God and morality ... and the deep, deep south ..

Wordslinger wrote:

Do try to keep up sugarcheeks, my point is that except for the god messages, the rest of the so-called ten commandments coincide with conduct necessary to a functioning, harmonious society -- albeit a totally non-religious one.  

La la ...

Damaged Eagle wrote:

knothead wrote:NOBODY listens to that nonsense . . . .

What nonsense are you referring to?

The government sword being used in the name of charity to force people to give all because of atheism?

The government sword being used to remove all traces of God form everything the government does, but blaming it all on the religious factions when the government goes to war or things go contrary to the way the free thinking atheists desire?

The government sword destroying a sovereign nation for your blood soaked Nobel champion of peace in the of atheism?

The government sword being used to murder millions in the name of atheism for both the Soviet Union and the United States?

Surely you have more to insert into the discussion as a reasonable free thinking adult than your usual little disclaimer comments and innuendos. Tell us for instance how everything you demand the government sword to enforce is for everyone's own good.

Perhaps you can even use the government sword to silence the Eagle in the name of everyone's good. I doubt it though...

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKvvOFIHs4k

 

Damaged Eagle wrote:

Now what happened to Dreams, SheWrites, and most especially Othershoe?

Come let us discuss these... issues like reasonable free thinking adults.

Besides Wordslinger's just no challenge and I's prefer discussing..... pressing issues with the fairer sex if ya know what I mean thar' sugar plums.


*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_4ULKpkLNc

 

othershoe1030 wrote:

As I suggested earlier if you don't like the way the government is working then do something about it. Organize, put forth your idea of a good candidate, get out the vote. It is quite simple. The government didn't fall from the sky it was set up by the lobbyists and voters acting in concert.

What would you like the government to do or not do that would make you feel as if it was doing the job of government properly? That might be interesting to hear.

othershoe1030 wrote:

How can you write, presumably with a straight face that you want to discuss like a reasonable adult or words to that effect when you use demeaning terms like "sugar plums" and "darlin" and probably a few other condescending sexist terms that I have forgotten?

You sound like a person for whom the anti-sexual harassment training videos were made. Some men's behavior was so disrespectful that they had to be shown how their unwelcome behavior was effecting their female
co-workers.

If you really want to discuss like an adult then you will have treat the other posters here, yes, even the female ones on the left, as if they too were adults. Calling us names is not the way to do this.

 

Dreamsglore wrote:Though I have asserted above that in truth a legitimate conflict between religion and science cannot exist, I must nevertheless qualify this assertion once again on an essential point, with reference to the actual content of historical religions. This qualification has to do with the concept of God. During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man's own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favour by means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes.
Nobody, certainly, will deny that the idea of the existence of an omnipotent, just, and omni beneficent personal God is able to accord man solace, help, and guidance; also, by virtue of its simplicity it is accessible to the most undeveloped mind. But, on the other hand, there are decisive weaknesses attached to this idea in itself, which have been painfully felt since the beginning of history. (Albert Einstein, 1941)

othershoe1030 wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:
I don't recall ever saying such a thing.

Then what point are you attempting to make... if any?

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUnqbBgYZmI

 

I am not attempting to make any point.

I AM making a point and that is that science and religion have nothing to do with one another however that doesn't keep dull witted people from trying to make them be about the same thing. They are not.

Religion is about the idea of human-kinds relationship to God and science is about observable data.

Also, it is my position that a person is totally capable of being moral without any religious foundation.

Is this clear enough for you big tough guys? (I was going to say BOYS but thought that was too sexist).

SheWrites wrote:Religion is a cover.

I tire of "Christians" who do not have one free thought on their spiritual walk.  Everyone puts a label on their belief either by bible verse, what a pastor teaches or what a denomination teaches.  The possibility of free thinking and questions is shot down and you are out of the clique.  The same could be said of any other of the major world religions.  Again...it's all a cover.

Same way with political parties.

We are such a cliquish breed.  And we always think our clique is better, more upstanding and moral, more caring and considerate and all the other cliques are immoral.

Dreamsglore wrote:Though I have asserted above that in truth a legitimate conflict between religion and science cannot exist, I must nevertheless qualify this assertion once again on an essential point, with reference to the actual content of historical religions. This qualification has to do with the concept of God. During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man's own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favour by means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes.
Nobody, certainly, will deny that the idea of the existence of an omnipotent, just, and omni beneficent personal God is able to accord man solace, help, and guidance; also, by virtue of its simplicity it is accessible to the most undeveloped mind. But, on the other hand, there are decisive weaknesses attached to this idea in itself, which have been painfully felt since the beginning of history. (Albert Einstein, 1941)

othershoe1030 wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:Though I have asserted above that in truth a legitimate conflict between religion and science cannot exist, I must nevertheless qualify this assertion once again on an essential point, with reference to the actual content of historical religions. This qualification has to do with the concept of God. During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man's own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favour by means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes.
Nobody, certainly, will deny that the idea of the existence of an omnipotent, just, and omni beneficent personal God is able to accord man solace, help, and guidance; also, by virtue of its simplicity it is accessible to the most undeveloped mind. But, on the other hand, there are decisive weaknesses attached to this idea in itself, which have been painfully felt since the beginning of history. (Albert Einstein, 1941)

This quote pretty much sums it all up. As I too have pointed out recently, religion and science are not talking about the same things. Einstein points out that there can be no conflict between the two.

othershoe1030 wrote:

So this seems to be my post that offended you? Really? Include yourself with the dull witted if you like but I was referring to all people who don't have enough sense to realize that science and religion are two different things. You are not alone nor were you singled out as being so.

Conflating the two has gone on for centuries and we are not going to sort this out for everyone any time soon.

othershoe1030 wrote:

After seeing the hateful and just generally ill-informed statements made by "Christians" in the media I cringe at the word Christian because of the distorted image of the religion these people portray. Rather than the word 'cover' I would use 'justification' to describe references to verses but I think I see your point. There is a lot of exclusion in the major religions that's for sure.

othershoe1030 wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:Though I have asserted above that in truth a legitimate conflict between religion and science cannot exist, I must nevertheless qualify this assertion once again on an essential point, with reference to the actual content of historical religions. This qualification has to do with the concept of God. During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man's own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favour by means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes.
Nobody, certainly, will deny that the idea of the existence of an omnipotent, just, and omni beneficent personal God is able to accord man solace, help, and guidance; also, by virtue of its simplicity it is accessible to the most undeveloped mind. But, on the other hand, there are decisive weaknesses attached to this idea in itself, which have been painfully felt since the beginning of history. (Albert Einstein, 1941)

This quote pretty much sums it all up. As I too have pointed out recently, religion and science are not talking about the same things. Einstein points out that there can be no conflict between the two.

Dreamsglore wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:Though I have asserted above that in truth a legitimate conflict between religion and science cannot exist, I must nevertheless qualify this assertion once again on an essential point, with reference to the actual content of historical religions. This qualification has to do with the concept of God. During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man's own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favour by means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes.
Nobody, certainly, will deny that the idea of the existence of an omnipotent, just, and omni beneficent personal God is able to accord man solace, help, and guidance; also, by virtue of its simplicity it is accessible to the most undeveloped mind. But, on the other hand, there are decisive weaknesses attached to this idea in itself, which have been painfully felt since the beginning of history. (Albert Einstein, 1941)

This quote pretty much sums it all up. As I too have pointed out recently, religion and science are not talking about the same things. Einstein points out that there can be no conflict between the two.

I think what Einstein was saying is there is no conflict between religion and science. He was an agnostic but believed this beautiful world was created by something... just not what man has purported it to be w/ the prayers and magic ideas of the bible. He believed their is no personal God who listens to prayers and helps people.

othershoe1030 wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:This is for all of you who are sure one can't be moral without belief in god ..

http://www.alternet.org/belief/america-major-outlier-world-opinion-whether-you-can-be-moral-and-atheist-same-time?akid=11602.260394.CcRgt0&rd=1&src=newsletter971084&t=5

And the facts presented verify that on this issue, many of the southern states are sick puppies.

To me it is totally absurd to think a person has to have a belief in some higher being in order to be a moral person. To think this it must be necessary for people to be unable to cultivate a conscience without some giant organized spiritual model. Isn't it possible to just accept parental teachings along the lines of being nice and kind, helpful and so on without a deity to instruct them?

http://www.atheistmemebase.com/2013/06/24/no-atheists-in-the-kkk/

Yet in turn the atheists worship the all powerful god of governmental control to force their morality on anyone who disagrees with them and have everyone pay the tithe at the point of a governmental sword for any special morality problem they come up with.

Tell us how your all powerful governmental god is better than a spiritual god?

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nO62scTZ7Qk

 

I swear posting on this forum is like shouting down a damn rabbit hole. Stop reading things that are not there! Nowhere in my last post did I even mention the word government nor worship thereof. All I said was that people are able to come up with codes of conduct on their own without having to follow the rules of some religion.  

PBulldog2 wrote:
I swear posting on this forum is like shouting down a damn rabbit hole. Stop reading things that are not there! Nowhere in my last post did I even mention the word government nor worship thereof. All I said was that people are able to come up with codes of conduct on their own without having to follow the rules of some religion.  

Wordslinger wrote:To giggles:  Thanks for your manky thoughtful, helpful, and totally irrelevant insights.  

From the many ZZ top graphics you've inserted with your comments, you've made it clear that you are deeply, deeply, deeply religious.  And your gods are bearded, talentless, and loud.  

Wordslinger wrote:Damaged Eagle (a perfect avatar for such a demented mind) wrote:
"Yet in turn the atheists worship the all powerful god of governmental control to force their morality on anyone who disagrees with them and have everyone pay the tithe at the point of a governmental sword for any special morality problem they come up with."

No sweetcheeks -- one doesn't worship governments, one elects or fights them.  One worships god icons -- singular, male or female or plural.

Put your hashpipe down and try to visualize the difference between a government creating and enforcing laws, and someone not unlike yourself, worshipping ZZtop.

othershoe1030 wrote:

That may be one of the best descriptions of what goes on here sometimes! Surely they have to set out to not understand? Don't give up though!