Can Earth survive without religion or belief in ? ?
Options
Comments
-
no... once again, i'm saying the OT obviously predates the appearance of Jesus and that when you list "statements made by Jesus," you do not typically list everything credited to ? , period. and i did ALSO say "further, we have those remaining law issues you didn't address"kingblaze84 wrote: »The OT ? is Jesus according to Christians, Christians believe Jesus is ? himself. Are you saying this isn't true lol
no, i pretty clearly stated they could use scripture to support things they were doing. you might have missed my actual point?kingblaze84 wrote: »You think it's a coincidence mass murderers and slavers like Pizarro and Columbus loved the Bible?
...and THAT is what i have been saying to spend your time on. see how it's now approaching a legitimate argument?kingblaze84 wrote: »(actual Bible quotes) -
BiblicalAtheist wrote: »
YOU CAN have morals that run against your conscience, morals that are based on feelings are not real morals because morals don't flip flop and change all over the place feelings do, i don't see where you are going with this
we don't need ? to have subjective morals (fake morals) but we do need some celestial law to have objective morals. people with morals follow their code no matter how they feel.
Okay, so back in the day the divinely inspired texts said we should be stone our heathen children to death, human on their own subjective feelings said ? that. Who's right?
If you are referring to the old testament then the text was right and the child should have been stoned because having children that don't obey and follow other religions is a greater threat to the entire tribe
No no, we're talking about the here an now. We've grown an HUMANS with our ? feeling morals, who's right? Do we stone all these bastard ass children here and now? -
BiblicalAtheist wrote: »BiblicalAtheist wrote: »
YOU CAN have morals that run against your conscience, morals that are based on feelings are not real morals because morals don't flip flop and change all over the place feelings do, i don't see where you are going with this
we don't need ? to have subjective morals (fake morals) but we do need some celestial law to have objective morals. people with morals follow their code no matter how they feel.
Okay, so back in the day the divinely inspired texts said we should be stone our heathen children to death, human on their own subjective feelings said ? that. Who's right?
If you are referring to the old testament then the text was right and the child should have been stoned because having children that don't obey and follow other religions is a greater threat to the entire tribe
No no, we're talking about the here an now. We've grown an HUMANS with our ? feeling morals, who's right? Do we stone all these bastard ass children here and now?
WELL FOR here and now we are ordered by ? to forgive our children so we don't stone them. On a side note religion has been around so long that the so called morals that most atheist think they possess are in truth informed by the very religion they reject. if we are talking about people living in the western world then that morality comes from the abrahamic religion. SO most ATHEIST really have no morality/ code of ethnics of there own.
they either follow abrahamic influenced morality or just follow/make up there own subjective morality as they go along which is no real morality at all -
And yet, I haven't heard from one bible believer why lying/stealing/murder* is bad other than because ? said so.BiblicalAtheist wrote: »BiblicalAtheist wrote: »
YOU CAN have morals that run against your conscience, morals that are based on feelings are not real morals because morals don't flip flop and change all over the place feelings do, i don't see where you are going with this
we don't need ? to have subjective morals (fake morals) but we do need some celestial law to have objective morals. people with morals follow their code no matter how they feel.
Okay, so back in the day the divinely inspired texts said we should be stone our heathen children to death, human on their own subjective feelings said ? that. Who's right?
If you are referring to the old testament then the text was right and the child should have been stoned because having children that don't obey and follow other religions is a greater threat to the entire tribe
No no, we're talking about the here an now. We've grown an HUMANS with our ? feeling morals, who's right? Do we stone all these bastard ass children here and now?
WELL FOR here and now we are ordered by ? to forgive our children so we don't stone them. On a side note religion has been around so long that the so called morals that most atheist think they possess are in truth informed by the very religion they reject. if we are talking about people living in the western world then that morality comes from the abrahamic religion. SO most ATHEIST really have no morality/ code of ethnics of there own.
they either follow abrahamic influenced morality or just follow/make up there own subjective morality as they go along which is no real morality at all -
BiblicalAtheist wrote: »
And yet, I haven't heard from one bible believer why lying/stealing/murder* is bad other than because ? said so.BiblicalAtheist wrote: »BiblicalAtheist wrote: »
YOU CAN have morals that run against your conscience, morals that are based on feelings are not real morals because morals don't flip flop and change all over the place feelings do, i don't see where you are going with this
we don't need ? to have subjective morals (fake morals) but we do need some celestial law to have objective morals. people with morals follow their code no matter how they feel.
Okay, so back in the day the divinely inspired texts said we should be stone our heathen children to death, human on their own subjective feelings said ? that. Who's right?
If you are referring to the old testament then the text was right and the child should have been stoned because having children that don't obey and follow other religions is a greater threat to the entire tribe
No no, we're talking about the here an now. We've grown an HUMANS with our ? feeling morals, who's right? Do we stone all these bastard ass children here and now?
WELL FOR here and now we are ordered by ? to forgive our children so we don't stone them. On a side note religion has been around so long that the so called morals that most atheist think they possess are in truth informed by the very religion they reject. if we are talking about people living in the western world then that morality comes from the abrahamic religion. SO most ATHEIST really have no morality/ code of ethnics of there own.
they either follow abrahamic influenced morality or just follow/make up there own subjective morality as they go along which is no real morality at all
These things are bad because ? says so
FOR people who believe in ? our morality, both our feelings that something is wrong or right and our external moral code come from ? and we acknowledge that because submitting yourself to the external code affects the internal feelings and together they create a moral person.
If you only have one without the other you are not a fully moral person , IF YOU have the internal alone then you are ruled by feelings. if you have the external but not the internal then you are a slave to a code that you don't really believe in. THE BIBLE talks about this better than i can -
Makes sense, "we the world" start as slaves with codes, ruled by feelings. The codes may be different but the feelings remain the same, all religions want to be right but can any one religious organization claim the title? Not likely. Culture may be shaped by religion that can also change moral perceptions, but we all have enough conscious to know right from wrong and in some cases religion can upsurp what we consciously know to be right from wrong to further its agenda.
Can we survive without it? Yes, but for now we need those training wheels of religion and belief in higher power. I am not hopeful this will ever happen, maybe with a divine intervention "if that is even possible", that would be the only way we would ever all get behind one banner. In saying divine intervention, I don't mean the one commonly thought of in the book of Revelation. -
I would say yes. The meaning of "reason" is actually the answer, the ability to reason would thus lead to existence and destruction but still existence. Man can reason without ? so he can exist without ? unless ? is real and decides to intervene or make it impossible and we as humans need ? for our very existence to literally BE.
I do have to add that I find it interesting that no culture recorded on Earth's time has ever naturally been atheist. {I'm sure there's probably one group of maybe 20 people nobody knows about living in a cave somewhere that probably have been atheists since who knows, but my point is valid when it comes to being evident and clearly seen in comparison to the opposite}
I also think the concept of ? from the idea of ? being at an inception point within man's ability to create a ? counters and is in direct conflict with one human who in her/his early beginnings had to be atheist according to this logic. Why would they have to be atheist? There was no ? , and I doubt the first human or second human ever to walk earth just said "hey, I think of another being/creature named ? " and everyone accepted it that quickly.
If I can explain it better I'd say: If there is no ? , thus there never was a ? -- then people made ? up. Thus, there was a point in time when people had not a ? and therefore created the idea of a ? . So, there was a period in time where nobody believed in ? and that means nobody. That time had to be around the beginning and had to exist for everyone until Someone decided and convinced everyone to believe in ? .
Now let's go back to when nobody believed or heard of or thought of a ? .
In this time and left over from this time I would think there should still be people around the world in cultures where they still and NEVER have believed in ? or gods or demons. Why? Because they never bought into the existence of ? that other people sold them because they are the remaining (once a complete majority) people who never thought of ? . The logic here is that it should be natural to be atheist. That should be natural since the concept of ? was created by man according to that logic. Instead, there are over billions of people from every culture ever in existence constantly showing that since man's earliest recordings that man has believed in ? . -
I would say yes. The reason is the actually the answer, the ability to reason would thus lead to existence and destruction but still existence. I do have to add that I find it interesting that no culture recorded on Earth's time has ever naturally been atheist. I also think the concept of ? from the idea of ? being at an inception point within man's ability to create a ? is counter and in direct conflict with one who in their early beginnings had to rationally be atheist according to this logic. If I can explain it better I'd say: If there is no, thus never was then people made ? up. Thus, there was a point in time when people had not created the idea of a ? . Therefore, there should still be people around the world in cultures where they still and NEVER have believed in ? or gods or demons. That should be natural since the concept of ? was created by man according to that logic. Instead, there is over billions of people from every culture ever in existence constantly showing that since man's earliest recordings that man has believed in ? .
I think the biggest issue is religion requires belief but belief does not require religion. Religion is an agreement in a belief system to adhere to laws set in motion by high priest in the name of ? (s). IMHO.
-
CAFFEINATED RAGE wrote: »I would say yes. The reason is the actually the answer, the ability to reason would thus lead to existence and destruction but still existence. I do have to add that I find it interesting that no culture recorded on Earth's time has ever naturally been atheist. I also think the concept of ? from the idea of ? being at an inception point within man's ability to create a ? is counter and in direct conflict with one who in their early beginnings had to rationally be atheist according to this logic. If I can explain it better I'd say: If there is no, thus never was then people made ? up. Thus, there was a point in time when people had not created the idea of a ? . Therefore, there should still be people around the world in cultures where they still and NEVER have believed in ? or gods or demons. That should be natural since the concept of ? was created by man according to that logic. Instead, there is over billions of people from every culture ever in existence constantly showing that since man's earliest recordings that man has believed in ? .
I think the biggest issue is religion requires belief but belief does not require religion. Religion is an agreement in a belief system to adhere to laws set in motion by high priest in the name of ? (s). IMHO.
Agreed -
IMHO I think earth would be a better place with religion.
-
These things are bad because ? says so
Have you never contemplated why these things are bad? You just blindly accept things? -
BiblicalAtheist wrote: »
They are bad for the reasons I gave already. They both run against the code and create negatives feelings -
BiblicalAtheist wrote: »
They are bad for the reasons I gave already. They both run against the code and create negatives feelings
But causing negative feelings is okay in some instances tho? What if someone didn't know they were lied to and didn't get negative feelings? Does then the only reason not to lie to them become 'going against the code'? but going against the code still doesn't explain the WHY especially if no one is experiencing negative feelings from those things. -
BiblicalAtheist wrote: »BiblicalAtheist wrote: »
They are bad for the reasons I gave already. They both run against the code and create negatives feelings
But causing negative feelings is okay in some instances tho? What if someone didn't know they were lied to and didn't get negative feelings? Does then the only reason not to lie to them become 'going against the code'? but going against the code still doesn't explain the WHY especially if no one is experiencing negative feelings from those things.
Telling a lie is never good because if violates the code. wrong or right should never be at the mercy of feelings but feelings are important but they are secondary.
This is how you know something is wrong: it violates ? 's laws, creates bad feelings and or erodes the bonds between individuals unnecessarily. -
BiblicalAtheist wrote: »BiblicalAtheist wrote: »
They are bad for the reasons I gave already. They both run against the code and create negatives feelings
But causing negative feelings is okay in some instances tho? What if someone didn't know they were lied to and didn't get negative feelings? Does then the only reason not to lie to them become 'going against the code'? but going against the code still doesn't explain the WHY especially if no one is experiencing negative feelings from those things.
Telling a lie is never good because if violates the code. wrong or right should never be at the mercy of feelings but feelings are important but they are secondary.
This is how you know something is wrong: it violates ? 's laws, creates bad feelings and or erodes the bonds between individuals unnecessarily.
What about the people hiding Jews form ? , when they lied about housing them, we're they doing bad? It didn't cause bad feelings or erode the bonds, in fact it brought people together. -
BiblicalAtheist wrote: »BiblicalAtheist wrote: »BiblicalAtheist wrote: »
They are bad for the reasons I gave already. They both run against the code and create negatives feelings
But causing negative feelings is okay in some instances tho? What if someone didn't know they were lied to and didn't get negative feelings? Does then the only reason not to lie to them become 'going against the code'? but going against the code still doesn't explain the WHY especially if no one is experiencing negative feelings from those things.
Telling a lie is never good because if violates the code. wrong or right should never be at the mercy of feelings but feelings are important but they are secondary.
This is how you know something is wrong: it violates ? 's laws, creates bad feelings and or erodes the bonds between individuals unnecessarily.
What about the people hiding Jews form ? , when they lied about housing them, we're they doing bad? It didn't cause bad feelings or erode the bonds, in fact it brought people together.
This question is one theologians have been thinking about for centuries. there are examples in the bible of people lying and ? blessing them anyway. Here is my understanding. Generally speaking a lie is always wrong but for a lie to be a sin it has to have intentionally bad/deceptive purposes. In essence what wrong with
Lying is that's it's an attempt to manipulate people for your own selfish reasons. And selfishness is the center of all immorality. -
It's not strange that ? would bless them, we all fall short and could never attain perfection. If ? was that big of a hard ass no one in the bible would have been blessed ever. Imo they would still have to recompense the lie however.
So lying is bad because it's a selfish action, almost always. Well, we're doomed, all of us*, no matter how good we think, act and speak because there is not one human alive who is not being selfish. Everything we do is self motivated.
-
BiblicalAtheist wrote: »It's not strange that ? would bless them, we all fall short and could never attain perfection. If ? was that big of a hard ass no one in the bible would have been blessed ever. Imo they would still have to recompense the lie however.
So lying is bad because it's a selfish action, almost always. Well, we're doomed, all of us*, no matter how good we think, act and speak because there is not one human alive who is not being selfish. Everything we do is self motivated.
Exactly we are doomed which is why we needed to blood of Jesus the Christ to save our souls. -
I disagree. The purpose of the crucifixion was an example to show we must sacrifice ourselves to save the world, unlike what we do now; sacrifice the world to save ourselves. Jesus dying on a cross saves me from nothing, the only thing I can be saved from is ignorance, from which all human ails come from imo.BiblicalAtheist wrote: »It's not strange that ? would bless them, we all fall short and could never attain perfection. If ? was that big of a hard ass no one in the bible would have been blessed ever. Imo they would still have to recompense the lie however.
So lying is bad because it's a selfish action, almost always. Well, we're doomed, all of us*, no matter how good we think, act and speak because there is not one human alive who is not being selfish. Everything we do is self motivated.
Exactly we are doomed which is why we needed to blood of Jesus the Christ to save our souls. -
BiblicalAtheist wrote: »
I disagree. The purpose of the crucifixion was an example to show we must sacrifice ourselves to save the world, unlike what we do now; sacrifice the world to save ourselves. Jesus dying on a cross saves me from nothing, the only thing I can be saved from is ignorance, from which all human ails come from imo.BiblicalAtheist wrote: »It's not strange that ? would bless them, we all fall short and could never attain perfection. If ? was that big of a hard ass no one in the bible would have been blessed ever. Imo they would still have to recompense the lie however.
So lying is bad because it's a selfish action, almost always. Well, we're doomed, all of us*, no matter how good we think, act and speak because there is not one human alive who is not being selfish. Everything we do is self motivated.
Exactly we are doomed which is why we needed to blood of Jesus the Christ to save our souls.
But Jesus did not save the world, he repeatedly states that his kingdom is not of this world but the next. and the cross was a way of him preparing that kingdom for us .
His intention was not to die to save the world but to save the souls of man this is said all over the gospel.
And you can't be saved from ignorance because no human can know or understand all. -
Please tell me* you realize how childish that kind of thought process is; someone specifically had to die on a cross to prepare a magical heavenly world apart from this world. Jesus said the kingdom of ? was close at hand; near by, that doesn't spell 'not of this world', it spells right here, right now, it is obtainable.
We all fall short, ? , jesus, holy ghost doesn't expect us to be perfect, they do however expect us to practice being perfect. And the only thing impeding that is ignorance. -
BiblicalAtheist wrote: »Please tell you realize how childish that kind of thought process is; someone specifically had to die on a cross to prepare a magical heavenly world apart from this world. Jesus said the kingdom of ? was close at hand; near by, that doesn't spell 'not of this world', it spells right here, right now, it is obtainable.
We all fall short, ? , jesus, holy ghost doesn't expect us to be perfect, they do however expect us to practice being perfect. And the only thing impeding that is ignorance.
All sin must be paid for, if Christ did not die then all humans would have to pay for their sins. And the wages of sin is death and I mean real death. How childish is it of you to not expect ? to practice justice by his own rules ? cannot just let sin go unpunished. The kingdom of ? is not only a reference to heaven but to how ? does things on earth -
@BiblicalAtheist i know you don't believe in spirit, but the bible is very clear that existence is more than the physically world and the kingdom of ? is more than just this life. I can pull many verses from the gospel talking about it to prove my point
-
I would say yes. The meaning of "reason" is actually the answer, the ability to reason would thus lead to existence and destruction but still existence. Man can reason without ? so he can exist without ? unless ? is real and decides to intervene or make it impossible and we as humans need ? for our very existence to literally BE.
I do have to add that I find it interesting that no culture recorded on Earth's time has ever naturally been atheist. {I'm sure there's probably one group of maybe 20 people nobody knows about living in a cave somewhere that probably have been atheists since who knows, but my point is valid when it comes to being evident and clearly seen in comparison to the opposite}
I also think the concept of ? from the idea of ? being at an inception point within man's ability to create a ? counters and is in direct conflict with one human who in her/his early beginnings had to be atheist according to this logic. Why would they have to be atheist? There was no ? , and I doubt the first human or second human ever to walk earth just said "hey, I think of another being/creature named ? " and everyone accepted it that quickly.
If I can explain it better I'd say: If there is no ? , thus there never was a ? -- then people made ? up. Thus, there was a point in time when people had not a ? and therefore created the idea of a ? . So, there was a period in time where nobody believed in ? and that means nobody. That time had to be around the beginning and had to exist for everyone until Someone decided and convinced everyone to believe in ? .
Now let's go back to when nobody believed or heard of or thought of a ? .
In this time and left over from this time I would think there should still be people around the world in cultures where they still and NEVER have believed in ? or gods or demons. Why? Because they never bought into the existence of ? that other people sold them because they are the remaining (once a complete majority) people who never thought of ? . The logic here is that it should be natural to be atheist. That should be natural since the concept of ? was created by man according to that logic. Instead, there are over billions of people from every culture ever in existence constantly showing that since man's earliest recordings that man has believed in ? .
Good points, people have traditionally believed in many gods. -
All that is chinese to me. Sin is 'to err, to miss the mark'. Errors aren't punished(I mean they are right now, hence the ways of the world), errors are corrected. You correct errors by either fixing mistakes or never doing the error again(repentance) by removing the ignorance that led to the error in the first place.BiblicalAtheist wrote: »Please tell you realize how childish that kind of thought process is; someone specifically had to die on a cross to prepare a magical heavenly world apart from this world. Jesus said the kingdom of ? was close at hand; near by, that doesn't spell 'not of this world', it spells right here, right now, it is obtainable.
We all fall short, ? , jesus, holy ghost doesn't expect us to be perfect, they do however expect us to practice being perfect. And the only thing impeding that is ignorance.
All sin must be paid for if Christ did not die then all humans would have to pay for their sins. And the wages of sin is death and I mean real death.
How childish is it of you to not expect ? to practice justice by his own rules ? cannot just let sin go unpunished.
The kingdom of ? is not only a reference to heaven but to how ? does things on earth
That is the curse of mankind, we learn backwards, through error, sometimes it isn't until many repeat tries do we hit the mark. Not a single one of us escapes it. Jesus would have to be ? incarnate cuz for a human to be aware of their every thought, action and word would take a miracle!
