The Original Messages of Religion

[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?