say that it is "simply too much to ask" for respectful and substantive dialogue tells me a lot about your approach to argumentation and the environment of these forums overall.

How disappointing.

Typical, a christian joining just to be offended. If you had some substantive argumentation you wouldn't be clinging to pride or such futile offended feelings.

Can't say I'm disapointed... rather typical, like I said

Nope, not offended. Just puzzled by the amount of slander and ridicule on this board rather then dialogue that is intellectually stimulating.

Nice try though...

(June 3, 2013 at 5:56 pm)Pandas United Wrote: Once again, if morality is only the byproduct of the evolutionary process, then why should I be moral? It's only a survival mechanism that was adapted into the human psyche. There's no objective basis for thinking I need to be a moral person.

Did it occur to you that you answered that question yourself, immediately after having asked it (albiet only in a modified way - you may want to be a moral person because-)? But why would it matter, no one -should- have to provide you with any explanation for this at all. On the other hand, I think you and I might both agree that anyone who does offer up an explanation ought to at least try to make sure it's an accurate one, eh? Whether or not morality evolved as a survival mechanism (which appears to be the case) that won't tell us that we -should be- moral creatures - at least not without invoking a fallacy.

(June 3, 2013 at 6:01 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(June 3, 2013 at 5:56 pm)Pandas United Wrote: Once again, if morality is only the byproduct of the evolutionary process, then why should I be moral? It's only a survival mechanism that was adapted into the human psyche. There's no objective basis for thinking I need to be a moral person.

Did it occur to you that you answered that question yourself, immediately after having asked it (albiet only in a modified way - you may want to be a moral person because-)? But why would it matter, no one -should- have to provide you with any explanation for this at all. On the other hand, I think you and I might both agree that anyone who does offer up an explanation ought to at least try to make sure it's an accurate one, eh? Whether or not morality evolved as a survival mechanism (which appears to be the case) that won't tell us that we -should be- moral creatures - at least not without invoking a fallacy.

Morality has clear evolutionary benefits in the sense of community and promoting the well-being of the species. This is fairly well known in up-to-date evolutionary biology. My point is, as conscious beings that can make our own decisions and that realize the genesis and reasoning for morals, there's no reason for me to be a moral creature without an objective compass for morality. As someone that realizes "morality is probably just a byproduct of evolution," obligations for following those morals get thrown out the window.

(June 3, 2013 at 6:17 pm)Pandas United Wrote: Morality has clear evolutionary benefits in the sense of community and promoting the well-being of the species. This is fairly well known in up-to-date evolutionary biology.

Did you need more reason than this strong suggestion? Even more bluntly - did you require any reasons at all?

Quote:My point is, as conscious beings that can make our own decisions and that realize the genesis and reasoning for morals, there's no reason for me to be a moral creature without an objective compass for morality.

You just gave reasons....all without any "objective moral compass" involved. Do you want community, general well-being?

Quote: As someone that realizes "morality is probably just a byproduct of evolution," obligations for following those morals get thrown out the window.

Why? We don't have to toe the line because we evolved with it, but we may decide to toe the line for those things you mentioned above. We might also decide that some aspects of our evolved morality are out of whack with our current goals or situation. I guess I'm just not seeing the problem?