Atheist Group Buys Billboards Honoring Darwin

[MCWAY]

If people worked more days of the week, the economy would be better off I think. I work on sunday. It certainly won't make a big difference, but it will do something.

But, the issue isn't when they work. It's what happening to those wages from that work. It's being spent foolishly, hoarded, and/or stolen.

Stalin's soviet union was an oppressive dictatorship. It can't be used as any decent example of an atheist society. Try using some progressive American towns or Northern European countries.

"Good and Evil" can be measured in countless other ways beside "God says so!". In fact, religious DEONTOLOGY is the most infantile ethical philosophy in existence. People who say that they would go psycho if God didn't exist are unstable.

So are people who think that they can do what they want, because they answer to no one. Plus, it would help if you actually named one of those "countless" ways to measure good and evil. That seems to be a difficulty with a number of atheists: they're so busy, shouting to the moutains what their standard of morality ISN'T, that they never identify what their standard of morality actually IS.

I don't think I would define circumstantial atheists as true Atheists. SOme people are say they are Atheist to rebel, to 'fit in', because they think it is cool, etc. These people aren't really genuine Atheists and often still hold beliefs in a deity of some sort.

Yet, you've done that with Christians. You mentioned the supposedly lower crime rates of atheists. If a thief, murderer, or any other criminal identified himself as a Christian, you (and other atheists) would use that to prop your claim about crime rates. Nevermind the fact that the criminal may only be identifying himself as, say, a Baptist, because his parents are Baptist.

There are certainly Atheists who become believers, but essentially all of the examples I have heard of this are due to emotional break downs. Genuine atheists (Like perhaps C.S. Lewis was) only become believers because there is a massive emotional need to do so, and coincidentally C.S. Lewis contended that his conversion was not 'rational' but 'emotional'.

That's a "chicken vs. egg" argument. An emotional breakdown may be the reason that person became an atheist, in the first place (You don't think it's easy to crack, when you get violated by someone you trust, or lose your mom/dad when you're young?).

Conversions, one way or the other, can be both rational and emotional. Take the atheism' flavor-of-the-month "prophet", Richard Dawkins. Though it's downplayed big-time, the fact that he was molested by his parishioner undoubtedly played a significant role in his conversion to atheism.

My definition of immoral would be what is bad for society, or human beings, or generally sentient beings.

A number of people would say that, too. But, what you tend to forget is that disobey the word of God has CONTINUOUSLY been shown to be bad for society. Take a good look at the Ten Commandments. We've seen those get disregarded, and a plethora of the ills of mankind have resulted from that.

I don't see how Atheism means "man worshiping himself". There are certainly examples of humankind admiring itself, but I'm far too critical of mankind to ever worship it. Far too critical.

Who do you assign as the highest sentient being in existence? Whose word do you follow? On whose doctrine and will does your life find its purpose?

For some reason, I don't think it's an elephant, chimpanzee, or wilderbeast.

[liberalismo]

But, the issue isn't when they work. It's what happening to those wages from that work. It's being spent foolishly, hoarded, and/or stolen.

So are people who think that they can do what they want, because they answer to no one. Plus, it would help if you actually named one of those "countless" ways to measure good and evil. That seems to be a difficulty with a number of atheists: they're so busy, shouting to the moutains what their standard of morality ISN'T, that they never identify what their standard of morality actually IS.


Yet, you've done that with Christians. You mentioned the supposedly lower crime rates of atheists. If a thief, murderer, or any other criminal identified himself as a Christian, you (and other atheists) would use that to prop your claim about crime rates. Nevermind the fact that the criminal may only be identifying himself as, say, a Baptist, because his parents are Baptist.


That's a "chicken vs. egg" argument. An emotional breakdown may be the reason that person became an atheist, in the first place (You don't think it's easy to crack, when you get violated by someone you trust, or lose your mom/dad when you're young?).

Conversions, one way or the other, can be both rational and emotional. Take the atheism' flavor-of-the-month "prophet", Richard Dawkins. Though it's downplayed big-time, the fact that he was molested by his parishioner undoubtedly played a significant role in his conversion to atheism.


A number of people would say that, too. But, what you tend to forget is that disobey the word of God has CONTINUOUSLY been shown to be bad for society. Take a good look at the Ten Commandments. We've seen those get disregarded, and a plethora of the ills of mankind have resulted from that.

Who do you assign as the highest sentient being in existence? Whose word do you follow? On whose doctrine and will does your life find its purpose?

For some reason, I don't think it's an elephant, chimpanzee, or wilderbeast.

Foolishly spent or not, it all goes into the economy.


I've never met or even heard of anyone who said they committed a crime because God doesn't exist. THis sort of thing just doesn't happen. This is why the massive majority of the prison population in the U.S. are religious. My standard of morality is common sense and pragmatism.


I don't know how you would define a "Christian" if not by those who identify as Christians. Even the historic definition of "Christian" has thousands of variations and many object that the church itself or modern Christian doctrines aren't what Jesus himself would have supported. Atheist, however, simply means one who doesn't believe in God.


Someone who consciously becomes an Atheist due to some traumatic period in their life aren't genuine atheists because they generally have reminant beliefs in some sort of Deity and often relapse back to Christians later in life. It's often an issue of revenge or rebellion, not an issue of well thought out philosophical or religious objections.

Dawkins himself has said that he was briefly "fondled" by someone at his school when he was a child, and he has stated that this did not affect him at all, he just shrugged it off as some perverted person and mostly forgot about it. He said that all of the stuff drilled into him about burning in hell if he sinned was much more traumatic.


Tell me how disobeying the so called "word of god" has been shown to be bad for society. I'll in fact make a list of how society often disobeys God, and I want you to provide your own detailed proof of how each has been bad for society...


1. NOT stoning disobedient children to death.

2. NOT keeping slaves.

3. Worshiping other Gods.

4. Using God's name in vein.

5. Coveting our neighbors house.

6. Eating shellfish.

7. Not believing in God.



WHo I assign as the "highest sentient being in existence"? You'd have to define "highest". If you define it literally, I guess a giraffe or maybe an Eagle. If it's mentally, surely a human. If it's physically..Maybe a Rhino. The term "highest" is HIGHLY ambiguous.

Who's word do I follow? I take clues from MANY people including scientists and philosophers, etc. But in the end I personally am the only one who chooses where my life goes and what purpose it has.

[MCWAY]

Foolishly spent or not, it all goes into the economy.

The economic woes of this country have nothing to do with people not working on Sunday. I don't recall any rash of Sunday-working people, during the Clinton administration, when certain liberals felt the economy was swell.

People lose their houses (among other things), because they overspend, buying things (including the house itself) that they can't afford.

I've never met or even heard of anyone who said they committed a crime because God doesn't exist. THis sort of thing just doesn't happen. This is why the massive majority of the prison population in the U.S. are religious. My standard of morality is common sense and pragmatism.

I've never met anyone who said he committed a crime, because he believes in God. Their professed faith had nothing to do with the crimes they committed. In fact, the crimes were VIOLATIONS of the very faith they professed to have.

If "common sense" were indeed that, we wouldn't have many of the issues we have today. Your standard of morality is your own humanistic philosophy, as is the case with a number of atheists, which is why I've maintained that atheism (for all practical purposes) worshipping himself. You certainly aren't going by the moral standards of geese or antelopes.

I don't know how you would define a "Christian" if not by those who identify as Christians. Even the historic definition of "Christian" has thousands of variations and many object that the church itself or modern Christian doctrines aren't what Jesus himself would have supported. Atheist, however, simply means one who doesn't believe in God.

Not in practice, many atheists go far beyond simple disbelief; they are quite antagonistic towards religion and its followers. "Anti-theists" would be a much more fitting term.

Someone who consciously becomes an Atheist due to some traumatic period in their life aren't genuine atheists because they generally have reminant beliefs in some sort of Deity and often relapse back to Christians later in life. It's often an issue of revenge or rebellion, not an issue of well thought out philosophical or religious objections.

Now, you're doing the very thing that you accuse Christians of doing: picking and choosing who's "genuine" and who's not, with regards to atheism.

Dawkins himself has said that he was briefly "fondled" by someone at his school when he was a child, and he has stated that this did not affect him at all, he just shrugged it off as some perverted person and mostly forgot about it. He said that all of the stuff drilled into him about burning in hell if he sinned was much more traumatic.

You don't shrug off being "fondled" by people, espeically when it's done by someone of the cloth. There are people who are emotionally jacked up TO THIS DAY, because some priest or pastor (folks who ought to know better, and whom the victim knows ought to know better) messed with them. The molesting may not have been the lone or even the driving factor. But, it played a part, nonetheless.

Even with the whole "hell" stuff, that just solidifies my point. That (and the molestation) helped drive Dawkins to atheism. And, I'm sure you aren't question whether his disbelief, simply because emotional trauma helped take him there.

Tell me how disobeying the so called "word of god" has been shown to be bad for society. I'll in fact make a list of how society often disobeys God, and I want you to provide your own detailed proof of how each has been bad for society...

No problem. Look at commandments 5-10. In case you forgot them, they are:

V. Honor your father and mother.
VI. You shall not murder.
VII. You shall not commit adultery.
VIII. You shall not steal.
IX. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
X. You shall not covet anything that is your neighbor's.

Look at our society today, and you'll see people violating those commandments, along with all the trouble and heartache doing such has caused mankind.

1. NOT stoning disobedient children to death.

Children weren't stoned to death. The verse to which you're referring (which is in Deut. 21, I think) refers to a rebellious son. The context of that passage in no way, shape, or form implies or states that this son is a child. In fact, he's called a glutton and a drunkard, traits often associated with MEN (men, by ancient Israel's standards, were males at least 20 years old).

2. NOT keeping slaves.

Notwithstanding the issue regarding how "slavery" described in Israel's time was vastly different from chattel slavery (i.e. blacks in America and England), slavery was NEVER A MANDATE or a COMMANDMENT in Scripture. And mistreatement of those who were in servitude was NOT to be tolerated (i.e. no kidnapping them from foreign lands, no raping the women, no beating them to death, allowing them to become parts of Israel's society in good standing, etc.).

3. Worshiping other Gods.

Hmmmmmm......people who worshipped other gods (i.e. Dagon, Molech, Baal) often engaged in perverse sexual practices (destroying families and spreading disease) and sacrificing people (self-explanatory). When they grew tired of hacking up their own, they'd snatch people from other lands to put on the altar. It ain't that hard for people to act a fool, if the one(s) they worshipped (be it another deity or themselves, in the case of atheism) deem their behavior to be fine and dandy.

4. Using God's name in vein.

The word is "vain", not "vein". A fundamental disregard for the name of God can (and often does) lead to disregard for His statues and laws.

5. Coveting our neighbors house.

When people covet the property of others (and it's not just limited to a house; it could be a car, a wife, a job, or just about anything), it breeds jealousy, which can lead to theft, deception (i.e. that "bearing of false witness"), or even murder. If you're willing to do something wrong to obtain what your neighbor has, whether it's his actual stuff or something similar to it, that is covetousness.

6. Eating shellfish.

Shellfish are among the list of unclean foods, which (SURPRISE) can lead to health problems. Shellfish, by and large, are scavengers the "pigs" of the sea. And, last time I checked, botulism often comes from consuming clams and oysters. Most health-related diseases can be traced to frequent consumption of unclean meats.

7. Not believing in God.

See numbers 3 and 4.

WHo I assign as the "highest sentient being in existence"? You'd have to define "highest". If you define it literally, I guess a giraffe or maybe an Eagle. If it's mentally, surely a human. If it's physically..Maybe a Rhino. The term "highest" is HIGHLY ambiguous.

"Sentient" would imply mental faculties. And, it's safe to say that when you think of "sentient being", you ain't thinking about rhinos or giraffes.

Who's word do I follow? I take clues from MANY people including scientists and philosophers, etc. But in the end I personally am the only one who chooses where my life goes and what purpose it has.

In other words, it's man "worshipping" man, whether it's a scientist, a philosopher, or yourself. So again, why is there such a problem with my assessing atheism as man (as in mankind, by the way) worshipping himself?

[liberalismo]

The economic woes of this country have nothing to do with people not working on Sunday. I don't recall any rash of Sunday-working people, during the Clinton administration, when certain liberals felt the economy was swell.

People lose their houses (among other things), because they overspend, buying things (including the house itself) that they can't afford.

I've never met anyone who said he committed a crime, because he believes in God. Their professed faith had nothing to do with the crimes they committed. In fact, the crimes were VIOLATIONS of the very faith they professed to have.

If "common sense" were indeed that, we wouldn't have many of the issues we have today. Your standard of morality is your own humanistic philosophy, as is the case with a number of atheists, which is why I've maintained that atheism (for all practical purposes) worshipping himself. You certainly aren't going by the moral standards of geese or antelopes.


Not in practice, many atheists go far beyond simple disbelief; they are quite antagonistic towards religion and its followers. "Anti-theists" would be a much more fitting term.

Now, you're doing the very thing that you accuse Christians of doing: picking and choosing who's "genuine" and who's not, with regards to atheism.

You don't shrug off being "fondled" by people, espeically when it's done by someone of the cloth. There are people who are emotionally jacked up TO THIS DAY, because some priest or pastor (folks who ought to know better, and whom the victim knows ought to know better) messed with them. The molesting may not have been the lone or even the driving factor. But, it played a part, nonetheless.

Even with the whole "hell" stuff, that just solidifies my point. That (and the molestation) helped drive Dawkins to atheism. And, I'm sure you aren't question whether his disbelief, simply because emotional trauma helped take him there.

No problem. Look at commandments 5-10. In case you forgot them, they are:

V. Honor your father and mother.
VI. You shall not murder.
VII. You shall not commit adultery.
VIII. You shall not steal.
IX. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
X. You shall not covet anything that is your neighbor's.

Look at our society today, and you'll see people violating those commandments, along with all the trouble and heartache doing such has caused mankind.

Children weren't stoned to death. The verse to which you're referring (which is in Deut. 21, I think) refers to a rebellious son. The context of that passage in no way, shape, or form implies or states that this son is a child. In fact, he's called a glutton and a drunkard, traits often associated with MEN (men, by ancient Israel's standards, were males at least 20 years old).

Notwithstanding the issue regarding how "slavery" described in Israel's time was vastly different from chattel slavery (i.e. blacks in America and England), slavery was NEVER A MANDATE or a COMMANDMENT in Scripture. And mistreatement of those who were in servitude was NOT to be tolerated (i.e. no kidnapping them from foreign lands, no raping the women, no beating them to death, allowing them to become parts of Israel's society in good standing, etc.).

Hmmmmmm......people who worshipped other gods (i.e. Dagon, Molech, Baal) often engaged in perverse sexual practices (destroying families and spreading disease) and sacrificing people (self-explanatory). When they grew tired of hacking up their own, they'd snatch people from other lands to put on the altar. It ain't that hard for people to act a fool, if the one(s) they worshipped (be it another deity or themselves, in the case of atheism) deem their behavior to be fine and dandy.


The word is "vain", not "vein". A fundamental disregard for the name of God can (and often does) lead to disregard for His statues and laws.


When people covet the property of others (and it's not just limited to a house; it could be a car, a wife, a job, or just about anything), it breeds jealousy, which can lead to theft, deception (i.e. that "bearing of false witness"), or even murder. If you're willing to do something wrong to obtain what your neighbor has, whether it's his actual stuff or something similar to it, that is covetousness.

Shellfish are among the list of unclean foods, which (SURPRISE) can lead to health problems. Shellfish, by and large, are scavengers the "pigs" of the sea. And, last time I checked, botulism often comes from consuming clams and oysters. Most health-related diseases can be traced to frequent consumption of unclean meats.


See numbers 3 and 4.


"Sentient" would imply mental faculties. And, it's safe to say that when you think of "sentient being", you ain't thinking about rhinos or giraffes.

In other words, it's man "worshipping" man, whether it's a scientist, a philosopher, or yourself. So again, why is there such a problem with my assessing atheism as man (as in mankind, by the way) worshipping himself?

I think you're oversimplifying the problem with our economy, but I don't want to get into it in this thread.



You've never met someone who committed a crime BECAUSE of their belief in God?
Maybe you haven't...But EVERYONE has heard of them. The most notable example: Muslim terrorists!!! Only a fool would say that their beliefs have nothing to do with their crimes. Their beliefs CREATED the motivation to commit the crimes!

Common sense is my basis for morality, but most of the issues are here because so many people LACK COMMON SENSE.


Atheism simply means not believing in a God, but most Atheists have other beliefs. I myself am very antagonistic towards religion.


The last commandments are common sense and EVERY society supports them in one way or another. It's universally human to be against murder, stealing and to support respecting one's parents. People in every society, however, disobey these norms for various reasons. This isn't a Bible thing, it's a human thing.


1. I'm talking about "All who curse their father or mother must be put to death.  They are guilty of a capital offense.  (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)"
So address this one, but also EVEN IF I was referring to Deut. 21, HOW WOULD society be better if we stoned drunkards and gluttons to death? Haha.

2. Slavery is Slavery, regardless of its motivations or institutions. Someone who is taken against their will to work for someone else is a slave, and this is immoral. The bible even makes rules for how many lashes slaves can get! But you never answered the question. Tell me how keeping slaves, even the type of the bible, would make society better.

3. People today worship MANY gods including Thor, Brahman, etc. How would society be better if they worshiped only your God and not these? Explain that.

4. Yes, My mistake.."Vain". The commandment about using God's name in vain has nothing to do with disregard for the name, but rather using it in circumstances when it is not necessary (specifically in chants and what not). How would society be better if people did not use God's name (which they never ever use BTW, since "God" is a title and not the name.) in chants and rituals (like perhaps pledge of allegiances etc.) How would this equate to disregard for his rules?

5. Explain to me (and prove) how and that coveting someone's property leads to jealousy, and then prove that this can lead to theft or deception or murder. I covet what a lot of different people have, but I would NEVER resort to stealing it let alone murder. Prove that there is a real connection of cause and effect that could occur in any significant number of people who covet others property or other things.

6. Negative health effects from shellfish are VERY rare and the most common issues occur in allergic reactions (which are rare) or overconsumption (which occurs in ANY food). Please tell me how the world would be better if no one ate Shellfish. Explain this. Explain how other foods (Like peanut butter which people are more allergic to) wouldn't also qualify.

7. I see 3 and 4 but they don't answer the question. How would our society be better if everyone believed in your God.



When I think of sentient beings, I do include Rhinos and giraffes. I'd say that all mammals are sentient. Humans aren't the only animals that can feel, think, and act on their own accord. This has been scientifically proven countless times.

But you didn't answer the question of how you would define "highest".


I don't "worship" anyone. I define "worship" as idolizing, loving unquestioningly or to excess or venerating as an idol, or using religious rules or procedures in such veneration.

[OzmO]

You should add "genocide" as part of the word of God.   

[liberalismo]

You should add "genocide" as part of the word of God.   

I'd LOVE to see him explain how Killing witches, homosexuals or atheist or the sons of atheists would make society better! 

[big L dawg]

As a Catholic and a fairly recent atheist convert (about 4-5 years), I feel the need to post this youtube clip.

good vid.

[MCWAY]

I think you're oversimplifying the problem with our economy, but I don't want to get into it in this thread.

You're the one that claimed that our society would somehow be better if people worked on Sunday, instead of observing that day as the Sabbath.

You've never met someone who committed a crime BECAUSE of their belief in God?
Maybe you haven't...But EVERYONE has heard of them. The most notable example: Muslim terrorists!!! Only a fool would say that their beliefs have nothing to do with their crimes. Their beliefs CREATED the motivation to commit the crimes!!

Nope!! I have never met anyone who has comitted a crime because of their belief in God. And, as far as the Muslim terrorists go, their actions are due to tenents of their faith being misused, not to mention that "Allah" the Lord, worshipped by Jews and Christians, are quite different.

Common sense is my basis for morality, but most of the issues are here because so many people LACK COMMON SENSE.

Your basis is that of a humanistic nature. So, again, what's the issue with my claim of atheism as man basically worshipping himself?

Atheism simply means not believing in a God, but most Atheists have other beliefs. I myself am very antagonistic towards religion.

Then, you would fall under that "anti-theist" category.

The last commandments are common sense and EVERY society supports them in one way or another. It's universally human to be against murder, stealing and to support respecting one's parents. People in every society, however, disobey these norms for various reasons. This isn't a Bible thing, it's a human thing.

If that's the case, why is it? It's certainly not due to man's reasoning. As history as shown, man will rationalize comitting such crimes as stealing and murder, even disrespecting his parents, if he feels it's to his own benefit. This supposedly "universally human" item that you deem as "common sense" has a supernatural source.

1. I'm talking about "All who curse their father or mother must be put to death.  They are guilty of a capital offense.  (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)"
So address this one, but also EVEN IF I was referring to Deut. 21, HOW WOULD society be better if we stoned drunkards and gluttons to death? Haha.

Cursing one's father and mother was serious business (far beyond simply saying bad words towards them). We've seen, once again, how this utter lack of respect for parents has lead to the detriment of our society. If someone doesn't respect his parents, chances are he won't respect other authority figures, which can lead to some of these very crimes, against which you speak. As for drunkards, how many people have been killed or maimed due to drunk drivers on our roads? I'm sure the victim's families wouldn't be all that opposed to capital punishment.

Plus, the passage in Deut. 21 implies a general pattern of abhorent behavior, among which drunkenness and gluttony were part of it.

2. Slavery is Slavery, regardless of its motivations or institutions. Someone who is taken against their will to work for someone else is a slave, and this is immoral. The bible even makes rules for how many lashes slaves can get! But you never answered the question. Tell me how keeping slaves, even the type of the bible, would make society better.

One, that wasn't your question. Two, people indentured themselves and their families to avoid starvation and poverty, hence helping that society care for those less fortunate. There was no welfare or child support to help such people.

Three, people (regardless of their socieital rank) based on their behavior (i.e. besmirching a woman's character).

With that said, such was not mandated. Therefore not having them hardly constitutes a violation of Biblical law.

3. People today worship MANY gods including Thor, Brahman, etc. How would society be better if they worshiped only your God and not these? Explain that.

And where are these children of Thor and temples to Brahman? As for society, that brings me back to those lovely humanitarian programs we have in this country to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, help battered women, drug addicts, etc. For some strange reason, the lion's share of them are run by or were originated by CHRISTIAN CHURCHES and organization. You show me a United Thor-ist Hospital or a Brahman homeless shelter and then we can talk.

4. Yes, My mistake.."Vain". The commandment about using God's name in vain has nothing to do with disregard for the name, but rather using it in circumstances when it is not necessary (specifically in chants and what not). How would society be better if people did not use God's name (which they never ever use BTW, since "God" is a title and not the name.) in chants and rituals (like perhaps pledge of allegiances etc.) How would this equate to disregard for his rules?

I explained that earlier.

5. Explain to me (and prove) how and that coveting someone's property leads to jealousy, and then prove that this can lead to theft or deception or murder. I covet what a lot of different people have, but I would NEVER resort to stealing it let alone murder. Prove that there is a real connection of cause and effect that could occur in any significant number of people who covet others property or other things.

Apparently, you don't watch the news. People have been shot over X-Boxes. Inner city kids get jacked over tennis shoes and certain types of sports jackets. A female astronaut drove over 900 miles with an adult diaper, planning to KILL the girlfriend of a guy she likes. We have MILLIONAIRES, bilking people out of their lifesavings (which has helped caused this economic crisis in America) And you're asking how covetousness can lead to theft, deception, and murder.....GIVE ME A BREAK!!!

Did you not just say that "common sense" support the last six commandments (which would include #10 about coveting). One minute you're agreeing that coveting is not a good thing; the next you're asking for "proof".

6. Negative health effects from shellfish are VERY rare and the most common issues occur in allergic reactions (which are rare) or overconsumption (which occurs in ANY food). Please tell me how the world would be better if no one ate Shellfish. Explain this. Explain how other foods (Like peanut butter which people are more allergic to) wouldn't also qualify.

A healthier society is one with fewer diseases, hence less money spend on healthcare and longer life and vitality overall. Part of that is avoiding unclean foods, among which shellfish are a part.

7. I see 3 and 4 but they don't answer the question. How would our society be better if everyone believed in your God.

That's been explained earlier, notwithstanding that this wasn't your original question in the first place.

When I think of sentient beings, I do include Rhinos and giraffes. I'd say that all mammals are sentient. Humans aren't the only animals that can feel, think, and act on their own accord. This has been scientifically proven countless times.

But you didn't answer the question of how you would define "highest".

You again feigned ignorance in this matter. When it comes to the doctrine or philosophy you follow, such is not coming from rhinos and giraffes. And, you certainly don't consult wilderbeast, when it comes to how you pattern your life.

I don't "worship" anyone. I define "worship" as idolizing, loving unquestioningly or to excess or venerating as an idol, or using religious rules or procedures in such veneration.

Another mistake on your part is the assertion that worship (or any reverence of acknowledgment) of God implies that such is done unquestioned. That is simply not the case. As for idolizing, again check out the way some of your atheist brethren have treated Darwin.

[OzmO]

McWay,

I see don't atheists worshipping anything.  Why is it that you think man must want  or need to worship anything?

[MCWAY]

McWay,

I see don't atheists worshipping anything.  Why is it that you think man must want  or need to worship anything?

For the same reason Liberalismo claims that "we're wired toward magical thinking": Instinctively, man knows that there's a power greater than himself.

[OzmO]

For the same reason Liberalismo claims that "we're wired toward magical thinking": Instinctively, man knows that there's a power greater than himself.

Instinctively a man "thinks" or "believes",  not "knows" there is a power greater then him self.  Atheism, from what i understand, is saying there isn't one discovered or proved yet. In a sense, Atheism is rejecting magical thinking.

[MCWAY]

Instinctively a man "thinks" or "believes",  not "knows" there is a power greater then him self.  Atheism, from what i understand, is saying there isn't one discovered or proved yet. In a sense, Atheism is rejecting magical thinking.

EXACTLY!!! And since they haven't "discovered or proved" it yet, guess who gets deems as the highest being in the universe and is the de factoobject of "worship".........man.

Or as the apostle Paul puts it (in Romans 1:20-23):

"Because although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were they thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image of corruptible man....."

[big L dawg]

Instinctively a man "thinks" or "believes",  not "knows" there is a power greater then him self.  Atheism, from what i understand, is saying there isn't one discovered or proved yet. In a sense, Atheism is rejecting magical thinking.

exactly...you can believe there is a god but you don't know there is a god.

[OzmO]

EXACTLY!!! And since they haven't "discovered or proved" it yet, guess who gets deems as the highest being in the universe and is the de factoobject of "worship".........man.

Or as the apostle Paul puts it (in Romans 1:20-23):

"Because although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were they thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image of corruptible man....."

Why does the "highest" being in the universe need to be worshiped? 

I know many smarter, faster, stronger, wealthier, etc .. than me, I don't worship them.

This is what I'm talking about, it's where the flaw is in your logic, or its just how you think, in that you think there always needs to be something to worship. Atheists worships nothing.  Maybe it's a need to have a higher power to look to.  I dunno what it is.  But to say Atheists worship man is silly. 

 

[liberalismo]

You're the one that claimed that our society would somehow be better if people worked on Sunday, instead of observing that day as the Sabbath.

Nope!! I have never met anyone who has comitted a crime because of their belief in God. And, as far as the Muslim terrorists go, their actions are due

Your basis is that of a humanistic nature. So, again, what's the issue with my claim of atheism as man basically worshipping himself?

Then, you would fall under that "anti-theist" category.

If that's the case, why is it? It's certainly not due to man's reasoning. As history as shown, man will rationalize comitting such crimes as stealing and murder, even disrespecting his parents, if he feels it's to his own benefit. This supposedly "universally human" item that you deem as "common sense" has a supernatural source.

Cursing one's father and mother was serious business (far beyond simply saying bad words towards them). We've seen, once again, how this utter lack of respect for parents has lead to the detriment of our society. If someone doesn't respect his parents, chances are he won't respect other authority figures, which can lead to some of these very crimes, against which you speak. As for drunkards, how many people have been killed or maimed due to drunk drivers on our roads? I'm sure the victim's families wouldn't be all that opposed to corporate punishment.

Plus, the passage in Deut. 21 implies a general pattern of abhorent behavior, among which drunkenness and gluttony were part of it.

One, that wasn't your question. Two, people indentured themselves and their families to avoid starvation and poverty, hence helping that society care for those less fortunate. There was no welfare or child support to help such people.

Three, people (regardless of their socieital rank) based on their behavior (i.e. besmirching a woman's character).

With that said, such was not mandated. Therefore not having them hardly constitutes a violation of Biblical law.



And where are these children of Thor and temples to Brahman? As for society, that brings me back to those lovely humanitarian programs we have in this country to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, help battered women, drug addicts, etc. For some strange reason, the lion's share of them are run by or were originated by CHRISTIAN CHURCHES and organization. You show me a United Thor-ist Hospital or a Brahman homeless shelter and then we can talk.

I explained that earlier.

Apparently, you don't watch the news. People have been shot over X-Boxes. Inner city kids get jacked over tennis shoes and certain types of sports jackets. A female astronaut drove over 900 miles with an adult diaper, planning to KILL the girlfriend of a guy she likes. We have MILLIONAIRES, bilking people out of their lifesavings (which has helped caused this economic crisis in America) And you're asking how covetousness can lead to theft, deception, and murder.....GIVE ME A BREAK!!!

Did you not just say that "common sense" support the last six commandments (which would include #10 about coveting). One minute you're agreeing that coveting is not a good thing; the next you're asking for "proof".

A healthier society is one with fewer diseases, hence less money spend on healthcare and longer life and vitality overall. Part of that is avoiding unclean foods, among which shellfish are a part.

That's been explained earlier, notwithstanding that this wasn't your original question in the first place.


You again feigned ignorance in this matter. When it comes to the doctrine or philosophy you follow, such is not coming from rhinos and giraffes. And, you certainly don't consult wilderbeast, when it comes to how you pattern your life.


Another mistake on your part is the assertion that worship (or any reverence of acknowledgment) of God implies that such is done unquestioned. That is simply not the case. As for idolizing, again check out the way some of your atheist brethren have treated Darwin.

Muslim terrorists actions are due....What? It's due to their belief in God. If they didn't believe in God, Why in the hell would they fly planes into buildings shouting "God willing" hoping to go to heaven? Haha.


I don't know what you mean by "humanistic nature". I am a human, and my moral beliefs are affected by that...

Humans have similar moral principles because humans are similar. It's an issue of Genetics.



Your view of cursing parents and drunkards is stretching it way too far. I see no connection between disrespecting parents and committing crimes. Can you prove that such a connection exists? Also, Can you JUSTIFY KILLING people who curse their parents? That's what I'm asking.
Drunkards come in all types, and they don't all drink and drive and they don't all kill people. You're generalizing here. But you NEVER ANSWERED THE QUESTION.

HOW WOULD SOCIETY BE BETTER IF WE STONED TO DEATH DRUNKARDS OR GLUTTONS?



Your knowledge of the bible seems to be lacking. There are tons of examples in the Bible where slavery was FORCED upon conquered peoples. Are you really claiming that all slavery in the bible was indentured servitude? The Bible makes rules for slavery, and even specifies that God's people conquer other people and keep them as slaves.



Look on any website dedicated to New-age Paganism.
As far as Brahman goes (Obviously you don't know what Brahman is), Hindu temples are EVERYWHERE. There are a few in my town, I'm sure there are a few in your town as well.
You never answered the question. Let me repeat it.
HOW WOULD SOCIETY BE BETTER IF EVERYONE WORSHIPED YOUR GOD? EXPLAIN.



Sure, There are rare examples of people killing each other over pointless material items, but this is very rare. The VAST MAJORITY of people who who envy other people or desire certain things do not do any harm to them or steal the things they want. It's not even a real issue. People steal and kill for reasons OTHER than envy. Mostly ignorance and mental issues.
I never said that common sense supports coveting specifically, only a few of the last commandments.



AGAIN, you're avoiding the question I am asking and the points I am making. Negative health effects from shellfish are very very rare, and mostly due to allergies. Peanuts have more allergic victims than shellfish, so do you support outlawing Peanut butter?
Fish can cause health issues do to Mercury levels, do you support outlawing fish?
Fastfood can cause health issues, You support outlawing McDonalds?
Coca Cola can cause health issues, You support outlawing Coca Cola?
Alcohol?
Tobacco?
Sugar?
The list goes on and on. TONS of foods are MUCH more dangerous than Shellfish can ever be. Are you a hypocrite or do you also support outlawing ALL foods that have even low levels of danger associated with them? 99% of foods would be outlawed.
You've dug yourself into a deep hole with trying to justify an absurd ancient Hebrew law that never made sense.


My original question was how society would be better if no one did not believe in God. This was never answered.


I have no idea what you're asking about Wildebeests. My philosophy comes from my common sense, and the facts from other people and the world around me.


Any worship of God is done unquestioned, because if it was truly questioned then the worship would cease and the worshiper would move on to more rational pursuits.

[MCWAY]

Muslim terrorists actions are due....What? It's due to their belief in God. If they didn't believe in God, Why in the hell would they fly planes into buildings shouting "God willing" hoping to go to heaven? Haha.


I don't know what you mean by "humanistic nature". I am a human, and my moral beliefs are affected by that...

Humans have similar moral principles because humans are similar. It's an issue of Genetics.

Genes have nothing to do with it. Otherwise, you wouldn't have to TEACH kids moral principles in the first place. For some strange reason, you don't have to teach them to lie, steal, be greedy, be selfish, or to bully people.

Your view of cursing parents and drunkards is stretching it way too far. I see no connection between disrespecting parents and committing crimes. Can you prove that such a connection exists? Also, Can you JUSTIFY KILLING people who curse their parents? That's what I'm asking.
Drunkards come in all types, and they don't all drink and drive and they don't all kill people. You're generalizing here. But you NEVER ANSWERED THE QUESTION.

HOW WOULD SOCIETY BE BETTER IF WE STONED TO DEATH DRUNKARDS OR GLUTTONS?

Again, you either don't watch the news, or you're more in denial than the Israelites were, prior to Moses' arrival. Heck, we have talk shows (Maury, Dr. Phil, etc.) where kids spew profanities at their parents TO THEIR FACE, with no essence of guilt or remorse. Surprise, SURPRISE, these same kids are in gangs, drug dealing, prostitution, having babies while still in middle school, etc.

You think people who don't respect their own parents (the first authority figures with whom they are in contact) are going respect YOU or your family or your property? GET REAL!!

Plus, you missed the point by a country mile. The verse in question refers to rebellious sons, in general, those who put themselves, their families and...SOCIETY, in peril (which is often the case with drunkards). If you don't believe me, try asking the wives and children of alcoholic husbands and fathers.

I certainly wouldn't mind seeing some alcoholics of that ilk get the chair (and neither would many of the victims, whose lives they've ruined).

Your knowledge of the bible seems to be lacking. There are tons of examples in the Bible where slavery was FORCED upon conquered peoples. Are you really claiming that all slavery in the bible was indentured servitude? The Bible makes rules for slavery, and even specifies that God's people conquer other people and keep them as slaves.

The lack of Biblical knowledge seems to be on you. First, I didn't claim that all "slavery" was indentured servitude. Second, slavery was "forced upon conquered people", due to those people attacking Israel unprovoked (the other options being killing them all, to which Ozmo will scream "genocide"; or leaving them to starve to death, to which others will yelp about being inhumane).

Speaking of genocide, don't we hear people whining about that going on in Rwanda and in the Sudan, demanding that something be done about that? Now take that back a few thousands years to races of people performing human sacrifice and perverse sexual rituals (i.e. all those "-ites" in the Old Testament).

Look on any website dedicated to New-age Paganism.
As far as Brahman goes (Obviously you don't know what Brahman is), Hindu temples are EVERYWHERE. There are a few in my town, I'm sure there are a few in your town as well.
You never answered the question. Let me repeat it.
HOW WOULD SOCIETY BE BETTER IF EVERYONE WORSHIPED YOUR GOD? EXPLAIN.

It's time for a re-read on your part:

Asfor society, that brings me back to those lovely humanitarian programs we have in this country to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, help battered women, drug addicts, etc. For some strange reason, the lion's share of them are run by or were originated by CHRISTIAN CHURCHES and organization. You show me a United Thor-ist Hospital or a Brahman homeless shelter and then we can talk.

Last time I checked, society was well-served by these programs, which just happen to be part of the "commission" that Jesus Christ gave to His followers (past and present): Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give sight to the blind, care for the afflicted (widows, orphans, battered women, drug addicts, etc). I've seen plenty of humanitarian programs that do this, VIRTUALLY ALL OF WHICH are run, directly or indirectly, by CHRISTIAN churches and organizations.

Plus, you just admitted that adherence to the Commandments (at least six of them). Enough said.

Sure, There are rare examples of people killing each other over pointless material items, but this is very rare. The VAST MAJORITY of people who who envy other people or desire certain things do not do any harm to them or steal the things they want. It's not even a real issue. People steal and kill for reasons OTHER than envy. Mostly ignorance and mental issues.

When people get car-jacked, robbed at the ATM, shot over X-Boxes and what not, you can count the number of "mental issues" cases on one hand. The thieves are fully aware of what they're doing and why: They want what you got, and if they can't buy it or earn it, they will take it from you BY FORCE. That's not ignorance or having mental issue; that's greed and envy, pure and simple.

Of those who don't commit those crimes, many will resort to spending beyond their means, driving themselves into debt, which can adversely affect themselves and their families. Parents don't spend as much time with their kids, because they're chasing the "almighty" dollar, often to buy things they don't need or could do without, until a later time.

These people, by and large, aren't looney-bin candidates; they're simply greedy and envious. I won't even get into the issues with adultery.

I never said that common sense supports coveting specifically, only a few of the last commandments.

YES, YOU DID!! Your words were, "The last commandments are common sense and EVERY society supports them in one way or another". Those commandments include THE VERY LAST ONE, "Thou (you) shall not covet".

AGAIN, you're avoiding the question I am asking and the points I am making. Negative health effects from shellfish are very very rare, and mostly due to allergies. Peanuts have more allergic victims than shellfish, so do you support outlawing Peanut butter?
Fish can cause health issues do to Mercury levels, do you support outlawing fish?
Fastfood can cause health issues, You support outlawing McDonalds?
Coca Cola can cause health issues, You support outlawing Coca Cola?
Alcohol?
Tobacco?
Sugar?
The list goes on and on. TONS of foods are MUCH more dangerous than Shellfish can ever be. Are you a hypocrite or do you also support outlawing ALL foods that have even low levels of danger associated with them? 99% of foods would be outlawed.

You've dug yourself into a deep hole with trying to justify an absurd ancient Hebrew law that never made sense.

There's nothing absurd about this law, except that it appears to clash with your hankering for clams or lobster. Your sense of rarity is questionable to say the least, as has been shown by your wacky claim of crimes being committed due to "mental issues", instead of envy and covetousness.

My original question was how society would be better if no one did not believe in God. This was never answered.

Another patently false statement, answered earlier in response to your other mini-questions.

I have no idea what you're asking about Wildebeests. My philosophy comes from my common sense, and the facts from other people and the world around me.

Actually, you do have the idea. Your philosophy comes from man, not wilderbeasts or any other creatures. So, the idea that atheism is effectively man worshipping himself is hardly a far-fetched one, as you seen man (not wilderbeast, or any other critter) as the highest sentient being in the world/universe.

Any worship of God is done unquestioned, because if it was truly questioned then the worship would cease and the worshiper would move on to more rational pursuits.

That, of course, is little more than an atheistic opinion, loaded with arrogance yet scant on fact. People have either remained Christians or become such by asking question and seeking answers. A prime example is notorious American atheist, Madalyn Murray O'Hair. It turns out her son, William, is a born-again Christian and a minister. You don't think he questioned the belief in God, before his conversion?

Same goes for Lee Strobel, whose book(s) you've claimed to have read. And I can tell you personally, that I've had a number of questions, regarding the beliefs, with which I was raised. My inquiries and subsequent answers to those inquiries (along with my personal experiences and those of others) are among the reasons that I have REMAINED a believer in God.

On top of that, you’re now qualifying atheists, claiming those who rejected their faith, because of emotional issues (i.e. the loss of a loved one, physical/sexual abuse, financial hardship, etc.) aren’t “genuine” atheists. By that standard, you’d have to DQ people like O’Hair, whose launch into atheism was fueled by the Great Depression’s driving her family into poverty.


Of course, this begs the simple question of why ATHEISTS are honoring Darwin, in the first place. Again, didn’t the flavor-of-the-month Dawkins claim that “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist”?  Why this quest for intellectual fulfillment, if this issue is merely about science ("Praise Charles!!!)?

[big L dawg]

Genes have nothing to do with it. Otherwise, you wouldn't have to TEACH kids moral principles in the first place. For some strange reason, you don't have to teach them to lie, steal, be greedy, be selfish, or to bully people.

Again, you either don't watch the news, or you're more in denial than the Israelites were, prior to Moses' arrival. Heck, we have talk shows (Maury, Dr. Phil, etc.) where kids spew profanities at their parents TO THEIR FACE, with no essence of guilt or remorse. Surprise, SURPRISE, these same kids are in gangs, drug dealing, prostitution, having babies while still in middle school, etc.

You think people who don't respect their own parents are going respect YOU or your family or your property? GET REAL!!

Plus, you missed the point by a country mile. The verse in question refers to rebellious sons, in general, those who put themselves, their families and...SOCIETY, in peril (which is often the case with drunkards). If you don't believe me, try asking the wives and children of alcoholic husbands and fathers.

I certainly wouldn't mind seeing some alcoholics of that ilk get the chair (and neither would many of the victims, whose lives they've ruined).
The lack of Biblical knowledge seems to be on you. First, I didn't claim that all "slavery" was indentured servitude. Second, slavery was "forced upon conquered people", due to those people attacking Israel unprovoked (the other options being killing them all, to which Ozmo will scream "genocide"; or leaving them to starve to death, to which others will yelp about being inhumane).

Speaking of genocide, don't we hear people whining about that going on in Rwanda and in the Sudan, demanding that something be done about that? Now take that back a few thousands years to races of people performing human sacrifice and perverse sexual rituals (i.e. all those "-ites" in the Old Testament).


It's time for a re-read on your part:

Asfor society, that brings me back to those lovely humanitarian programs we have in this country to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, help battered women, drug addicts, etc. For some strange reason, the lion's share of them are run by or were originated by CHRISTIAN CHURCHES and organization. You show me a United Thor-ist Hospital or a Brahman homeless shelter and then we can talk.

Last time I checked, society was well-served by these programs, which just happen to be part of the "commission" that Jesus Christ gave to His followers (past and present): Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give sight to the blind, care for the afflicted (widows, orphans, battered women, drug addicts, etc). I've seen plenty of humanitarian programs that do this, VIRTUALLY ALL OF WHICH are run, directly or indirectly, by CHRISTIAN churches and organizations.

Plus, you just admitted that adherence to the Commandments (at least six of them). Enough said.

When people get car-jacked, robbed at the ATM, shot over X-Boxes and what not, you can count the number of "mental issues" cases on one hand. The thieves are fully aware of what they're doing and why: They want what you got, and if they can't buy it or earn it, they will take it from you BY FORCE. That's not ignorance or having mental issue; that's greed and envy, pure and simple.

Of those who don't commit those crimes, many will resort to spending beyond their means, driving themselves into debt, which can adversely affect themselves and their families. Parents don't spend as much time with their kids, because they're chasing the "almighty" dollar, often to buy things they don't need or could do without, until a later time.

These people, by and large, aren't looney-bin candidates; they're simply greedy and envious. I won't even get into the issues with adultery.

YES, YOU DID!! Your words were, "The last commandments are common sense and EVERY society supports them in one way or another". Those commandments include THE VERY LAST ONE, "Thou (you) shall not covet".


You've dug yourself into a deep hole with trying to justify an absurd ancient Hebrew law that never made sense.

There's nothing absurd about this law, except that it appears to clash with your hankering for clams or lobster. Your sense of rarity is questionable to say the least, as has been shown by your wacky claim of crimes being committed due to "mental issues", instead of envy and covetousness.



Actually, you do have the idea. Your philosophy comes from man, not wilderbeasts or any other creatures. So, the idea that atheism is effectively man worshipping himself is hardly a far-fetched one, as you seen man (not wilderbeast, or any other critter) as the highest sentient being in the world/universe.

Any worship of God is done unquestioned, because if it was truly questioned then the worship would cease and the worshiper would move on to more rational pursuits.



That, of course, is little more than an atheistic opinion, loaded with arrogance yet scant on fact. People have either remained Christians or become such by asking question and seeking answers. A prime example is notorious American atheist, Madalyn Murray O'Hair. It turns out her son, William, is a born-again Christian and a minister. You don't think he questioned the belief in God, before his conversion?

Same goes for Lee Strobel, whose book(s) you've claimed to have read. And I can tell you personally, that I've had a number of questions, regarding the beliefs, with which I was raised. My inquiries and subsequent answers to those inquiries (along with my personal experiences and those of others) are among the reasons that I have REMAINED a believer in God.

On top of that, you’re now qualifying atheists, claiming those who rejected their faith, because of emotional issues (i.e. the loss of a loved one, physical/sexual abuse, financial hardship, etc.) aren’t “genuine” atheists. By that standard, you’d have to DQ people like O’Hair, whose launch into atheism was fueled by the Great Depression’s driving her family into poverty.


Of course, this begs the simple question of why ATHEISTS are honoring Darwin, in the first place. Again, didn’t the flavor-of-the-month Dawkins claim that evolution (and Darwin’s tenets) allowed atheists to be “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist”? Why this quest for intellectual fulfillment, if this issue is merely about science?

blah blah blah.your bible is full of plagiarism.and your religion is the biggest scam in history.

[MCWAY]

blah blah blah.your bible is full of plagiarism.and your religion is the biggest scam in history.

Another baseless, pointless, yet (thankfully) brief yelp from L Dawg!!!

[liberalismo]

Genes have nothing to do with it. Otherwise, you wouldn't have to TEACH kids moral principles in the first place. For some strange reason, you don't have to teach them to lie, steal, be greedy, be selfish, or to bully people.

Again, you either don't watch the news, or you're more in denial than the Israelites were, prior to Moses' arrival. Heck, we have talk shows (Maury, Dr. Phil, etc.) where kids spew profanities at their parents TO THEIR FACE, with no essence of guilt or remorse. Surprise, SURPRISE, these same kids are in gangs, drug dealing, prostitution, having babies while still in middle school, etc.

You think people who don't respect their own parents (the first authority figures with whom they are in contact) are going respect YOU or your family or your property? GET REAL!!

Plus, you missed the point by a country mile. The verse in question refers to rebellious sons, in general, those who put themselves, their families and...SOCIETY, in peril (which is often the case with drunkards). If you don't believe me, try asking the wives and children of alcoholic husbands and fathers.

I certainly wouldn't mind seeing some alcoholics of that ilk get the chair (and neither would many of the victims, whose lives they've ruined).

The lack of Biblical knowledge seems to be on you. First, I didn't claim that all "slavery" was indentured servitude. Second, slavery was "forced upon conquered people", due to those people attacking Israel unprovoked (the other options being killing them all, to which Ozmo will scream "genocide"; or leaving them to starve to death, to which others will yelp about being inhumane).

Speaking of genocide, don't we hear people whining about that going on in Rwanda and in the Sudan, demanding that something be done about that? Now take that back a few thousands years to races of people performing human sacrifice and perverse sexual rituals (i.e. all those "-ites" in the Old Testament).


It's time for a re-read on your part:

Asfor society, that brings me back to those lovely humanitarian programs we have in this country to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, help battered women, drug addicts, etc. For some strange reason, the lion's share of them are run by or were originated by CHRISTIAN CHURCHES and organization. You show me a United Thor-ist Hospital or a Brahman homeless shelter and then we can talk.

Last time I checked, society was well-served by these programs, which just happen to be part of the "commission" that Jesus Christ gave to His followers (past and present): Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give sight to the blind, care for the afflicted (widows, orphans, battered women, drug addicts, etc). I've seen plenty of humanitarian programs that do this, VIRTUALLY ALL OF WHICH are run, directly or indirectly, by CHRISTIAN churches and organizations.

Plus, you just admitted that adherence to the Commandments (at least six of them). Enough said.

When people get car-jacked, robbed at the ATM, shot over X-Boxes and what not, you can count the number of "mental issues" cases on one hand. The thieves are fully aware of what they're doing and why: They want what you got, and if they can't buy it or earn it, they will take it from you BY FORCE. That's not ignorance or having mental issue; that's greed and envy, pure and simple.

Of those who don't commit those crimes, many will resort to spending beyond their means, driving themselves into debt, which can adversely affect themselves and their families. Parents don't spend as much time with their kids, because they're chasing the "almighty" dollar, often to buy things they don't need or could do without, until a later time.

These people, by and large, aren't looney-bin candidates; they're simply greedy and envious. I won't even get into the issues with adultery.

YES, YOU DID!! Your words were, "The last commandments are common sense and EVERY society supports them in one way or another". Those commandments include THE VERY LAST ONE, "Thou (you) shall not covet".


There's nothing absurd about this law, except that it appears to clash with your hankering for clams or lobster. Your sense of rarity is questionable to say the least, as has been shown by your wacky claim of crimes being committed due to "mental issues", instead of envy and covetousness.


Another patently false statement, answered earlier in response to your other mini-questions.



Actually, you do have the idea. Your philosophy comes from man, not wilderbeasts or any other creatures. So, the idea that atheism is effectively man worshipping himself is hardly a far-fetched one, as you seen man (not wilderbeast, or any other critter) as the highest sentient being in the world/universe.



That, of course, is little more than an atheistic opinion, loaded with arrogance yet scant on fact. People have either remained Christians or become such by asking question and seeking answers. A prime example is notorious American atheist, Madalyn Murray O'Hair. It turns out her son, William, is a born-again Christian and a minister. You don't think he questioned the belief in God, before his conversion?

Same goes for Lee Strobel, whose book(s) you've claimed to have read. And I can tell you personally, that I've had a number of questions, regarding the beliefs, with which I was raised. My inquiries and subsequent answers to those inquiries (along with my personal experiences and those of others) are among the reasons that I have REMAINED a believer in God.

On top of that, you’re now qualifying atheists, claiming those who rejected their faith, because of emotional issues (i.e. the loss of a loved one, physical/sexual abuse, financial hardship, etc.) aren’t “genuine” atheists. By that standard, you’d have to DQ people like O’Hair, whose launch into atheism was fueled by the Great Depression’s driving her family into poverty.


Of course, this begs the simple question of why ATHEISTS are honoring Darwin, in the first place. Again, didn’t the flavor-of-the-month Dawkins claim that “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist”?  Why this quest for intellectual fulfillment, if this issue is merely about science ("Praise Charles!!!)?

How are Muslim's flying planes into buildings shouting "Allah" not caused by religion or belief in God? I'm confused.


Genes have something to do with every human enterprise and attribute. This is what humans consist of and it determines a lot of what they do, how they feel and think. Most teaching of moral principles to kids are subtle cultural things. If a kid grows up in any typical human society, he won't kill people or steal from people without any reason. No one ever taught me not to murder people. I just didn't do it because I had empathy.





I know how often children curse their parents and disrespect them. That's not what I'm asking. That's obvious in our society. I know plenty of adults who function perfectly well in society who aren't even on speaking terms with their parents, and only disrespect them when they are around. I personally was never on speaking terms with my father, and had no respect for him since he abandoned the family. I function well in society just the same.

You've actually come close to answering my question. You say that you "would not mind seeing SOME" alcoholics put to death. Really? Just SOME? Why not ALL? Does the bible specify only "some"? Explain.
Also, What about Gluttons? People who eat a lot of food or are hogs. Should these people be put to death too? Please explain this.





You agree that all slavery in the bible was not indentured servitude. Good.

You claim that slavery was only forced upon people who directly attacked Israel unprovoked? This is blatantly false, but I don't feel like finding the passages proving my point so let's assume it's true for arguments sake.

Nation A attacks Israel without justification. Israel retaliates, conquers Nation A and enslaves its people. How is this justified? How is enslaving WOMEN and CHILDREN and average people who played no part in the aggression (including people just following commands) justified? Especially women and children, mind you. How is enslaving these people justified? Explain that.


Speaking of perverse sexual rituals....Numbers 31:18  or Judges 19:29.




You're evading the issue. I don't know if there are or aren't any Pagan or Hindu charities or homeless shelters. It's not relevant. The question I asked was:

HOW WOULD SOCIETY BE BETTER IF EVERYONE WORSHIPED YOUR GOD?

The fact that a specific religion lacks humanitarian efforts doesn't mean that those that do are somehow more reputable or valid.

As for Hindu or Pagan charities..

www.hinduaid.org

http://www.circlesanctuary.org/liberty/pagancharitywork.html





In most circumstances, definitions of "mental issues" are very limited only because as a society, if we admit that most violent criminals have mental issues then we're removing responsibility from them, which society doesn't want. The truth is that anyone who kills someone over a damn X-Box video game obviously has a mental problem. Anyone who car-jacks someone or robs someone at an ATM also obviously has a mental problem. Perhaps not conventional mental problems like paranoia or psychosis (though that's sometimes the case) but rather mental problems such as lack of empathy. Having empathy for other people requires a certain amount of brain power that some people simply lack. Also a cause could be some mental block preventing proper realization that what they are doing is wrong, such as ideological or something similar (like Hitler or Mao or Stalin). These are all what I'd group under "mental issues".


I personally have STRONG DESIRE for money, a house to own, an expensive car, a beautiful woman, etc. I covet these things, but I would never spend beyond my means to get them or drive myself into debt to do such.

The fact is this: Desiring things, Coveting things is a natural human emotion that doesn't necessairly lead to negative consequences.





When I said that the last commandments are common sense, I didn't mean the one about Coveting.  Sorry for the misunderstanding.




Personally I don't eat Clams or Lobster or even Pork. That's beyond the point. Let's get back to the point though. You claim that Society would be BETTER if Clams and Lobster were OUTLAWED. I'm asking why and you keep saying that it is because of the few deaths that occur from allergic reactions, etc.

I've been searching the stats for information on number of shellfish food poisoning deaths each year, and apparently it's much less than 1,000 deaths per year!

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/Vol5no5/mead.htm


PEANUTS are much much more deadly. 830,000 children die each year from food allergies and over 50% of those are due directly to peanuts! That's over 400,000 children who die EACH YEAR from peanuts!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peanut_allergy#Deaths_from_peanut_allergy

So do you support outlawing peanuts too? You MUST if you go by the same logic used to justify outlawing Lobster and craps.

What about other foods that cause hundreds of deaths each year? Let's outlaw them ALL eh?



The Bible came from man, and there is no proof it was inspired by God. So essentially Christianity is Man worshiping man also.



I think that the reason Madalyn O'Hair's son became a Christian is because she was such a crazy woman and the family was so dysfunctional that it's only natural for him to seek something totally opposite of what he identified with Atheism, thus Christianity. Certainly people question their beliefs, but the depth of that questioning is very up for criticism.



I think that the main reason people remain religious is for emotional reasons. If you have had genuine questions about God yet have had them rationally answered, then I question either the questions you put up or your judgment of the supposed answers. I've never received any valid or logical or reasonable answers to any of my criticism of the belief in God, and especially none for my criticism of the typical Christian faith (or any other religious faith).


I don't really feel like getting into the definition of Atheism, and what an Atheist is or isn't. So I'll just let that be as it is.



The only reasons Atheists honor Darwin is because of his intellectual accomplishments for humanity. Atheists honor Newton and Einstein the same amount. I don't think Darwin is honored anymore than Newton among Atheists. Certainly Darwin made a lot of strong arguments against Genesis, but Darwin is a small puzzle piece in the huge fabric of the justifications for Atheism. There were plenty of Atheists before Darwin ever came along.
Intellectual fulfillment, I'm not sure how you're defining that. If you're defining it as the logical justifications for atheism and against religion, then Atheism requires this. Science requires intellectual fulfillment for anything it sets out to discover or explain.

[MCWAY]

How are Muslim's flying planes into buildings shouting "Allah" not caused by religion or belief in God? I'm confused.

Then, you might want to read my statement again, "Allah" and the God served by Jews and Christians are anything but one and the same.

Genes have something to do with every human enterprise and attribute. This is what humans consist of and it determines a lot of what they do, how they feel and think. Most teaching of moral principles to kids are subtle cultural things. If a kid grows up in any typical human society, he won't kill people or steal from people without any reason. No one ever taught me not to murder people. I just didn't do it because I had empathy.

And, the reason he won't is because he'll likely be taught a set of moral and values that (at the end of the day) have their basis within a supernatural deity.


I know how often children curse their parents and disrespect them. That's not what I'm asking. That's obvious in our society. I know plenty of adults who function perfectly well in society who aren't even on speaking terms with their parents, and only disrespect them when they are around. I personally was never on speaking terms with my father, and had no respect for him since he abandoned the family. I function well in society just the same.[/quote]

There's a BIG difference between utter disrespect for one's parents and simply not being on speaking terms. My mother and I have had our issues and, at times, not spoken to each other for months. But, regardless of any beef I have with her, I still honor and give her the respect due to her, as my mother.

You've actually come close to answering my question. You say that you "would not mind seeing SOME" alcoholics put to death. Really? Just SOME? Why not ALL? Does the bible specify only "some"? Explain.
Also, What about Gluttons? People who eat a lot of food or are hogs. Should these people be put to death too? Please explain this.

Once again, you missed the mark by a country mile. The reason these dudes were put to deat is because their behavior, in general, was a detriment to society and put Israel's populace in danger. And, the passage also mentions that other means of discipline had been used to no effect. So, your affixation with simply putting people to death is rather strange. Actually, it's not. It's simply more of the "outrage" routine.

You agree that all slavery in the bible was not indentured servitude. Good.

I've known that from the get-go. You're a bit late on this one.

You claim that slavery was only forced upon people who directly attacked Israel unprovoked? This is blatantly false, but I don't feel like finding the passages proving my point so let's assume it's true for arguments sake.

Nation A attacks Israel without justification. Israel retaliates, conquers Nation A and enslaves its people. How is this justified? How is enslaving WOMEN and CHILDREN and average people who played no part in the aggression (including people just following commands) justified? Especially women and children, mind you. How is enslaving these people justified? Explain that.

First, I didn't claim that such was apply only to those who attacked Israel unprovoked. You will recall that I used the whole Rwanda/Sudan scenario of modern time to make the point that some of Israel's neighbors participated in similar things, as a means of worship to their gods (hence, the reason they were displaced by Israel).

Secondly, I already addressed the women and children issue. You basically have three options. One, take them captive; two, let them to starve and die (with no men to care for them); or three, put them out of their misery (at which point, you'd be whining about "genocide", like my buddy Ozmo  ).

Speaking of perverse sexual rituals....Numbers 31:18  or Judges 19:29.

The ones spared in Numbers 31 were because they DID NOT participate in any such thing nor were they spared to do that with the Israelites. Apparently, you forgot to read up on that Peor incident (i.e. Israel's men engaging in orgies with foreign women, led by a rogue prophet, Balaam). An enemy king, who employed Balaam, cooked up the plot, knowing that he could defeat Israel, once God's protection was removed from them. And, what better way to do that than getting the Israelites involved in idolatry, in which sex was involved?

Judges 19....This was discussed a while back. Basically a bunch of Benjamites gang-raped a Levite's concubine to death. Perverse, no doubt about it. But, Israel's shortcomings are well-documented and such behavior was hardly sanctioned.

You're evading the issue. I don't know if there are or aren't any Pagan or Hindu charities or homeless shelters. It's not relevant. The question I asked was:

HOW WOULD SOCIETY BE BETTER IF EVERYONE WORSHIPED YOUR GOD?

I've explained this at least twice. But, since it ain't quite registering for you.........Society is bettered, when you have (for example) programs like the aforementioned humanitarian ones that feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc., which is among the many things that followers of Jesus Christ were instructed to do. And, as stated several times beforehand, the lion's share of humanitarian programs in this country are run by/were founded by Christian organizations and leaders.

Then, there's the issue of the Ten Commandments, which (when followed) help to CURB THE BEHAVIOR that often results in a number of crimes and despicable conduct. Hence, you have a....BETTER SOCIETY!!!

The fact that a specific religion lacks humanitarian efforts doesn't mean that those that do are somehow more reputable or valid.

As for Hindu or Pagan charities..

www.hinduaid.org

http://www.circlesanctuary.org/liberty/pagancharitywork.html

Cookie for you.

But, you were the one complaining about how religion/worshipping God helps society. Then, when you get the answer, you start playing the "that don't count" game.

In most circumstances, definitions of "mental issues" are very limited only because as a society, if we admit that most violent criminals have mental issues then we're removing responsibility from them, which society doesn't want. The truth is that anyone who kills someone over a damn X-Box video game obviously has a mental problem. Anyone who car-jacks someone or robs someone at an ATM also obviously has a mental problem. Perhaps not conventional mental problems like paranoia or psychosis (though that's sometimes the case) but rather mental problems such as lack of empathy. Having empathy for other people requires a certain amount of brain power that some people simply lack. Also a cause could be some mental block preventing proper realization that what they are doing is wrong, such as ideological or something similar (like Hitler or Mao or Stalin). These are all what I'd group under "mental issues".

The "mental problems" are called GREED and COVETOUSNESS, which I believe was covered in at least two of those pesky Ten Commandments.

You claim that "a cause could be some mental block preventing proper realization that what they are doing is wrong". The question is "wrong" according to whose standards? Per the Decalogue, that's an easy one.

I personally have STRONG DESIRE for money, a house to own, an expensive car, a beautiful woman, etc. I covet these things, but I would never spend beyond my means to get them or drive myself into debt to do such.

The fact is this: Desiring things, Coveting things is a natural human emotion that doesn't necessairly lead to negative consequences.

Desiring things and covetousness are different entities. Covetousness is defined, per the "Free Dictionary as:

- An envious eagerness to possess something;  feeling of grudging admiration and desire to have something that is possessed by another.

- Extreme greed for material wealth; excessive desire to acquire or possess more (especially more material wealth) than one needs or deserves.

- reprehensible acquisitiveness; insatiable desire for wealth (personified as one of the deadly sins).

Simply put, if you're willing to harm/destroy someone else (or even yourself) to obtain something or someone, you have covetousness in your heart. Hence the reason, you get people shooting someone to get an X-Box, or people having adulterous affairs, or driving themselves and their families into debt to get what they don't need.

When I said that the last commandments are common sense, I didn't mean the one about Coveting.  Sorry for the misunderstanding.

No problem! Just clarify next time, to avoid any mixup.

Personally I don't eat Clams or Lobster or even Pork. That's beyond the point. Let's get back to the point though. You claim that Society would be BETTER if Clams and Lobster were OUTLAWED. I'm asking why and you keep saying that it is because of the few deaths that occur from allergic reactions, etc.

I've been searching the stats for information on number of shellfish food poisoning deaths each year, and apparently it's much less than 1,000 deaths per year!

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/Vol5no5/mead.htm

I've seen those stats (or one similar to them). You make the mistake of limiting the health aspect to simply dying instantly of an allergic reaction. I don't eat those things, either. For starters, I don't like the taste or even the smell. Secondly, as I mentioned, it's a health thing. Those who abstain from unclean meats are tend to be healthier than those who regularly eat them; hence the reason Israel was instructed not to eat them. Interestingly enough, one denomination of Christianity (Seventh-Day Adventists) is well-known for their healthy eating, as they tend to live an average of 11 years longer than their counterparts. This is due, in no small part, to their diets, which include abstaining from unclean meats (or, in some cases, not eating meat whatsoever).

PEANUTS are much much more deadly. 830,000 children die each year from food allergies and over 50% of those are due directly to peanuts! That's over 400,000 children who die EACH YEAR from peanuts!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peanut_allergy#Deaths_from_peanut_allergy

So do you support outlawing peanuts too? You MUST if you go by the same logic used to justify outlawing Lobster and craps.

That's YOUR logic, not mine. No one is stating that someone should eat something if he's allergic to it, even it has not been deemed "unclean". Eggplants aren't an unclean food. But, I'm allergic to them; therefore I don't eat them. Furthermore (in light of this recent salmonella scare), the peanut thing may have more to do with how the food is processed than simply the food itself. Peanuts have been around for millenia (in fact....BLACK HISTORY NOTE....Booker T. Washington's made his claim to fame, making lots of food items from peanuts. But, I don't recall a rash of peanut-related deaths, during that time).

What about other foods that cause hundreds of deaths each year? Let's outlaw them ALL eh?

The Bible came from man, and there is no proof it was inspired by God. So essentially Christianity is Man worshiping man also.

By that statement, you're "essentially" admitting that atheism is man worshipping himself, something you've denied to this point. Which is it?

I think that the reason Madalyn O'Hair's son became a Christian is because she was such a crazy woman and the family was so dysfunctional that it's only natural for him to seek something totally opposite of what he identified with Atheism, thus Christianity. Certainly people question their beliefs, but the depth of that questioning is very up for criticism.

What was that about evading issues, again  ?  You're quick to jump why William Murray became a Christian. Yet, you've seem to have dodge the issue of how and why Madalyn Murray O'Hair became an atheist. Earlier, you claimed that atheists weren't "genuine", if emotional issues/trauma helped drive their rejection of faith. That was the case with both O'Hair and Dawkins (O'Hair's family was driven to poverty via the Great Depression; Dawkins was molested by parisihoner and "scarred" by the whole "burning in hell" concept).

I think that the main reason people remain religious is for emotional reasons. If you have had genuine questions about God yet have had them rationally answered, then I question either the questions you put up or your judgment of the supposed answers. I've never received any valid or logical or reasonable answers to any of my criticism of the belief in God, and especially none for my criticism of the typical Christian faith (or any other religious faith).

Once again, this attempt of yours to qualify what's "genuine" and what's not may or may not have a hint of atheistic arrogance.  As stated earlier, you play up the emotional reasons why people become/remain Christians but are quick to downplay the same, when it comes to atheism. Death of a loved one/sexual abuse/financial hardship can just as easily make one reject the notion of God as logic and reason can.

I don't really feel like getting into the definition of Atheism, and what an Atheist is or isn't. So I'll just let that be as it is.

It appears that (like many non-believers) you're better on offense than on defense. 

The only reasons Atheists honor Darwin is because of his intellectual accomplishments for humanity. Atheists honor Newton and Einstein the same amount. I don't think Darwin is honored anymore than Newton among Atheists. Certainly Darwin made a lot of strong arguments against Genesis, but Darwin is a small puzzle piece in the huge fabric of the justifications for Atheism. There were plenty of Atheists before Darwin ever came along.
Intellectual fulfillment, I'm not sure how you're defining that. If you're defining it as the logical justifications for atheism and against religion, then Atheism requires this. Science requires intellectual fulfillment for anything it sets out to discover or explain.

[/quote]

I'm sorry!! I missed the Einstein billboards, the "Einstein Fish" on the back of atheists' cars (as a counter to the "Jesus Fish" on the cars of Christians), or the big hoopla by atheists on Einstein's birthday.

It was Dawkins who made the claim about Darwin making it intellectually fulfilling to be an atheist. Ironically enough, George Wald seems to have the opposite view, in light of the once-touted-now-scrapped spontaneous generation tenet of evolution. Essentially, the atheists of the day knew that spontaneous generation was bunk. But, they had to accept it anyway; otherwise, they were left to concede supernatural Creation as the cause of life on Earth, which gave them philosophical fits.

And, all of this goes back to what I've said beforehand. There more to this issue than just science. It's also about philosophic/religious mindsets.

[OzmO]

Secondly, I already addressed the women and children issue. You basically have three options. One, take them captive; two, let them to starve and die (with no men to care for them); or three, put them out of their misery (at which point, you'd be whining about "genocide", like my buddy Ozmo  Grin ).

Very Christian of you to mock the killing of women and children. 



So, McWay if God ordered you to bash the head in of a 2 year old girl would you do it?

[MCWAY]

Very Christian of you to mock the killing of women and children. 

So, McWay if God ordered you to bash the head in of a 2 year old girl would you do it?

I didn't mock the killing of the women and children. I listed the options that would be available, with regards to the remnants of Israel's defeated attackers.

As for your question, which I've answered once before, the answer is YES!!

Cue the outrage!!!

[OzmO]

I didn't mock the killing of the women and children. I listed the options that would be available, with regards to the remnants of Israel's defeated attackers.

As for your question, which I've answered once before, the answer is YES!!

Cue the outrage!!!

I commend you for answering the question.  I asked someone else that question before and they did everything they could to squirm out of answering it.

The fact you would kill a child on "gods" orders says volumes of what's wrong with religion, past and present.

And you were mocking genocide.   

[MCWAY]

I commend you for answering the question.  I asked someone else that question before and they did everything they could to squirm out of answering it.

The fact you would kill a child on "gods" orders says volumes of what's wrong with religion, past and present.

And you were mocking genocide.  

There's no reason to squirm here. First, such an order would be rare, to say the least. Second, there would be a detailed explanation for such a task. As we've discussed numerous times with the Amalekites, the reason for judgment being rendered on them was due to their assault on the Isrealites, as they were leaving Egypt (targeting their weak and feeble), and their CONTINUED attacks on Israel for over 300 years.

Much as Hamas is today, no matter how many chances they were given to desist or make amends (or at least, do a cease-fire), the Amalekites kept hammering Israel. Hence, the edict was made, which as you know, a certain king did NOT execute fully.

But, as also stated on numerous occasions, children unfortunately suffer for the wickedness of their parents, which is what happened in this case.

[big L dawg]

I didn't mock the killing of the women and children. I listed the options that would be available, with regards to the remnants of Israel's defeated attackers.

As for your question, which I've answered once before, the answer is YES!!

Cue the outrage!!!

you are one fucked up individual