The Original Messages of Religion

[Clueless Morgan]

Too many exclamation points, and unsubstantiated claims.

Rewrite and resubmit.

Were I to show you would you be able to see past your veil?

Poisoning the well.

Once again you're assuming that no one will listen to you because we're all dogmatically clinging to a position and are simply unwilling to entertain a thoughtfully crafted argument. (Refer to this post for a reminder about the definition of an argument.)

Why not give us the benefit of the doubt and defend your position with evidence and arguments (Again, the definition here...) in support of your position instead of poisoning the well time after time?

You do this a lot, do you realize that?

Expecting others to prove things instead of seeking it for yourself, should I tell you and have you believe me what benefit would that do?

Burden of proof.

As the one asserting the position, you have the philosophical responsibility to provide evidence and arguments (Once again) in defense of your position.

So I'll ask again, since you conveniently didn't respond to my previous post: Are you going to provide a demonstration, or evidence, or arguments for why your original list of virtues are, indeed, all virtues? Or are you going to ignore the question again and continue to assert that we're too close-minded to even waste the explanation on?

Should you not look for the information yourself instead of trusting the word of a stranger?

Should you not defend your own assertions with evidence?

If you had a slight inclination of what is written in the New Testament it talks of a man who sacrificed himself for the salvation of all humanity.

It talks about a guy who was tortured to death because two people who never existed ate a piece of fruit and didn't know it was wrong to do so.

Try again.

In this Hail Mary there is acknowledgment of sin, and therefore acknowledgment that we are not perfect.

So... because some people made up a recitation saying that there was a thing called sin that you needed to be forgiven for, then sin is a real thing?

Does that also mean that because Harry Potter rode on the back of a hippogriff in The Prisoner of Azkaban that hippogriffs are real?

Once again, blind assertions mean nothing. To quote Richard Carrier, "You can't get from blind assertion to irrefutable evidence no matter how hard you try."

You're carrying the burden of proof for your case. Start ponying up.

a famous quote by the Christian prophet/god is to 'love thy neighbor, as you love thyself' another quote is to 'turn the other cheek' this preaches non-violence when confronted with violence, compassion for our fellow men.

Care to hear about how the golden rule didn't originate with Christianity, or religion?

Sextus, the pagan philosopher who lived in the first century B.C. wrote: “Such as you wish your neighbor to be to you, such also be to your neighbor.”

Pythagoras himself wrote: “Even if one is abused one should not defend thyself.” i.e. turn the other cheek

Socrates wrote in 469-399 B.C (Dialogue, the Crido): “We should never take revenge and never hurt anyone even if we have been hurt.”

“Many of the ideas of the Christians have been expressed better - and earlier - by the Greeks who were however modest enough to refrain from saying that their ideas came from a god or a son of god.”
~ Celsus, a 2nd century philosopher

These are all humbling virtues to observe, how could you not know this?

Have you defended your position that they are all humbling virtues to observe?



No.

These are among the most popular of Christian beliefs and virtues its all in their religion the same you fight against and you you could not see it?

Do you understand that just because a religion adopts something positive (like charity) that that is not a reason to defend the religion in the face of all the harm it does?

[Tonus]

a famous quote by the Christian prophet/god is to 'love thy neighbor, as you love thyself' another quote is to 'turn the other cheek' this preaches non-violence when confronted with violence, compassion for our fellow men.

Which is a good way to make sure that people who want to hurt you or take advantage of you can do so without fear of consequence. The golden rule is a platitude that glorifies laziness and timidity. Instead of asking us to consider any situation carefully before acting, we are told to always take a specific course without bothering to take circumstances or intentions into account. A course that puts the needs of another above those of us or our kin without any consideration as to whether or not it is owed or deserved.

Any rule that only works if everyone follows it is doomed to fail, because all you need is one person to decide not to follow it, and he has gained a huge advantage over those who do. There's a reason so few people follow the golden rule, and it's not the reasons given us by religious folk.

[Chad32]

Yeah, the turn the other cheek and give away everything including the shirt off your back only really works if you think the world is going to end in your lifetime. Which Jesus believed.

[Celestine]

Once again you're assuming that no one will listen to you because we're all dogmatically clinging to a position and are simply unwilling to entertain a thoughtfully crafted argument. (Refer to this post for a reminder about the definition of an argument.)

Why not give us the benefit of the doubt and defend your position with evidence and arguments (Again, the definition here...) in support of your position instead of poisoning the well time after time?

You do this a lot, do you realize that?

I believe that arguing shall do nothing to promote an idea where the use of rhetoric would be able to gain more. If I argue, you believe I am worng how then should I make you believe I am right if you already have the predisposition to believing me wrong? Evidence? No more than a mere coincidence you would say. And where it could not possibly be a coincidence you would then say that the evidence must be wrong in some way. Yes I have tried to argue before and it is a tree which bears no fruit.

Burden of proof.

As the one asserting the position, you have the philosophical responsibility to provide evidence and arguments (Once again) in defense of your position.

Yes in an argument that may be the case it is a good thing then that I am arguing.

My quote is meant, that as a critical thinker, it is your job to look things up, you should not have to wait for the house to burn down before realizing there is a fire.

So I'll ask again, since you conveniently didn't respond to my previous post: Are you going to provide a demonstration, or evidence, or arguments for why your original list of virtues are, indeed, all virtues? Or are you going to ignore the question again and continue to assert that we're too close-minded to even waste the explanation on?

Need I prove to you that a rock is indeed a rock? We have defined such traits as virtues amongst ourselves that is why they are called virtues.

If you had a slight inclination of what is written in the New Testament it talks of a man who sacrificed himself for the salvation of all humanity.

It talks about a guy who was tortured to death because two people who never existed ate a piece of fruit and didn't know it was wrong to do so.

Try again.

And the reason for his death was to sacrifice himself for the salvation of all humanity. Why would you try and make it sound differently if not to villainize religion? I worry that you are biased and that your bias is affecting your ability to comprehend what I am writing, and that instead of comprehension it is replaced by aggression.

So... because some people made up a recitation saying that there was a thing called sin that you needed to be forgiven for, then sin is a real thing?

Does that also mean that because Harry Potter rode on the back of a hippogriff in The Prisoner of Azkaban that hippogriffs are real?

Once again, blind assertions mean nothing. To quote Richard Carrier, "You can't get from blind assertion to irrefutable evidence no matter how hard you try."

You're carrying the burden of proof for your case. Start ponying up.

A sin by definition is an offense against religious or moral law. When I said that there was an acknowledgment of sin, it was the acknowledgment that we have done something we view as morally wrong. I never said sin existed, it is simply a word to define an action after all.

Somehow though, you came to the conclusion that I was saying sin existed. I am concerned that you missed the point of that message entirely, and I am concerned that you are not here to view what I have to say objectively or engage in helpful discourse, but rather that you wish to argue with me due to extremism, and conceited reasons.

I have gotten this feeling from you in your other posts as well, and that is why I have not replied to them. Should I see this in future posts I will not respond to them either.

Care to hear about how the golden rule didn't originate with Christianity, or religion?

Sextus, the pagan philosopher who lived in the first century B.C. wrote: “Such as you wish your neighbor to be to you, such also be to your neighbor.”

Pythagoras himself wrote: “Even if one is abused one should not defend thyself.” i.e. turn the other cheek

Socrates wrote in 469-399 B.C (Dialogue, the Crido): “We should never take revenge and never hurt anyone even if we have been hurt.”

“Many of the ideas of the Christians have been expressed better - and earlier - by the Greeks who were however modest enough to refrain from saying that their ideas came from a god or a son of god.”
~ Celsus, a 2nd century philosopher

My that is interesting. It will definitely warrant more research into the philosophy of ethics that do not pertain to religion.

Have you defended your position that they are all humbling virtues to observe?



No.

By pure definition they are a virtue, why then need I defend them? Why would you ask that I defend calling them thus if not out of your own bigotry that I am writing of an association they share with religion?

Do you understand that just because a religion adopts something positive (like charity) that that is not a reason to defend the religion in the face of all the harm it does?

People are the only ones capable of harming others, people are the only ones capable of helping others. The only difference when they harm one another, is the excuse they use to justify the wrong they have done. How does an atheist justify murder, rape, or theft? It is because they are selfish, and there are such selfish people in every nook, and they will use whatever means to justify their actions. And when a person helps another person, and they are religious, you do not say that their religion did good you say the person did good. Why then do you distinguish? Why then do you believe the excuses offered by selfish and violent people?

[ShaMan]

People are the only ones capable of harming others, people are the only ones capable of helping others.

Bravo!!!! No religion or spirituality required

ETA: Originally I posted "Bra-Fucking-Vo" and since I don't usually swear, I have removed the "Fucking" part of my former post. I don't think it's necessary to write the word "Fucking" just to invoke a response, nor do I feel that using the word "Fucking" is necessarily necessary in any sense, hence, I will not use the word "Fucking" in this response.

[Brakeman]

This is the treasure more valuable than ivory, more valuable than an earth filled with gold! Yet you would forsake it?

Original Message of religion..

[Thumpalumpacus]

Were I to show you would you be able to see past your veil? Expecting others to prove things instead of seeking it for yourself, should I tell you and have you believe me what benefit would that do? Should you not look for the information yourself instead of trusting the word of a stranger?

If you really feel that way, why are you posting at all?

I don't agree with your views, that values like courage and wisdom are hidden in religion. Those values are found in people no matter their views.

You're arguing that we're throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Demonstrate you point.

Our father who art in heaven hallowed be thy name, thy kingdom come thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven, give us this day, our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us, and lead us not into tempation, but deliver us from evil. Amen.

In the bold parts this prayer often said by Christians venerates not only a god, but also forgiveness and good morality. If you had a slight inclination of what is written in the New Testament it talks of a man who sacrificed himself for the salvation of all humanity.

Firstly, don't talk down to me. It's insulting and won't be tolerated. This is your only warning regarding that rudeness; you will be subject to it yourself if you repeat it with me.

Secondly, forgiveness -- both extending it and asking for it -- aren't exclusive to Christianity, or even the religious among us.

Hail Mary full of Grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed are thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus. Holy Mary Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death Amen.

In this Hail Mary there is acknowledgment of sin, and therefore acknowledgment that we are not perfect.

That too doesn't require a religious outlook to discover or accept.

In fact one of the main focuses of Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism is to not sin, a famous quote by the Christian prophet/god is to 'love thy neighbor, as you love thyself' another quote is to 'turn the other cheek' this preaches non-violence when confronted with violence, compassion for our fellow men.

Read your New Testament, hotshot:

34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...thew+10:34

These are all humbling virtues to observe, how could you not know this? These are among the most popular of Christian beliefs and virtues its all in their religion the same you fight against and you you could not see it? These are just the ones I remember from when I was a Catholic, I do not know enough of what Muslim or Buddhism to speak for them but on the surface they hold much of the same virtues.

Your assumption that because I didn't agree with you that religion is required to hold those values, I must be ignorant of those values as espoused by the religious is arrogant and condescending. Perhaps if you come overcome your own foibles this conversation would actually be useful, but I'm not hopeful. Those who think they're bringing answers to the unwashed masses are rarely able to listen half as much as they talk.

[The Grand Nudger]

The "tree bears no fruit" because you're shit at "growing fruit". Plain and simple. Don't blame it on the tree, don't blame it on the intended customer. It is your own failing, accept that and go from there. Hell, I don't know, maybe if you worked on your positions things would go differently for you.....revolutionary idea, huh? -Or- you could bitch and moan , it's up to you.

[Celestine]

If you really feel that way, why are you posting at all?

I don't agree with your views, that values like courage and wisdom are hidden in religion. Those values are found in people no matter their views.

You're arguing that we're throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Demonstrate you point.

Firstly, don't talk down to me. It's insulting and won't be tolerated. This is your only warning regarding that rudeness; you will be subject to it yourself if you repeat it with me.

Secondly, forgiveness -- both extending it and asking for it -- aren't exclusive to Christianity, or even the religious among us.

That too doesn't require a religious outlook to discover or accept.

Read your New Testament, hotshot:

34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...thew+10:34

Your assumption that because I didn't agree with you that religion is required to hold those values, I must be ignorant of those values as espoused by the religious is arrogant and condescending. Perhaps if you come overcome your own foibles this conversation would actually be useful, but I'm not hopeful. Those who think they're bringing answers to the unwashed masses are rarely able to listen half as much as they talk.
[/quote]

Reflection, Sacrifice, Charity, Abstinence! Endurance, Compassion, Courage, Wisdom! All wasted! The message lost, what a tragedy! Misplaced by fools replaced by scum!

Sin, Forgiveness! What wonderful concepts if only implemented correctly!

Recitation of these virtues what the world would have become! Wasted on the veneration of deities when the veneration should be of these virtues!

You know now what religion is, this deformed beast of Baal, but you know not what it hides in its ruin!

This is the treasure more valuable than ivory, more valuable than an earth filled with gold! Yet you would forsake it? I think not!

Firstly I am not arguing

Secondly I was not talking down to you, I was assuming that everyone had at least a modest understanding of the New Testament. Those words were not meant to talk down to you but to express my notion (perhaps erroneously) that everyone knew about that part of the New Testament.

Thirdly I never said these require religion rather see my first post, I said the "recitation of these virtues" or their meditation, and then I go on to say that it is wasted on the veneration of gods. When we should be more focused on the virtues themselves.

Four your assumption that I had an assumption that you were somehow ignorant due to your disagreement is wrong. As I never once stated that, if you are confused when I said that it was forsaken, I mean the process of recitation, which almost no atheist holds (from what I've seen) after they lose their faith. Which is why I'm trying to make a secular version of this process, that we could regain the recitation and the frame of mind, something I believe at least, to be potentially beneficial to the improvement of willpower, and if done correctly a vast amount of other things like understanding, and acceptance.

[The Grand Nudger]

Perhaps a component of it's value -to you- is missing it? That would certainly explain why your language always revolves around atheists losing it. Some of us "never had it" - so we suffer no loss, others that did "have it" don't feel any loss.

Get it?